The main problem with this discussion is that one side is using science to determine their stance on the issue, and the other side is using “their gut”. Now don’t misunderstand me: questioning a scientific finding does NOT make you anti-science! If anything, questioning what someone else tells you makes you a BETTER scientist. The problem is HOW you question them. The anti-climate change crowd has all the hallmarks of an anti-science, anti-evidence conspiracy theory crowd.
Let me explain how science works. If you want to prove something, you need a set goal. Here’s an example, right from the top of my head so it’s pretty bad. Let’s say you wanted to prove that human vitamins could make plants grow more. You set up a control group and an experimental group, and record the results. But you can’t just say “the experimental group grew more, the experiment worked”. Before the experiment starts, you need to have a goal to reach. Something that would minimize any natural variations between plants. So you would say “if the experimental group is 5% bigger by the end, the experiment worked”. If they’re only 4% bigger, then you chalk it up to natural variations. If they’re 6% bigger, then you can say you have proved your hypothesis.
The anti-climate change crowd has no such goal, that is why they are unscientific. If you point out all the research that has been done to prove climate change, they want “more” research. How much more? No one knows. A year’s worth? A decade? How much more research is necessary before they will change their minds? They can come up with no number, because they are not scientific. They don’t want to believe in climate change, so no matter much evidence you give, they will always ask for more.
They claim the researchers are paid off by the government to fake climate change. They point to the researchers who do not believe in it to prove their point. So what would happen if these researchers suddenly looked at it another way, and realized climate change was real? Would it change the crowd’s minds at all? Of course not, the crowd will simply claim those researchers are getting paid off as well.
In the winter, they claim the cold weather disproves climate change. In the summer, they claim it exists, just not caused by man. They point to the Medieval Warm Period as proof that climate change can happen without humans. When you point out that all temperatures in the Medieval Warm Period were taken into account when the current climate models were created, they switch and point to some other evidence instead.
This is how you can tell if you are on the right side or not. We have climate models. We can guess, based on our predictions, what the temperature changes should be in upcoming years. If actual changes are significantly different from our models, we know our models are wrong and we can revisit them. We are using science. We have a goal, and we know whether or not climate change is happening on whether or not we reach our goal. They have no goal, because they are not using science. They have set no threshold at which they will agree climate change is real. They have created no scenario by which their minds can be changed, because they don’t want them to be changed. The last thing they want is to admit they were wrong, so they make it impossible for this to ever occur.
If I am wrong, prove it. Give me a benchmark by which you can be convinced you are wrong. I believe our benchmark is 5% (if a climate model is off by more than 5%, it is considered invalid). We have a goal, do you? Is there a set number by which you will admit you’re wrong? Or will you keep moving the goalpost until you run out of room?
In case you are unconvinced, recall the birth certificate “controversy”. People were convinced that Obama was not qualified for office. So, he showed them a certificate of birth proving he was born in Hawaii. Of course this did not convince them, because they didn’t want to be convinced. So he showed them his official birth certificate. Of course this did not convince them, because they didn’t want to be convinced. They claimed it was fake. Now they “win” because there’s no way of proving it’s not fake. They moved the goalpost so far, they’ve ignored so much evidence that there simply is no more evidence to give. We are quickly approaching that point with climate change as well.
