If you were to be diagnosed with cancer with 97% of doctors saying that you have cancer and 3% of doctors saying that you don’t have cancer, would you seek treatment or would you risk dying from it? Or worse yet, would you tell them, “that’s ridiculous because cancer does not exist?”
Something I hear a lot about climate change is that yes, 97% of climate scientists have confirmed the human impact of climate change BUT there’s still 3% of climate scientists that claim climate change is either not happening or that it is happening but is not expedited by human activity (animal agriculture, burning coal, oil, etc.). The growing trend now is to believe that 97% of scientists have a reason to lie, which is to say that if 97% of scientists tell us how to cure cancer, HIV, Zika Virus, or any other sort of virus or ailment, we are to believe they don’t have these cures, that these are lies.
The myth about climate change is the idea that climate change can be a matter of belief when it is in reality based entirely on research, on facts. Religion is a matter of belief, science is not.
There are people who take articles from the 3% of climate change scientists who deny the impact of human activity on climate change (or deny climate change altogether) and use them to feed into the agendas of those who stand to gain the most from climate change denial (big oil billionaires, CEOs, lobbyists for animal agriculture, etc.) rather than listening to the 97% of scientists who stand to gain/lose nothing by telling the truth, whose only pursuit is knowledge. To these people I have two questions: why are you letting them lie to you? They know the truth, they know the human impact on climate change but it behooves them to lie about, it is entirely to their benefit. And hey, maybe you know they’re lying. Maybe you think that lying will get you your job back. Maybe that’s all you care about. Maybe you’ll lie until better jobs exist for you. And honestly, if you have mouths to feed I can’t completely villainize you for that, especially if these coal, oil, and animal agriculture jobs are all you’ve ever known. But I’m calling climate change denial for what it is, a lie.
oats 
Great piece!
LikeLike
Thanks Brian!
LikeLike
Just superb 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you!
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are always welcome 😉
LikeLike
The problem isnt so simple, like cancer. Because its something that can be seen in ones lifetime. You live, or if the doctors were right…you die.
Climate is not my field of study, before I will say where I lean, here are some facts, as well as anecdotal events.
1. Volcano eruptions put lots of chemicals (some far worse that CO or CO2) into the atmosphere, and while estimates vary, even the most conservative values still put them at more than anything industry does within a year.
2. Climate seems to be cyclical from 18000 years ago from the last ice age, to the Cambrian, Ordovician End of Permian to beginning of Triassic, Tertiary periods.One may be the asteroid that supposedly hit Earth, but there seems to be a pattern and temperatures were far hotter than they are now. As in no polar ice caps.
3. Science should not be biased, or political, yet far too many are subsidized or paid grant money. This taints any cold hard credibility. If a scientist is doing research on something that is heated (no pun intended) they should refrain from taking lobby or political money. But academia is vile.
4. Academics are some of the most immoral untrustworthy types there are. Ask anyone that has spent enough time in science (but not enough to start taking grant money and rationalize any reasons) that academia doesn’t have scientific truth as its goal, but instead going down in history as something or another.
So, based on all that, I have my doubts. Not that the climate is warming, that it is due to man, or that is will cause the catastrophic end to our civilizations. Particularly when the solution seems to be to shut down factories (like metal casting shops) only to have them move overseas (We do share the atmosphere), or to lower use of oil based fuels (so other countries can consume more than ever).
I have doubts even about my own theories, so they change with new evidence, but so far I havent seen anything that maintains a level of credible impartial reasoning.
So time will tell, but not for us, in fact, not even for our children. This will take a few thousand years. The numbers that may be quoted in recent years are nothing when you think of the THOUSANDS of nuclear bombs detonated in tests in the 50s 60s and 70s and in later decades by China, India and other countries. If you calculate the J (Joules) in heat compared to a nuclear power plant (and how much more Uranium or Plutonium was used in bombs) then convert that to coal or other burning power plants adding in thermal losses you see that we should have seen some bump in temperatures.
I think that Earth as a planet just has a balance on it’s own, otherwise we wouldn’t see rectifications after asteroid impacts or even forming of the atmosphere from the Hadean Era and would look more like, either Mars or Venus.
LikeLike
Academics, in my experience, are incredibly ethical. Science has a predetermined statistical measure (e.g. chi square) to prevent bias in analyzing raw data. The scientific papers published in reputable journals have a 95% confidence level, at minimum (I have spent years in neuroscience, this is something I know). And Climate change is something that we are seeing in our lifetime. Let me give you one quick example I’ve experienced (and you can google): Miami Beach becomes severely flooded due to rising sea levels and Miami Beach will be below sea level within the next century. Given that I am in my 20s, the odds are that I will affected. Please do more research if you wish to be more informed. The points you have provided are very weak and points 3, 4 are baseless accusations. With point 3, grant money isn’t creating bias. Most of it comes from applying to the government, research organizations, etc. (quite an agonizing process which you erroneously believe is akin to raising funds for political campaigns which it is not), the biased science comes from the private companies who come out with their own studies who stand to gain from what they release. Grants typically cover what you want to research. Anyone who has spent any time in research knows how grueling it can be and would the idea of anyone thinking that they stand to make a profit from academic research. Make sure you double check your sources and you’re not just looking for what you want to believe.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have spent time on both sides, most recently at a university in a graduate department, and know full well how tough grant money is as far as getting it.
But that in itself creates the bias, as far as WHO is the official that says “fund this” versus “fund that”.
Prior to this I worked in government and everything is biased and everything is political with the end goal being making that extra buck.
As a researcher you shouldnt have to worry about these things (and in neuroscience it isnt as bad as in other departments. I have a friend that does research in perceptual cognitive something or other)
In the hard sciences its kill or be killed, math, physics, chemistry…I have a lifetime of experience with these fields and the people involved and the things most have do truly make me ashamed of calling myself an academic (which I no longer do) and at times, even ashamed to call myself human.
The point is, that my approach is using simple boolean functions. And all data is useful, even so called false data yields valuable information that one could make a valid logical determination.
LikeLike
I respect you for taking the time to respond and telling me how you think. It’s regretful that your first and secondhand experience tells you not to believe in facts. What is your field of study?
LikeLike
Its mathematics. Facts is a word that is too often thrown around. And I dont want anyone to take what I have to say as fact, because from their point of view its hearsay. I wish people dug and worked for the truth, whatever it may be, but that’s another issue…
People simply do not want to the truth, unless its a truth they agree with.
LikeLike
I agree. People hear what they want to hear and even when they find the truth (aka the facts), they choose to close their eyes and believe in falsehoods rather than acknowledging the truth, as it occurs with people who find reasons to believe that climate change is a hoax rather than acknowledging the inconvenient reality.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Enjoyed this very much. I agree with your assessment.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well said!
LikeLike
Hi Natalie!
Thank you for your post on climate change! I think it’s crucial that people keep spreading accurate information about it.
You also said in the comments that you’ve spent years in neuroscience. I’m highly interested in that subject, and I was wondering if you have any intention of blogging on it? I would look forward to anything you had to say about it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I could blog about it! Is there anything specific you’d like to read about neuroscience?
LikeLike
Thank you so much! I’m just getting started on finding out about it, so pretty much anything you’d like to say about it would probably be new and interesting to me.
LikeLiked by 1 person