What is the essence of this query? The term “believe” should only be employed in inquiries to discuss one’s perspective on divine existence. On the topic of Santa for those under ten years of age.
All other discussions ought to be framed as: Do you consider whether something is occurring or exists? Based on your current understanding and expertise, can you conclude confidently about the existence or occurrence of something?
Thus, questioning whether you consider climate change a reality and if it is linked to human actions is akin to inquiring about your familiarity with the scientific method.
Or, to put it differently, how well do you understand the procedures involved in climate change research?
The reason? Continue reading.
Do you presume to have more knowledge than scientists?
I understand why some believe that perusing a few popular science magazines makes them authorities on specific subjects. They are unaware of the complexity behind scientific breakthroughs.
It’s analogous to someone asserting to their oncologist that they possess superior diagnostic skills for cancer. That’s not the case.
They cannot likely even list all the organs within the digestive system.
Would you claim to your lawyer that you have more significant insights into laws than they do? Or suggest to your mechanic that you better understand the issues with your vehicle.
Certainly not.
Yet, some individuals do, but they are the ones for whom I’ve lost all hope.
We rely on experts to inform us about what is happening based on their specialized knowledge. Why, then, do we assume we know better than scientists?
I am a scientist specializing in mammal dental morphology, macroecology, and the study of climate change over time.
Should I advise a virologist on vaccine development?
Not! Why? Because I respect the scientific method. And owing to that respect, I acknowledge that virologists adhere to a stringent process in vaccine development.
Hence, I place my trust in them.
Scientists pursue their field driven by passion.
Science is unforgiving. Many engage in it purely for their love of discovery.
A university professor, equipped with a bachelor’s degree, a master’s, a Ph.D., and extensive teaching and research experience, will not earn more than $75k/year at the onset of their career in the most prestigious universities.
It was a revelation to discover that with equivalent qualifications, one might earn significantly more outside academia and scientific research.
Despite the modest remuneration, scientists vie for the limited positions available. They remain in academia, driven by their passion for work and a desire to contribute positively to the world.
How do researchers achieve recognition?
Researchers select a subject of interest and endeavor to have their findings published in a scholarly journal. Acquiring the necessary data for authoring and publishing their study may span months or even years, embodying a protracted, exhaustive, and thorough procedure. This invariably astonishes many: unlike magazines or other publications that compensate for submissions, one must often pay substantial fees to have work published in a scholarly journal, sometimes amounting to thousands of dollars. The rationale behind this remains perplexing to many and is a discussion for another occasion. Despite the costs, submitted research undergoes rigorous scrutiny before acceptance.
What benefits do researchers reap from publishing? Recognition and the pursuit of tenure are the primary rewards. Occasionally, with diligent effort and a bit of luck, researchers secure grants to aid their investigations. These grants might even suffice to provide a living wage for a Ph.D. candidate under their supervision.
Moreover, the crucial aspect of getting research published involves an extensive process. Not only is the work evaluated by an (unpaid) editor but also by two to five other (unpaid) specialists in the field through what is known as the peer review process. These reviewing researchers, who vie for grants and acknowledgment alongside you, are barred from checking your work if they have collaborated with you within the past decade, ensuring they scrutinize your submission rigorously.
For publication approval, it’s also necessary to disclose the utilized data and the precise collection methods. I’ve encountered reviewers who replicated my procedures to verify similar outcomes or reanalyze my data. This demand for transparency and reproducibility simplifies the identification of fabricated data.
Recognition is sought after by all, as it correlates with a reasonable income and tenure. The discovery of dishonesty leads to severe repercussions, including publication bans.
The competition is so intense that any ambiguity in the data results in rejection. This underscores that scientific journal publications are grounded in factual evidence, not mere “beliefs” or “assumptions.”
Validating claims requires extensive empirical data (often hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of data points). Specific scientific questions remain unanswered, and perspectives on them may evolve. However, breakthroughs in areas like evolution or climate change are rare, with potential Nobel Prize implications for revolutionary discoveries.
For authoritative insights on specific scientific inquiries, consult peer-reviewed literature. The peer-review status of journals can be verified on their websites or through a simple search.
Returning to Climate Change Science
Reflecting on our prior discussion, what does peer-reviewed research convey about climate change?
It’s established that climate change is a recurrent phenomenon throughout Earth’s history, yet these incidents are always attributable to geological or biological processes, never occurring without cause.
For instance, volcanic activity after the Permian period [251.9 million years ago] emitted vast quantities of greenhouse gases, drastically altering the climate. This shift precipitated the largest mass extinction event, eradicating 81% of marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species.
After dominating marine ecosystems for over 250 million years, groups such as the trilobites vanished (Vera-Marie Landi, I’m finally delving into fossils!). Similarly, tabulate and rugose corals, essential to reef construction, disappeared, leaving Earth devoid of reef-building organisms for 14 million years.
Imagine 14 million years without reefs! Life eventually adapts, yet it requires an immense period to do so.
Other factors inducing climate change include:
- Tectonic shifts.
- Alterations in Earth’s orbit.
- Oxidative events from photosynthetic life forms (e.g., algae).
- Changes in solar radiation.
Currently, none of these factors are in play.
What do thousands of peer-reviewed studies reveal about the current state of climate change and its causes?
Consistently, the evidence points to human-generated greenhouse gas emissions as the catalyst for present-day climate change.
Who is prepared to challenge this conclusion?
Understanding the workings of science and its practitioners, do you believe debunking the prevalent scientific consensus on a topic would benefit a scientist?
Indeed, it would. If scientists demonstrate that human activities haven’t prompted recent climate changes, they will gain immense recognition.
Yet, no one has succeeded in doing so. The data unanimously supports the conclusion that human activities drive climate change, a finding reiterated in countless studies.
I’d relish the opportunity to present a contrary argument. However, the evidence at my disposal overwhelmingly supports the current consensus.
The Conspiracy Theory
Then, there’s the conspiracy theory. Some individuals assert that all climate change scientists are financially incentivized to align with political agendas.
Seriously? Having left science due to unaffordable childcare, the notion of being compensated for endorsing specific viewpoints is ludicrous.
Furthermore, considering the global community of climate change scientists, imagine the financial resources and coordination required to maintain a unified stance supporting a political agenda.
It’s essential to recognize that climate change scientists operate globally.
Yet, irrespective of the data gathered or experiments conducted, we consistently arrive at the same conclusion.