Here in Colorado, and across the country, we’ve got to get our OCD on to save the planet.
Back when I was in the first grade, when we hunted wooly mammoths for fun, a few of us got to sit in on the science class with the big kids.
We made thermometers with straws, water glasses and raspberry Kool-Aid. It was the reddest. What seemed like magic at first, as the red liquid climbed up the straw while the water glass was heated, became a satisfying moment of understanding as we learned what chemical and physical actions at play mysteriously pushed the Kool-Aid up the tube.
There are no unanswered questions about how all this works. The explanation of what heat is, how it increases the volume of liquids and forces it up a tube is at once fabulously complex and easy enough for a first-grader to grasp.
I get it because the explanation is not only easy to prove, but it makes sense when you understand all the moving parts.
It was at that young age that I understood why and how the scientific method was so satisfying. Like someone who can’t stop checking to see if the door is locked, you can at once be pleased that something in nature makes sense, and you can keep trying to jiggle the handle, or re-run the experiment, and get the same, exact results.
That satisfaction in looking closely, understanding and trying it several times, or reading about how some other fastidious questioner did all that, is what science is all about.
Disputing the clarity of things like climate change, vaccination and genetically modified foods is what science tries to battle, and too often loses. Those who deny climate change or environmental science or the cost of gasoline at the pump believe in what they want, not science.
It never ceases to shock and disappoint me.
There’s no doubt that climate change deniers and dismissers of environmental science line up every day to benefit from science they do believe in: air travel, weather prediction, cancer treatment and elevators that quickly take them to the top of impossibly tall buildings.
The science that these deniers don’t believe in, however, would have them make financial and convenience sacrifices to keep all of us from becoming extinct. Extinct, as in, everybody’s dead.
I firmly grasp and appreciate the vast volumes of credible research and analysis that show, without a doubt, that humans have heated up the atmosphere, and the consequences will be increasingly dangerous.
I don’t, however, believe that what we’ve done will end life on Earth — just life as we know it, and more than likely human life. At least dominant human life.
Greedy, naive, corrupt and just plain stupid deniers, however, aren’t the only ones that pick and choose scientific findings like favorite or disagreeable fruits and vegetables at the market.
I know many a bleeding-heart liberal who either outright defies the unequivocal science behind human vaccination, or have some lingering doubts based on nothing that makes a lick of sense or has a page of credible backing.
Many of these same fans of science look for the non-GMO label in their Aurora-area grocery stores. Despite the fact — yes, fact — that there is no scientific evidence that genetically modified foods are any safer nor any more dangerous for people to eat than non-GMO foods, critics continue to believe what they want, and not what science clearly shows.
These sins, however, pale in comparison to a new army of conservative soldiers bent on discrediting science in the same way President Donald Trump tries to discredit liars in the press that keep savagely printing the truth.
Leaders in Congress, and now leaders in key White House jobs, aren’t just placid bureaucrats who get pushed around by politics, these people are armed warriors in the fight against science and reason.
This week, as the nation battles dozens of wildfires that have destroyed thousands of homes and tens of thousands of acres of land, including grassland in Texas, Trump and his fellow geniuses dismiss the newest red lights flashing on the planet’s dashboard.
Trump routinely calls climate change “the greatest con job ever,” and continues to say efforts by the U.S. and other nations are the “Green New Scam.” Worldwide, scientists with indisputable proof who are trying to warn the planet?
“Stupid people,” Trump said about them.
At the root of it all? We don’t know what in the hell we’re talking about.
In study after study, Americans and students fall further and further down the world list of kids who understand math and science.
The crap I hear and read on social media and in person would depress even a third-grade science teacher, whose job it is to help us first learn to think and then learn to learn.
Right now, we’re far below near-third-world countries that at least have sense enough to trust someone who does know.
Canada, Australia, almost all of Europe and even China have at least looked up at killer tornadoes this week in southern France and said, “wait, what?”
Americans? We’re howling at the moon, led by a man in charge of much of the country’s science who admittedly snorted cocaine off a toilet seat and has a brain worm.
Down the road, we must force our kids to take math and science seriously. In the short term, we need to learn to depend on people who really know.
So who are you going to trust? The guy who invents and builds the stuff you ride, fly and use to treat your illnesses, or the guy who says windmills cause cancer and equates the whole climate science thing to the “Third Reich”?
Channel your inner OCD science kid, folks. If you can’t logically explain it, prove it and make it pass the smell test, but keep looking.
Follow @EditorDavePerry on BlueSky, Threads, Mastodon, Twitter and Facebook or reach him at 303-750-7555 or dperry@SentinelColorado.com
Our entire quality of life we enjoy today is made possible by the discovery and use of cheap, readily available fossil fuels. You show me a world where people are willing to retreat to living in the “stone age,” and I’ll show you a world which might be able to alter climate change. This has nothing to do with science, but everything to do with human nature.
The Climate Cult doesn’t really care about quality of life. They are about regulation, control and power.
When most Americans are presented with a difficult, or seemingly impossible problem to solve, they likely attempt to do something that at least makes them feel better about it. Whether or not it is effective is secondary. Often these efforts have no real benefit, but that is not the primary point. It is all about them feeling that they are doing something to address the issue. The statewide ban on plastic bags at grocery stores is a case in point. Does anyone really believe this has made any measurable difference, in any sphere, other than making shoppers more miserable. It’s all about feelings rather than reality. Same is true with biological men playing in women’s sports. Somehow, science is considered secondary when a transexual’s feelings are at stake. This same principle is where participation trophys, getting rid of grades in school and suggesting that “correct answers” are part of White supremacy and should be eliminated. They also want to eliminate decisions based on merit. You’re got to love those left-wing social engineers and feelings managers.
Obviously, you are not a fan of science.
That leaves you only with ignorance.
No thanks.
Feel free to disavow yourself of those First World amenities anytime, Jeffy-poo.
What, are you like, 12?
Describing your intellectual state, Jeffy-poo?
The Climate Cult bleats it’s regurgitated message yet again.
Truly sad how far science illiteracy has spread.
The felon must really love Kirk and Juan.
As long as they’re opposing you and your team, it’s all good.
Deny, deny, deny.
The science is unchanged, and doesn’t give a hoot about your denial.
Yes, Jeff, I realize you believe that the arid west was never arid.
You don’t know jack about what I believe.
No, you’re so predictable I can set my watch to your posts.
I often just sit around waiting for your whines.
Pro tip: Being ignorant isn’t a good look.
Yes, I realize you’re a useless Boomerlib that sits around all day like a lump. You don’t have to confirm it.
Pro tip: When it comes to ignorance, I’ll defer to your extensive experience.
The problem with this discussion lies, in part, with a misunderstanding of the concept of science. “Science” does not tell us anything. Science refers to the PROCESS of how we go about understanding how our world works. The correct terminology would be that studies or the research shows such and such. The process of science, along with its ethical guidelines, has resulted in all of the technology we enjoy today. It brought us our mobile phones, TVs, automobiles and has allowed us to feed the world with a plentiful food supply.
But sometimes scientists have to backtrack and acknowledge they might have been mistaken. This is not a problem with science itself. The problem is that science is administered by people, and people are not perfect, they have emotions and biases which are not rational. Sometimes they misunderstand or misinterpret the results they obtain.
Jeff claims “the science is unchanged.” This is not true. Just 50 years ago, climate scientists were pretty sure that the world was headed for another ice age. Well, today, most believe just the opposite! How could this happen? Were climate scientists ignorant morons back then? Of course not. It may have been data was misinterpreted or some key factors were misunderstood. This can and does happen. The great thing about the process (science) is that conclusions are open to review and criticism, and with further studies and research, we eventually get it right.
There have been a host of instances throughout history where our best scientists had to backtrack and reverse their outcomes and predictions. Students of science and its underlying philosophy know that we are not dealing with absolute certainty when it comes to our conclusions, but degrees of confidence. So please, let us stop suggesting that those who may have some slight doubts, or questions about prevailing beliefs, are “science deniers” or ignorant morons. To do so would be to say those who questioned the prediction of an ice age in the 70’s were also ignorant morons.
Correction for Kirk: After double-checking, there was no consensus by climate scientists about a coming ice-age in the 70’s. While a few climate scientists predicted this, most were still concerned about warming from CO2.
But I hold to my contention that medical and other scientists have had to reverse their predictions and assertions throughout history and that challenging the results of studies is built into science ethics by full transparency, peer review and duplication of research. Use of hormone treatments by post-menstral women and recommendation of trans-fats over saturated fats are two examples that come to mind.
I do believe that our climate is changing and that human activity is contributing to it since CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it is produced whenever a carbon-based fuel is burned. But I am unsure if we can be sure that what we are seeing is 100% human caused. I am also unsure if we can reverse what we are seeing. We have not yet discovered an energy source which can fully replace fossil fuels. So far the Western world has spend over $1 trillion per year on alternatives without measurable change.
Well said.
We must be nearing Rome. I hear fiddles playing.
That’s your mental illness and dementia, Jeffy-poo.
The nonsense I enjoy most from climate panic is that the woke think the world will change if only the US and Europe waste billions on unreliable alternative energy while China and India continue to build large numbers of coal fired power plants and are left exempt from making climate changes in their own countries by the rest of the world. Woke aren’t concerned about them? Ever think to ask why?