I often hear complaints that science is overly technical, complicated, and difficult to understand. Science is certainly a language unto itself, but so are many other professions or occupations. Lawyers, doctors, accountants, architects, engineers, musicians, psychologists, artists, statisticians, marketing, advertising, and computer technology, to name a few, also have their own business universes and languages. Science is also very diverse and goes way beyond basics like biology, chemistry, and physics, which were the only sciences I ever learned in high school and college. Our discussions will touch upon other areas of science like marine biology and ecology, meteorology, geography, archaeology, psychology, social science, anthropology, microbiology, computer science, earth science, zoology, environmental science, natural science, and even mathematics. In its simplest meaning, science is a way of critically examining our natural world. Of course, scientists use more technical and complete definitions with terms like “a highly skilled technique or practice,” “the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding,” “a continuing effort to discover and increase knowledge through research,” and “following a systematic methodology based on evidence,” which include objective evidence or observation like measurements and data. Science was not my best subject back in high school and college and I was intimidated returning to school to earn my master’s degree in professional science, so we are trying to be less scientific in our discussions. If there are critical scientific terms to understand, we will do our best to explain them.
THERE ARE DIFFERENT OPINIONS ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE
Climate change is a huge topic today. Most scientists support the theory that humans have caused the climate to change. More specifically, humans have changed and continue to change Earth's natural greenhouse effect by burning fossil fuels like coal and oil which puts more carbon dioxide into Earth’s atmosphere. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”) has observed increases in the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. As we have seen, too much of these greenhouse gases can cause Earth's atmosphere to trap more and more heat that warms up the Earth a lot faster than it should. [Please read our section “What is Climate Change?” for greater detail]. Under this theory, global temperatures will continue rising, and rising temperatures will increase the frequency of extreme weather events like hurricanes, droughts, floods, fires, and more acidic oceans.
But many scientists and members of the public do not agree with or are at least skeptical about the theory that humans are responsible for Climate change, for different reasons. They may simply believe human-caused climate change does not exist. They may believe climate change is a normal and naturally occurring event because Earth’s climate has changed many times before. They may believe that living creatures including humans will adapt to the changes in climate, so it will not be such a disaster. Some in the public maintain there is no consensus among scientists on climate change, so it’s still up for discussion whether it’s real. Disbelieving scientists maintain that the data used in projections for increasing ocean temperatures and the magnitude of sea level rise is wrong or incomplete. Despite predictive climate models from credible scientific sources, almost 30% of Americans do not believe climate change will occur in their lifetimes. There are also people who believe that policies addressing human made climate change are ineffective, over-reactive, misguided or too harsh.
SOCIAL MEDIA AND DISINFORMATION
Some of the strongest influences upon how people feel about climate change are the media and social media. Very few of us have the education, experience, or skills to understand and evaluate scientific research or scientific models, so we get our information from third party sources. Climate change also affects many people with business and political interests which would be adversely impacted or even decimated if national and/or international legislation began making significant changes to energy, pollution, manufacturing, agriculture and farming, transportation, tourism, construction, fishing, and recycling, just to name a few. Climate change also poses a huge dilemma for humanity and places people in uncomfortable positions as to where they may stand on climate change. If humans are indeed causing climate change and the science behind all the forecasts and projections is real and accurate, humans must make some monumental and immediate decisions on whether to change their behavior and alter their activities in the world they have come to know. So, if we aren’t getting our scientific data or opinions “straight from the horse’s mouth,” how should we evaluate the credibility and truthfulness of the information we receive?
Disinformation is everywhere today and has become a part of our culture. It’s nothing new. We’ve always had “propaganda,” which comes in many forms, but all conveying biased or misleading information to promote or publicize specific causes or points of view. The difference now is social media makes it easy for anyone to post almost anything about almost any subject or person. Disinformation about climate change has been around for decades and has now flooded social media and more conventional media sources like televised news. Social media has influenced millions of people regarding climate change on EITHER SIDE of the debate. But we must try to remember that disinformation is different from misinformation. Misinformation is any false or inaccurate information. Disinformation is misinformation deliberately spread with the intention to mislead. Disinformation also undermines how policymakers can effectively respond to the climate change crisis.
A FEW IMPORTANT THOUGHTS ABOUT SCIENCE:
First, science is continually developing and improving with newer technology, new discoveries, and ever-increasing scientific research to build upon. We see this in so many fields like medicine, energy, communications, computers, automation, transportation, biology, chemistry, physics, marine science, and space exploration. People who refute or dismiss a scientific claim solely upon the basis that science is always changing and therefore cannot be relied upon, simply do not understand science. Second, scientists generally abide by a peer review process, in which many scientists from many different science backgrounds and ideologies interact with each other, conduct different experiments to test different theories, and submit their research to other qualified people who then will analyze and critique their conclusions. Peer review is also a quality control mechanism.
At some point in time, a consensus on the scientific question(s) being tested, researched, and analyzed will emerge among the different scientists conducting the same or similar research and experiments. There is a scientific consensus only when acceptance of a scientific claim does not depend on the ideologies of individual scientists which helps to reduce the possible effects or influence of anyone’s personal views or biases on the group’s conclusions. A consensus does not imply unanimity as there usually will be dissenting opinions. But even though a high level of acceptance among a diverse set of experts makes it difficult to negate a scientific claim, it is still possible a consensus may be wrong. Although a consensus is not equal to a truth, the trustworthiness of science stands upon the shoulders of the scientific consensus which ensures that fringe groups, contrarians, conspiracy theories, misinformation, and disinformation, will not rise to a level of credible science.
What do YOU think about science? Before answering, let me give you some survey results about science. The Pew Research Center, conducting research through focus groups and surveys, has noted that 65% of adults in the United States said science had a mostly positive effect on society. Only 7% said it had a mostly negative effect and the remaining 28% said science had an equal mix of positive and negative effects. We also see that many religious people, disagree with scientific conclusions on topics like evolution, climate change, and vaccines, in part because they view science as a competitor or contradiction to religious faith. People may also give more weight or credibility to conclusions or opinions of scientists who share their faith as opposed to a scientist who does not.
Scientists, like anyone else, may be right or wrong, make mistakes, use poor judgment, even fudge data. Scientists are human. So, when should we trust science? Put differently, how is science trustworthy? As a first consideration, try not to judge science on what other people may tell you. There are many conspiracy theories and so much disinformation all over social media with different groups conveying ideas and ideologies that contradict established scientific consensus. For example, fringe groups like the Flat Earth Society and other ‘flat-earther’ groups advocate that Earth is a flat disc and photographs and videos of Earth taken from space are hoaxes concocted by multiple governments. Do you believe the world is flat? If not, remember it is also important to use your eyes, ears, and your common sense in evaluating information about science to avoid getting distracted or wrongly influenced by nonsensical theories designed to discredit or disprove established scientific consensus.
You may have valid objections or concerns if scientists give opinions that go beyond the limits of their scientific expertise. For example, a biology scientist should stick to the science of biology and refrain from commenting or giving opinions on God, creation, or religion. Conversely, the scientific merit of a scientist’s work should not be based on his or her Christian commitments or faith community. Whether you like or respect a particular scientist, or whether you may agree with their conclusions is not the standard by which we should be evaluating and accepting their scientific conclusions, especially when those conclusions contradict the community of experts in that field. The correct standard for evaluating the trustworthiness of science comes from the community of scientific experts who follow established standards and procedures.
USE YOUR COMMON SENSE AND MAKE YOUR OWN DECISION
When you are watching, listening to, discussing, or reading about Climate Change, consider the source of the information or opinion. Take a few minutes to research the reliability, credibility, experience, and possible self-interests of the individual, company, or organization making the statements, claims, or conclusions about climate change. If the source is not reliable and credible, the information will probably not be reliable or credible. There are media platforms that are “based on a business model that monetizes anger and negativity [and] are causing untold damage to society.” There are also “conspiracy theories” spread on social media which are specifically designed to influence the public on climate change. In addition, there are climate change counter movements in our country with gigantic incentives to spread disinformation that contradicts, minimizes, or dismisses the causes and consequences of climate change. Many are economically motivated like oil, gas, coal, fracking, and agriculture industries. Some are political, and some may be influenced by religion.
Remember that science, like most everything else, is constantly evolving, changing, and improving with changing technology. Science builds upon itself to make improvements and what may have been the golden standards yesterday may be obsolete tomorrow. Scientists are also human. They make mistakes and we already know that “to err is human.” Scientists do not necessarily necessarily agree with each other on many things. Even though you may know little about climate change, what you do have is common sense. WE ARE HERE TO HELP YOU LEARN SOME BASICS. MEANWHILE, USE YOUR COMMON SENSE IN TAKING A POSITION ON CLIMATE CHANGE.
Our References:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7zqxm/how-koch-industries-fake-scientists-and-rush-limbaugh-invented-climate-denial
https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3p33j/fracking-farris-dan-wilks-prageru-climate-crisis-denial-shapiro
https://thehill.com/changing-america/sustainability/climate-change/3674963-environmental-groups-ask-social-media-companies-to-better-address-climate-disinformation/
https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/everyday-actions/6-claims-made-by-climate-change-skeptics-and-how-to-respond/
https://ballotpedia.org/Opposing_views_of_climate_change_theory
https://biologos.org/common-questions/should-we-trust-science
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/03/25/when-americans-think-about-science-what-do-they-have-in-mind/
IF YOU WOULD LIKE A MORE EXPANSIVE DISCUSSION ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE, WE HIGHLY RECOMMEND YOU READ THE FOLLOWING:
THE SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE EXPLAINED: FACTS, EVIDENCE AND PROOF, by Julia Rosen, a journalist with a Ph.D. in geology. Ms. Rosen’s research involved studying ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica to understand past climate changes. You can find the article at:
https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
Published April 19, 2021Updated Nov. 6, 2021
