Who's Healthy and Who's Not?

The authors of "Monitoring the World's Agriculture," claim that today's farming systems undermine communities' well-being by producing greenhouse gases that destroy land. These authors fail to recognize Genetically Modified Foods' (GMF) harmful effects. Organic farming is a healthier alternative, rather than foods containing altered genes. GMFs, the authors argue, could feed the world’s population because they contain essential vitamins and nutrients, and provide a quicker approach to agriculture. They also believe that GMFs could end world hunger and cure diseases or obesity. Obesity is a condition caused by the foods we consume, inactivity, or our body chemistry. Overweight adults make up 30% of Americans and another 30% are obese. 15% of children ages 6-11 are also overweight. These statistics clearly show that the foods we eat should be safe and healthy. We all recognize the tremendous health problems that the foods we consume cause; such as diabetes, stroke, coronary heart disease, and some cancers. Knowing how and where farmers produce our food are both essential to our health. Sustainable organic farming benefits health and the environment, unlike genetically modified foods, which threaten our health while claiming to have numerous benefits.

Sustainable agriculture should be adopted because traditional farming methods cause soil erosion and loss of nutrients, while polluting the soil and neighboring lands. Sustainable farming is farming that incorporates a mutual relationship between the process of producing food, the environment, and natural resources of the earth. Furthermore, when this method is applied to agriculture, it promotes healthy soil, healthy crops, a flourishing environment, and improves our health. To minimize soil degradation, sustainable agriculture recycles the nutrients instead of using synthetic fertilizers which diminish soil fertility, it minimizes or eliminates tillage, and uses irrigation to increase the ingestion of nutrients. It also develops the organic matter that is found within the soil such as degraded plant and animal remains. Creating a healthier environment for the soil or making the soil harder for pests to dwell in will make them less problematic; however if the problem persists, the next step would be to learn more about the pest and make it easier for its enemies to survive. The idea is that a pesticide should be the last resort because a healthier soil means healthier food. Despite of this idea, there are some people who think that farming genetically modified food will solve our health problems quicker.

Scientists are very fascinated with the idea of GMFs. They believe that altering foods, animals, and plants will eventually end world hunger and make consumers healthier. In addition, the production of higher quality GMFs will prevent and cure certain diseases, improve our environment, and our lifestyle. Scientists field-test or experiment with the crops to produce desired traits. These include bananas that produce human vaccines to cure infectious diseases, rice with increased iron and vitamins, and plants that produce new plastics with special properties. Moreover, the crops used are herbicide and insect-resistant. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Relatively speaking the process of producing GMFs is an experiment from the lab! The idea seems like an evolutionary phenomenon but scientists have not completed their research. First, they have not located all the favorable genes required to extract from different organisms, meaning that they are ignorant to the long term effects of these new species. Secondly, introducing a foreign gene into an organism may cause the organism to become resistant to that gene therefore, affecting other plants or animals in close proximity. Another problem is getting the built-in pesticide into the soil. The pesticide may become toxic to organisms that live in the soil and eventually it will have an adverse effect on the food chain. According to Kerryn Sakko, author of “The Debate over Genetically Modified Foods,” tests that were conducted in the United States confirmed that 44 % of caterpillars from the monarch butterfly died when they were fed pollen from GM corn. If scientists and experts are aware of the risks that Genetically Modified Foods present, why is that in 2006, 97 percent of the global production of transgenic crops were grown in the United States? This is clearly a threat to our health.

Many health problems arise mainly from the foods we consume. All of us worry about our weight and try to watch what we eat but if we included organic foods in our diet more often, we would be much happier with our body and health. The process that foods undergo before we eat them is essential to the development of several diseases. Cardiovascular disease and stroke are a few of the diseases that are associated with poor diet. For example, the pesticide that is used on the soil can remain in the crops or animals that are harvested. Once we consume this food, we consume the toxic pesticide. This leads to diseases that can range from acute to chronic. I’m sure none of us want to imagine eating toxic pesticides, but it’s real and that’s why we should shift to a safer method of farming like organic farming.

Organic foods are healthier for our bodies because they do not contain chemicals like pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides that other foods have. Their nutritional value is exceptionally better than Genetically Modified Foods, and unlike GMFs, we actually know where they come from and how they are made. This type of farming supports the microorganisms that naturally live in the soil, use crop rotation to increase the nutrients of the soil, and allow plants to become drought resistant by using less chemical fertilizers. Moreover, the food lasts longer and tastes better. Organic food gives us the natural vitamins and minerals we need directly from the soil. It is healthier and it supports the environment. Although Organic farming does not produce a large quantity of food for the growing population, the benefit is still greater than the risk that GMFs pose. GMFs are too unpredictable and scientists need to conduct extensive research on it before companies can begin distributing food to the general public. It’s very plausible that they could be creating new diseases, environmental problems, or something far worse.


http://www.google.com/images?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla
Jeffrey Sachs. “Monitoring the World’s Agriculture” http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/full/466558a.html
Kerryn Sakko. “The debate over Genetically Modified Foods” http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/sakko.html
“The issues Environment ”http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/environment/
“Sustainable Agriculture: An Introduction” ”http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/sustagintro.html
“Advantages and Disadvantages of Organic Farming” http://www.small-farm-permaculture-and-sustainable-living.com/advantages_and_disadvantages_organic_farming.html
“Obesity” http://www.faqs.org/nutrition/Met-Obe/Obesity.html

Michael Tobben

Science Fiction

Despite a war, weak economy and other major problems, a controversial science debate arises, surprising many. The Nature article “Science scorned” makes the case that an ideology continues to grow and spread amongst the conservative right, which sees science as a progressive enemy. The author claims that Obama set an agenda that supports educational scientific research and advancement. The author also claims an increasing conservative resentment for science prevents this advancement. This argument, however, contains many holes and unfairly labels all conservatives as anti-science nuts inhibiting the left wing liberals’ ability to develop the United States as a scientific superpower. The article “Science scorned” exaggerates data, heavily citing a few extreme conservatives’ words, overall exaggerating the issue more than necessary while this country contains so many more important struggling or failing institutions.

This nature article opens by discussing the conservative political front’s increasing resentment of science. To cite this claim, it quotes the Rush Limbaugh’s ranting and the so called “Tea Partier’s” political actions. While the conservative right wing includes these individuals, they have known extreme polar rightist views, and act closed mindedly and headstrong. And while it is not to say that all conservative think more moderately and open-mindedly than these people, a great deal of them identify with a more moderate standpoint and do not find science a part of the “four corners of deceit”. In fact, the article “Study finds left-wing brain, right-wing brain” claims that “political orientation … occurs along a spectrum, and positions on specific issues, such as taxes, are influenced by many factors, including education and wealth. Some liberals oppose higher taxes and some conservatives favor abortion rights”. This indicates that a supposedly right-wing supported opposition of science, most likely exists within the ideology of some liberals as well.

The nature article also asserts that President Obama full understands and has all the best advice to deal with science-related legislation. This, however, may not ring true. Contrary to the nature article, an article from The New York Times claims that “Flawed science advice for Obama” exists. His science advisor is Dr. John P. Holdren, a scientist who has confidently made predictions that have been nowhere near accurate. The article describes his scientific critiques and comments as “strong on contempt and sneering, but weak on substance”. As far as climate change, he is reputed to have a “tendency to conflate the science of climate change with prescriptions to cut greenhouse emissions”. This means that he believes only in trying to solve climate change based on the assumptions that anthropogenic causes are the primary reasons for global warming. Even though the scientific community strongly supports this well researched theory, simply cutting greenhouse emissions will not necessarily provide a panacea for environmental strains that the planet faces. These qualities of Dr. Holdren characterize him as closed minded and bearing an elitist mentality about his intelligence and his job. This closed minded elitist, Obama’s science advisor, influences the future of our country, and yet despite his disappointing track record and displeasing persona, the liberals are emphatic about pushing science forward under his supervision, labeling any right-wingers who oppose any scientific expansion, however large or small, hindrances to American Progress.

Despite all the criticism of the right’s opposition to funding extensive scientific advancement (some of which many consider morally unacceptable), Obama’s issues that he considers top priority do not at all concern science. In fact, according to the list provided in the article “How Many "Top Priority" Issues Does Obama Have?” his only goals that concern science are “Energy Security” and “Environmental Protection”. While these unquestionably important focuses of study and advancement deserve attention, it shows that Obama places much rater value on many other topics than the scientific advancement the liberal media credits him. In fact, according to the article “Obama's devastating Nasa cuts”, Obama has drastically cut America’s space program. NASA’s exploration, advancement, and “space accomplishments earned the respect and admiration of the world” and were “so effective in motivating the young to do ‘what has never been done before’.” Yet despite the program’s overwhelming achievement, Obama has completely cut the division of NASA designed to push forward space exploration, the very program that captures the minds of the youth and helps spark their interest in science. When one examine Obama’s agenda, it becomes clear that he has placed science on the back burner, provoking wonder as to why the liberal media even bashes the conservatives’ slight scientific resistance.

Based on the information these articles provide, it doesn’t seem fit for the left political left to incessantly bash the right’s somewhat resistive attitude towards scientific advancement. Both sides have mixed opinions about science, Obama’s choice for science advisor is less than exciting, and it doesn’t even seem that the President himself is that keen on pushing America to becoming a forerunner in scientific achievement and innovation. However, even if all this were not true, if Obama fully backed science with all his power and was well-advised on the issue, science does not come close to America’s biggest concern presently. The economy is still in a ditch, America is entrenched in debt and unemployment does not seem to be decreasing. In our present situation, America would do best to focus on solving the financial problems facing our country and its citizens before trying to move forward with science.

“Science Scorned.” Nature.” 09 September 2010. Volume 467. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7312/full/467133a.html

Tierney, John. The New York Times. “Flawed science advice for Obama?.” 12 December 2008. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/flawed-science-advice-for-obama/

Gellene. Denise. The Los Angeles Times. “Study finds left-wing brain, right wing brain..” 10 September 2010. http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-sci-politics10sep10,0,2687256.story

Knoller, Mark. CBS News. “How Many "Top Priority" Issues Does Obama Have?” 13 August 2010. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20013622-503544.html

Guardian.co.uk. “Obamas devastating Nasa Cuts.” 15 April 2010. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/apr/15/obama-nasa-space-neil-armstrong

The Real Day After Tomorrow

On December 11, 1997 the leading industrial nations of the world gathered together to do something about the atmospheric carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and sulfur hexafluoride levels present. These four greenhouse-gases, according to some scientists’ beliefs, pose a threat to future climate shifts if the world fails to act. Since December of 2007 many other nations joined the efforts initiated by the Kyoto Protocol, hoping to make the environment a cleaner place. The Kyoto Protocol consisted of an international movement to try and get industrialized countries to cut down emissions. Although some scientists tend to make a big deal out of the term global warming, we must keep it in perspective and look at it through a policy analysis perspective. In stating industrialized nations require a more effective method of measuring greenhouse-gas emissions, the author of “Up in the Air” overlooks the assumptions that one, government policies are the best tool for limiting emissions and two, their methods can be enforced. Greenhouse-gas emissions cannot be pinpointed to a single source for certain; therefore governments must focus on offering market incentives to reduce emissions rather than policies aimed to police the environment.

When addressing such a policy problem as greenhouse-gas emissions, one must first examine the different agents through which the problem can be solved. The author of “Up in the Air” assumes this to be government along with scientists. Greenhouse-gases stem from manufacturing plants, agricultural methods, and virtually any other everyday activity such as driving a car. These emissions also heavily concentrate around large cities, making this a more regional issue. The founding fathers addressed these types of issues in the Constitution, delegating them to the states governments. Following this logic the national government would leave greenhouse-gas emissions alone and the governments of states containing large cities could develop their own policies. States such as Montana and Wyoming with little populations would not be subject to the same rules and regulations as states such as California or Michigan. Another assumption is that the problem of greenhouse-gas emissions is even a problem at all. There is so much speculation in regard to the effects on the environment that we must question exactly how important it is and its location on the national agenda.

Let us for a moment assume that greenhouse-gas emissions become a serious enough problem for government to intervene and develop some sort of policy solution to limit the environmental effects. We must now examine how the policy will be enforced and even if it can be enforced. Should the government utilize existing agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency or should government develop an entirely new organization to try and enforce the policy choices? The government could also contract out to a third party company who would handle corporate dealings and enforcing the policy. We must examine the costs and benefits of each decision. The government simply cannot afford to police every single organization contributing to greenhouse-gas emissions.

In order to cut down the greenhouse-gas emissions of a certain company one must be able to pinpoint the location from where the emissions in the atmosphere came. This would be impossible even with constant monitoring of all corporations. There would still be greenhouse-gas emissions into the atmosphere. To only police some of the sources and not others does not seem fair. Not only would this task be impossible, but the cost just does not seem justifiable for the minimal progress.

The argument throughout “Up in the Air” focuses primarily on policing the greenhouse-gas emissions. The best solution lies not in policing and trying to punish the sources of greenhouse-gas emissions but rather to offer incentives for those sources to reduce their emissions. The primary methods of policing emissions consist of such things as a cap and trade policy or an emissions tax. The cap and trade policy is where the government sells permits to certain companies in exchange for them to essentially emit greenhouse-gases to a certain level. These permits can be traded amongst companies but those that do not receive the permits are not able to compete in certain industries that might lead to some emissions. An emissions tax also prohibits market competition and provides difficult startup costs for smaller companies. The large corporations that can afford to pay the emissions tax when exceeding a certain level of greenhouse-gas emissions will pay the tax because they will more than make up from it in profits from the units produced. Smaller companies trying to start up do not have the assets to compete by going over the emissions cap and paying the tax. Neither the cap and trade methods or emissions tax effectively prevent and limit greenhouse-gas emissions. Not only do they fail to do this but also inhibit the market structure upon which our economy is built.

According to the analytical work of D.W. South, R.F. Kosobud, and K.G. Quinn, researchers at The University of Chicago’s Argonne National Laboratory, emissions taxes and a permit system inhibits the potential market growth. Their analysis takes base in economic principles such as supply and demand, taxes’ effect on the market, and other micro and macroeconomic indicators. When looking to establish long-term growth in the industry, cap and trade permits fall short. Offering grants or tax breaks to corporations and small businesses for limiting greenhouse gases gives the company an incentive to try and meet a lower level of greenhouse-gas emissions. This encourages companies to research and develop new greener technology and methods of manufacturing. Market incentives provide a much stronger incentive for a company trying to limit greenhouse-gas emissions than trying to police them through taxes and permits. Offering an incentive leads to economic growth as well as a cleaner environment.

Changing policy mindset from policing to encouraging allows for essentially both sides of the argument to come out better. The environment is still better off due to the incentive to limit greenhouse-gas emissions and small businesses are encouraged. We must move towards this type of approach to not only greenhouse-gases but other policy areas as well. As globalization becomes more of a role in international policies and trade, we must aim to promote economic growth and sustainable methods rather than utilizing inhibiting policies and regulations to achieve our goals.

“Commentary: Cap and trade not the solution.” The Colorado Business Journal. 11 Dec 2009. http://www.allbusiness.com/science-technology/earth-atmospheric-science/13588183-1.html

D.W. South, R.F. Kosobud, and K.G. Quinn. “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Control by Economic Incentives: Survey and Analysis.” 18-20 Nov 1991. http://www.osti.gov

/bridge/purl.cover.jsp;jsessionid=D14EADA1E219F56D25EA78F9A20839EE?purl=/6122353-W0GYdg/

Gilbert E. Metcalf and John M Reilly. “Policy Options for Controlling Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Implications for Agriculture.” http://web.mit.edu/ceepr/www

/publications/jp-pubsabstracts/Reprints/JPRPR08-2.pdf

“Up in the Air.” Nature 465. 5 May 2010. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/

v465/n7294/full/465009b.html

Global Warming Skeptics Revealed

According to the article, “Climate of Fear,” people who deny global warming cause trouble and are completely nonsensical; however, I will prove that this is not the case. Skeptics obtain their research from reputable sources that explain their beliefs. A scientist conducted research, and he believes that the IPCC has collected inaccurate global warming predictions and that they must give account for it. In addition, “global warming deniers” created a website and used scientific evidence to prove that global warming is a hoax. My goal is to explain the scientific evidence scholarly skeptics have collected in the global warming debate. I hope that you will recognize that this topic is important to not only the world, but to you as well, who will someday have an impact on society.

You might be wondering why it matters to you that global warming skeptics have scientific evidence and aren’t just trying to stir up trouble or be ridiculous. Well, some people may say that global warming, as explained by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is a fact that everyone just needs to accept as truth, but there are several people, including a scientist named Doug L. Hoffman, who disagree. I think that it is important for everyone to know both sides of an argument and not just the side with the loudest voice. One of his reasons for his skepticism is that “greenhouse effects”,when the suns radiation is reflected off the earth’s surface into the atmosphere and the heat is absorbed to warm the earth, have already warmed the earth. This is definitely a good thing because if they hadn’t the earth would have a surface temperature of -1 degree Fahrenheit, just a little bit too cold if you ask me.

Doug L. Hoffman also uses band saturation, which is how much radiation is absorbed at a specific frequency, as another example of how the IPCC’s information is completely wrong. Frequency is how many particles of energy are absorbed in a specific wavelength (i.e. that chart of colored waves that your science probably has in the classroom). If close to 100% of a gas’s radiation is being absorbed, the absorption cannot exceed 100%; meaning that no matter how much radiation is added, the amount of radiation absorbed will not change. So basically the change in temperature would be relatively low even if more CO_2 were added to the atmosphere. Ok, so I know that radiation and frequencies of radiation aren’t something that most high school students know about or even pay attention to. The fact is that these things are important though because this world’s problems will be yours one day, and you will have to find a way to fix them. Hopefully by learning about this now, you can be more knowledgeable in the future.

According to the IPCC, the temperature will rise not only because of “greenhouse gases” but also because of “feedback” loops, which means that each natural system has a consequence whether negative or positive that occurs. Hoffman refutes that by saying each natural system has a different “feedback” so even if more of one gas is added to the atmosphere it could have different effects. For example, if water vapor is added to the atmosphere, the earth’s temperature will most probably warm slightly because water vapor is responsible for more global warming than carbon dioxide, but the temperature change will not adversely effect the earth. In fact, according to research, the earth’s temperature has only risen by 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit in the past 150 years. That’s definitely not enough to melt huge glaciers, destroy the ozone layer, and hurt the world’s natural systems.

According to Hoffman, IPCC’s version of global warming is completely incorrect because we as people and scientists do not understand the climate enough to predict all the things that will supposedly happen in the future. I personally agree with him. How can some climate scientists claim that global warming is going to completely change the earth in just between 30 and 100 years from now when sometimes we can’t even predict what the weather will be tomorrow?

According to an article by Express.co.uk called “Climate Change Lies are Exposed”, the IPCC was put under fire in an inquiry by the InterAcademy Council, a group of scientific academies who give knowledge about global issues, in August of this year because of the IPCC’s inaccurate predictions about the future in regards to global warming. One of these predictions was that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. This prediction is ridiculous because it was based on a conversation with an obscure Indian scientist, who has since admitted that his claims were just “speculation” and not based on actual research and facts. According to Professor Julian Dowdeswell of Cambridge University, “The average glacier is 1,000ft thick so to melt one at 15ft a year would take 60 years. That is faster than anything we are seeing now so the idea of losing it all by 2035 is unrealistic.” Obviously, the IPCC’s failure to put out accurate research and predictions is unacceptable and needs to be examined.

Unfortunately,the IPCC’s report had many mistakes in it, not just those about the glaciers. For example, it said that 55 percent of the Netherlands is below sea level when the actual figure is 26 percent. It also said that water supplies for between 75 million and 220 million people would be at risk for depletion due to climate change; however the actual figure turned out to be between 90 million and 220 million. This may not seem like as big of a deal as the glacier incident; however, it is very important for such a high level climate research group to know that its data is accurate. Despite these blunders, the chairman of the IPCC, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, said ““We have the highest confidence in the science behind our assessments.” When it has just been shown that your reports were extremely inaccurate, I don’t think that this is the attitude that anyone should take. If there is a problem, I think the chairman should have admitted their mistake and said that they would work hard to fix the inaccuracy.

The media can also be a great source of support for global warming and condemnation of those who don’t support it; however, according to Global Warming Hoax, some of what the media says is just not true. For example, the media often says that sea ice today is depleting which is why global warming is starting to have a great effect on the climate. Now some of you may be saying, “What is sea ice?” Well, to be honest, that’s exactly what I said when I read this article so I looked it up. According to the Encyclopedia of Earth, which gathers its data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, sea ice is just frozen ocean water. Ok, so why should you care about it, right? Well, the more sea ice there is, the colder it gets because the more sea ice you have the more sunlight gets reflected back into the atmosphere without heating the earth. All right, now that I’ve cleared that up, back to why the media is wrong about global warming and sea ice.

According to the article called “Antarctic Sea Ice for March 2010 Significantly greater than 1980,” the sea ice percentage has increased in extent (how far it stretches) 14% from 3.5 square kilometers to 4.0 square kilometers since 1980. It has increased in concentration (how deep it is) 30% from 2.0 square kilometers to 2.6 kilometers. So examining this information, one would hopefully come to the conclusion that the amount of sea ice since 1980 has increased and, as such, the sun would be warming the earth less because more of it’s rays would be reflected back to the atmosphere. Basically, that would mean that the earth would have gotten slightly cooler since 1980. That doesn’t really agree with global warming, does it?

So, let’s recap. The article by Nature says that those who disagree with global warming are ridiculous. Well, I’ve given you the point of view of three different areas of skeptics: a scientist, a news website, and a “global warming denier’s” website. In each of these articles, the author gave scientific facts and quotes from credible research. Obviously not all people who deny global warming can be called ridiculous.

“Climate of Fear.” Nature. 10 March 2010. Volume 464. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7286/full/464141a.html

Herron, John. globalwarminghoax.com. “Antarctic Sea Ice for March 2010 Significantly Greater Than 1980.” 6 April 2010. http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.133

Duffy, J. Emmett. The Encyclopedia of Earth. “Sea Ice.” 2 September 2008. http://www.eoearth.org/article/Sea_ice

Hoffman, Doug L. The Resilient Earth. “Why I Am A Global Warming Skeptic.” 7 February 2010. http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/why-i-am-global-warming-skeptic

Bowater, Donna. Express.co.uk. “Climate Change Lies Are Exposed.” 31 August 2010. http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/196642/Climate-change-lies-are-exposed

Glacier Picture. http://stigmanusia.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/2.jpg

“What? I’m Sorry, Evidence. I Couldn’t Hear You Over the Skeptics.”

The Catholic Church charged Galileo as a heretic for his radical idea of heliocentricity. They released Galileo from custody, but he decided to let the evidence support itself and published a book about his theories. Afterwards, the Catholic Church charged him with heresy again and sentenced him to house arrest until his death. Skeptics scrutinize the findings of climate scientists today, just as the Catholic Church did to Galileo. The idea of global warming creates both avid believers and skeptics out of both scientists and students. To approach both without alienating one or the other, scientists must establish their credentials, prove results and conclusions match, and make evidence available to everyone. After this, skeptics make consider taking a second look.

In “Climate of Suspicion,” an article written for the January 2010 edition of Nature, the author claims that the best way to approach skeptics is to return each argument tit for tat and that the “evidence will eventually speak for itself.” However, can a scientist both vehemently ague their position and allow evidence to support itself? Can these two ideas be reconciled? They can, but for the evidence to effectively argue for itself scientists must create a transparent structure of support on which their evidence can stand.

First, it is necessary to establish your credentials and reliability, and thus the integrity of your ideas. For climate scientists this means establishing their expertise and using appropriate methods. Establishing expertise is difficult. Sometimes it is enough to simply be a biologist, other times a computational biologist or an ecologist, but some skeptics won’t be satisfied. To establish credibility climate scientists use their fieldwork experience or their collaboration on other scientists’ experiments. To ensure that their results are appropriate and reliable, scientists need to assure disbelievers that they follow the proper measures and set conventions when collecting any evidence as well as conducting any experiments used to generate the data. Because skeptics pick and choose which scientists they trust, they don’t believe a consensus between experts can be reached. As a result they think scientists’ global warming models are unreliable. In reality, 97% of climate experts agree that global warming occurs and scientific models have successfully reproduced temperatures since 1900. Extensive peer review and public accountability causes scientists to make sure to develop correct and reliable models.

Second, an argument supported by unbiased conclusions will better convince an audience looking for discrepancies. Skeptics realize that science is not immune to societal pressures, meaning that oftentimes science is subject to society‘s morals or ideas, such as the ban against cloning humans, or Galileo’s heliocentric universe. Disbelievers choose to impose these societal pressures as a means to discredit the evidence and work of scientists. As such, climate scientists must also recognize this fact and work to present their data in a way that shows it is not skewed or biased. A consensus between scientists in different fields goes a long way in proving that results are honest and that scientists don’t skew data to match preconceived ideas. Scientists must make it clear that nature, or global warming, will not comply with the agendas of others. Scientists must prove that research into climate change does not create global warming or uncover a Socialist agenda, as some extreme skeptics believe; it merely uncovers pre-existing patterns in nature.

Third, it is necessary to freely share and make comprehensible the results, conclusions, and implications of new ideas and research. Scientists need to make their research easily available to the public, because skeptics often believe that they don't need to be a global warming expert to believe that it doesn't occur or to discredit scientific claims. A lot of the times, it seems that skeptics are Google-ing their information or using sources like Wikipedia to verify unfounded thinking, and what happens is that this same information shows up repeatedly and therefore it becomes regarded as true despite its sources or what it originally supported. Some skeptics who actually conduct valid research but these skeptics are often overshadowed, and prevented from making significant progress for their argument. If scientists presented scientific data and wrote it in both a scientific form and in terms any layman could understand, then the general public, especially skeptics, could access information and determine for themselves whether or not they want to believe in global warming. For example, a lot of the arguments that skeptics employ against global warming occur because they don’t believe some of the correlations that scientists make, such as the fact that extreme weather events are made more frequent and worse by global warming.

In conclusion, skeptics are a hard crowd to convince; because they readily criticize any information presented, even if the intuitive thinking they use to do so is flawed. Scientists must work hard to both produce reliable data and present it in a way that makes skeptics take a second more open-minded look at what they present. Scientists must establish their credentials, prove that their results are honest, show that results match conclusions, and they must provide a means for the public to easily access these results. Skeptics will always remain skeptical, but if scientists present scientific data in a way that convinces them to reconsider or reevaluate their thinking, then the battle to creating change in response to global warming is already half-way won.

Cook, John, “Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Says”, July 26 2010, http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Dejoie, Joyce, “Galileo Galilei”, http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/whos_who_level2/galileo.html

Dougherty, Michael J., “Can Science Win Over Climate Change Skeptics?”, July 2009, http://www.actionbioscience.org/education/dougherty.html

Unknown Author, “Climate of Suspicion”, Nature, Vol 463, Issue 269, January 21 2010, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/463269a.html

Picture: Lourdes272, http://www.flickr.com/photos/22237639@N06/2141805638/