Today I’m delving into the “other 3%” of climate change scientists.
Now, it is said that 97% of all climate change scientists claim that earth is, in fact, changing because of humans and is becoming a problem. But what about the other 3%? Why do those scientists deny climate change? How did their scientific research come out so different than the other 97%?
Some skeptics suggest that the authors of studies indicating that climate change is not real, not harmful, or not man-made are bravely standing up for the truth, like maverick thinkers of the past. Kind of like Galileo saying the earth is round and no one believing him. He was, per se the 3% of his time with that subject.
However, this is not correct. The 3% are not Galileo. Recent researches have tried to replicate the results of the 3% and found many flaws with the scientific research. The examined 38 papers published in peer-review journals in the last decade that denied human-caused global warming. And they found out that every single one of those papers had an error that made the paper come to that conclusion. When the errors were corrected, it brought the results into line with the other 97%.
The recent researching on the flawed papers discovered 3 main errors in the papers denying climate change. For one, many of the scientists who wrote the papers cherry-picked the results that conveniently supported their conclusion, while ignoring other context or records.
The second way was when the scientist would apply an inappropriate “curve-fitting” which would step them farther and farther away from data until the points matched the cure of their choosing. And the third way was when the scientist writing would completely ignore physics altogether.
The 3% of scientists that are claiming that they are right and the other 97% are wrong about the scientific discoveries are holding up science. Good science is objective. The scientists performing the studies should not be biased about the results.
The thing is, is that 97% of climate experts agree and have a cohesive theory that is overwhelmingly supported by scientific evidence. You know, they are all with each other and are on the same page. That’s like super rare. The other 3% of the experts that are rejecting the consensus are all over the map on what is happening to the earth. And a lot of them are contradicting each other. There is no cohesion in the 3%.
Why do the 3% stick with their guns? Well, I can’t speak for them, but I can guess that they do it out of greed, bribery, or maybe stubbornness? Who knows.
So, for those folks out there that are still skeptical about human-caused climate change, what are you skeptical about? Or can you just not shoulder the blame and the weight of the problem? Maybe you just want to be oblivious to it. But guess what? I have a little secret. You don’t have to shoulder all the blame. There are over 7.5 billion people on the earth, and all of us shoulder this problem. But that also means that ALL of us need to be doing something about it too.
There are large-scale solutions and small-scale solutions to the problem. The large-scale solutions make life easier to incorporate the small-scale solutions. For instance, having government or local incentive programs for businesses and residents to receive renewable energy or make it easier and cheaper to recycle and compost.
Supporting these programs and initiatives can have a big impact on lowering your community’s environmental footprint. Which helps your overall footprint too. But it also works the other way. When you lower your own environmental footprint, you help to lower your community’s footprint too.
So, developing you're own clean, sustainable life can have an impact, especially when your family, friends, and neighbors see you changing your daily habits. Thanks for watching and reading today and exploring the other 3% with me.
Take care of yourself <3
- Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed: https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/amp/