Despite what you may believe, in the domain of climate change, there is no longer a debate among scientists — they have reached a consensus.
Between 90 and 97 percent (depending on the meta-study you read) of credible studies align in their claim that 1) climate change is happening, and 2) humans are the primary cause.
You can choose to disbelieve this fact.
You've doubtlessly watched YouTube videos that have claimed it's all a hoax. You've read seemingly credible articles that refute it. Influencers and people you respect have confidently declared it to be untrue.
Let me repeat this unambiguous, underappreciated truth: Regardless of what you've heard, there is a strong, nearly universal scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change is real. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
What is scientific consensus, and how does it happen?
As the results of scientific studies are released, other scientists examine them and try to either confirm or refute their findings. It's by this process that we very slowly build "scientific knowledge."
As researchers repeat observations and experiments and verify previously reported results, evidence begins to mount. Other scientists design other experiments and measurement methods that lend new perspectives to a body of research.
Over time, as observations are confirmed through a vast multitude and variety of studies by different parties — and when all those findings converge and agree — eventually, a consensus emerges among scientists.
An example would be the scientific consensus that smoking causes cancer. One study is not enough. But over time, as others confirm those findings, and as more studies are done that show the same results, eventually, a consensus emerges.
When that happens, we carefully venture into the realm of calling something a "fact."
Before you object, yes, a scientifically "proven" fact may turn out to be wrong. Everything we "know" in science is merely valid according to a particular confidence level. As in all of life, there can never be an absolute certainty; only degrees of likelihood.
To summarize: consensus is not about what one scientist or one study says. It happens when the vast majority of research has made clear, beyond a reasonable threshold of doubt, that something is true or false — much like a verdict in a courtroom.
What about opposing research?
There will always be studies that contradict the widely accepted conclusions. These are an essential part of science. They challenge the working theories, and in doing so, force scientists to be even more critical and careful as they revisit their research.
An opposing theory can effectively destroy a body of evidence, or it can end up strengthening it. Good science is always falsifiable — meaning it has the potential to be disproven. Falsifiability is the difference between science and pseudoscience.
As new research challenges existing conclusions, and then those challenges are, in turn, convincingly and thoroughly refuted, it effectively strengthens the original argument.
And so we arrive at our current situation. The body of scientific research on climate change has already effectively debunked the five to ten percent of studies that oppose the accepted consensus.
And yet those opposing theories live on, perpetually reposted on social media and quoted by politicians that don't understand the processes described above.
Why does the debate live on, then?
As a result of the widespread lack of understanding regarding the function and workings of scientific consensus, although there is no longer a meaningful debate among scientists, there remains a heated debate in politics and on social media.
Notably, this debate only really thrives in the United States. In Europe, the general population and most politicians have long ago moved on from, "Is this real?" to "How do we address this?"
Another unfortunate and telling reality is that the primary predictor of whether or not you believe in anthropogenic climate change is your party affiliation.
I repeat. It's not your level of education, not your grasp of the scientific method, but your political inclination that will determine your opinion on the subject.
I find that incredibly disheartening.
Another factor is most people's inability to discern what constitutes reliable information. Every day, I encounter posts on social media that link to incredible articles containing either long-refuted talking points or false claims.
I regularly see people post doctored covers of magazines or misattributed quotes because they cannot be bothered with even the most basic fact-checking.
Encouragingly, Facebook's fact-checking algorithms are helping to fight this, either by completely removing content that's known to be misleading or by including "fact-check" labels on suspicious links.
However, in my experience, nearly everyone who has had content flagged by Facebook has interpreted this as evidence of a conspiracy theory, lending further proof to the idea that climate change is a hoax and that Facebook is contributing towards it.
What's the motive?
Climate change deniers have several working theories as to why the "climate hoax" exists.
I frequently hear, "There is big money and fame for scientists that promote climate change." Multiple studies have pointedly demonstrated, however, that scientists who deny climate change have much more to gain in terms of exposure and funding. [6]
The other theory I continually hear from political conservatives is a broader, more abstract, one. It goes something like: Democrats are propagating this climate hoax to scare the masses into adopting economically-damaging policies and move our country into a socialist controlled regime where we will all be forced to give up our personal freedoms.
This story is too vague to refute, and I won't even try. As with all conspiracy theories, believers can reshape and reinterpret any contrary evidence to reinforce their narrative. In other words, it is not falsifiable.
On the other side of the spectrum
Much has been written about the phenomenon of climate change denial. If the scientific consensus is so strong, how on earth can so many disbelieve it?
For a long time, people didn't believe the science that said smoking caused cancer. A considerable part of this was because the wealthy tobacco industry lobbied relentlessly and funded research to debunk what the medical professionals were saying.
A similar thing is happening today. Climate change policies threaten the wealthiest companies on earth: the oil and gas industries. Publically, they do much to promote sustainable, renewable energy. Covertly, they are culprits in fueling the climate change denial machine.
I often hear deniers use phrases like "follow the money." They're implying it will lead us to the "deep state," or the democratic party. The reality is, though, that the energy sector is the most significant and most influential player in the arena.
And as Sam Butcher said, the politicians who accept money from these industries are quite literally selling our future for present profit.
When ignorance becomes immorality
Do you remember Pascal's wager? It's better to believe in God and be wrong than to disbelieve and be wrong. The former may result in 80 years of missing out, while the latter may result in eternal damnation.
If you're a climate change denier, I beg you to consider the severity of the issue and its potential consequences.
What if you are wrong?
What if it's true, and our unbridled emissions are wreaking irreversible havoc on the earth? What if our children and grandchildren will be living with the consequences of our stubbornness for generations to come? What if you were misguidedly helping to ensure this terrible outcome?
If you're right, we may indeed be duped by "the socialists" into giving up some of our freedom and adopting economically damaging policies.
If you're wrong, we're heading into an era of mass-migration, food shortages, drought, ecological breakdown, destruction, and death.
And so I implore you to look beyond the politics and public discourse and have a good look at the real state of scientific consensus.
A thousand years from now, as you look back from heaven or nirvana or pluto, at least you will be able to say you were fully informed, and you did everything you could to steer people in the right direction.
Sources
Sources
1. J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
2. J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
3. W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
4. P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.
5. N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.
6. A.M. Petersen, E.M. Vincent, A.L. Westerling, Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians, Nature Communications, 10 (2019), p. 3502
