Share on FacebookShare on TwitterPin it on PinterestShare on LinkedInShare via email

‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.’

Upton Sinclair, American Writer, 1934

All scientists are skeptics who love to disprove theories and add new facts to existing theories before finally coming to an agreed understanding.

For scientists to arrive at these understandings, many papers are written then added to by others, clarified, checked, and peer reviewed by other scientists, and then rewritten and debated. When the conclusions are eventually agreed upon, then this becomes the science – the accepted and agreed upon knowledge of that time.

When the facts change, the science changes.

Peer reviewed science is a bit like a big family deciding which movie to rent online – you really have to make your case strongly and clearly with all the facts to get your movie selected.

The science on climate change tells us that there is a 92% chance that the current climate change is being largely caused by human activity.

Some scientists argue for the 8% chance that humans have had no impact on our climate. They are skeptical of the accepted science, and they argue and engage in debate that this is simply a natural occurrence. This is how science works.

There are a handful of so-called ‘deniers’ in the science community who have chosen not to be a part of the debate on climate change. These are not peer-reviewed scientists, but still have more to say than most. There are also media commentators and rich business people that employ them. They don’t like the idea that ‘progress’ is destroying our life support system – our natural world.

Their outlook on life cannot accept that human activity should be regulated or even scaled back by laws. They have an every person for them self approach that favours the rich and powerful. They do not favour government regulation that would stop Big Polluters because it would mean changing the way they operate.

These so called ‘deniers’ are not offering scientific facts for debate; they are merely offering their own opinions. They are pushing for the 8% chance that humans are not accelerating the current changing climate. They are entitled to their own opinions but are they entitled to their own facts?