Science, Art, Litt, Science based Art & Science Communication
( Based on my discussions with climate change deniers and skeptics )
I always tell people science is still in an infant stage. It has to grow a lot to provide answers to all your questions and give you full proof replies. To my dismay this very aspect is being targeted by science attackers and deniers to prove their point.
Take for example climate change deniers. They say, ''Scientists are not predicting things correctly. They are not proving their theories and their versions of stories are half baked. Therefore, these scientists are lying and over stepping their zones. If they want us to believe what they say and act they must provide full proof evidence first. We don't want to invest in something that can't be proved".
This really is a tricky situation for scientists.
In the growing phase of science, the data available will be preliminary and inadequate to get correct predictions in a vast subject like climate science where a large amount of unreliable factors are at play. We don't yet understand fully how nature works. But should these limitations stop us from going further? 'Definitely not' is my reply.
Last year scientists in Italy were punished for not predicting Volcano eruptions and Earthquakes (another unpredictable area) and warning people beforehand and save lives.
You are doomed if you predict and you are doomed if you don't predict. Correct data or no data scientists have to take these risks to warn the world. They take them. And get attacked in the process by people who don't understand the whole process. Scientists take this in their stride. But, deniers, don't confuse people by saying all scientists are lying. They are not. They are only taking calculated risks. And their profession demands them.
When there are several factors effecting climate change, every single factor counts including the man made ones. You cannot disregard anything. Why only volcanoes (one of the reasons the man made climate change deniers say is responsible for the changes) even solar activity counts. We have no control over solar activity or volcanic activity. But we can control our own activities to reduce the impact. Just because you cannot control other factors, you need not become pessimistic and say there is no use if only man made factors are controlled. "Whatever little can be done should be done."
Investing money in something is only your headache. Investing in the future of the world is an area belonging to every living being on this planet and therefore you can neither compare it with your investment nor take it lightly. When you live in a society you have to take into account others' concerns too. Your own individual opinion is nothing when the majority of the people agrees with it or votes against it. You got to go along with the majority for the good of the world.
Now that is what is happening when most of the UN member countries are agreeing to do something about the climate change and are accepting that at least some change is man made.
Those who say the numbers don't add up or there isn't enough evidence, really don't understand what scientific creativity is all about. It is about connecting things.
An example: You know gravity and how it works. You want to save time and fuel of your spaceship. Then you connect gravity to these two and use your creativity to take the help of the gravity of the planets to accelerate space ships or change their course to send them to other planets to save fuel and time - the mechanism is called "gravity assist ". If you cannot use sling-shot mechanism by connecting things, you cannot save fuel and time and can forget about space travel.
If you cannot connect various factors in ecology and climate science based on the available data and your previous experiences and predict things you will have to face the dire consequences. Okay we didn't get it correct the first time or the tenth time as we have inadequate data.We may get it right the twentieth time. But are you prepared to lose your life or livelihood till we get it right? Deniers answer yes or no.
If the answer is yes, prepare to go to hell called over heated and poison filled EARTH. If 'no' is the answer take steps to correct your view. The choice is definitely yours!
I think the argument that scientists are exaggerating things didn't take into account recent reports and accepting the fact of how difficult it is to predict correctly when so many factors are at play. Even IPCC toned down its report and was very cautious this year. No body is saying we are 100% correct. We are only asking to connect things using the data available and the knowledge we have to take steps so that we don't sink further into disarray.
Who says people are not taking steps to protect people? In this part of the world they are. But climate is a global issue and when one part of the world acts, it doesn't have much impact. And people who are propagating anti-climate change arguments are making things difficult for us.
You know microbes cause diseases. Both known and unknown. When a scientist asks you take steps to protect people by maintaining good hygiene, and if you ask the scientist to first prove that certain microbes cause some diseases first and then only you will maintain hygiene, what can we say about such a person?
""An intelligent person gets creative, connect things, anticipate problems and take steps to face them. If we don't have to face them it is okay. But not preparing to face them is foolishness. Preparedness is better than unpreparedness any day"".
When scientists say 'Environmental conditions MAY impact bird migration'
they are just warning you and requesting you to act . They are not saying this is the absolute truth. ( I wish we could say 'is impacting' with full evidence instead of using the word 'may' here. But to take steps to avoid the problems I think may is enough).
Sometimes you have to act based on the information available when there are risks involved. You cannot wait till there is adequate proof. That is the vital point these deniers are missing.
We understand that the models we have right now might not be correct. But we have some knowledge of what would happen if we continue like this. If we still sit and stare (wait and watch) despite that knowledge, what is the use of having it at all? Wait for full knowledge and get doomed meanwhile?
Science deniers think about this.
What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions, if in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true? - Nobel Laureate Sherwood Rowland ( On climate science predictions) - just because the models are not very accurate?
Generalizing things too is non-scientific. Saying, all the data available is nonsense, and saying everything related to climate science is stupidity is generalizing things. It shows a completely closed mind set.
Scientists have nothing to gain by settling things in science. If the work in progress is treated as the end product and if you come to drastic conclusions based on it, you are a misguided person with regard to science.
Most of the deniers are basing their arguments on generalizations with sweeping comments. It is definitely non-scientific to say all climate science is bogus and all the 97% of scientists who agree that climate change is real are lying. These are lame excuses to push forward with their hidden agenda. They are repeating the same over and over again. This is not the way to win an argument.
Agreed some areas of climate science are faulty but that should not become a reason for inaction.
Climate science is a vast subject and just because you are weak in certain areas you cannot completely dismiss the whole thing with a wave of your hand. It is like saying just because you have developed gangrene in your feet , the whole body has become useless and therefore should be discarded. You cut the part that has become useless and make use of the rest of the thing. Forget weak areas - when people say harm can be done because of pollution because they have experienced it, you cannot disregard it by giving examples of the reports with inadequate data.
When you say all the 97% of scientists are 'mentally effected' because they say some parts of climate science are adequate enough to get alarmed and should be acted upon, there must be something wrong with your thinking.
And I wonder about a few things.
We say Taliban is anti-science. Because it says Polio vaccine is a Western conspiracy to sterilize people in Muslim countries so that the population stops growing in them! It attacks and kills WHO workers who administer polio vaccine. It comes up with all stupid theories to stop Polio vaccination with the result that we are still struggling TO eradicate polio in some parts of the world.
Now some political leaders in the West say we mush stop Taliban and its anti-science policies.
But at the same time they themselves are practicing anti- science policies.( EG: Science Abuse
Subverting scientific knowledge for short-term gain
Another one here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5N8f-6tnEw )
So this looks like they are doing the same things they say are disgusting!
Why is this? A big WHY?
Actually it is not the deniers who are winning like they think they are when most of the countries agreed to act through the UN. I am glad good sense prevailed in the end and our efforts have ended in good results. Our work will still continue despite our success and the deniers attempt to sabotage it.