Who are the real science deniers?

By Warren Nunn

The term “science deniers” is increasingly used against those who reject/question something that “science” insists has been proved.

Anyone who doesn’t accept that global warming/climate change is real and is the result of the impact humans have had on the planet risks being labelled a “science denier”.

According to wikipedia, global warming is a “long-term rise in the average temperature of the Earth’s climate system, an aspect of climate change shown by temperature measurements and by multiple effects of the warming”. Further, it claims that “many of the observed warming changes since the 1950s are unprecedented in the instrumental temperature record, and in historical and paleoclimate proxy records of climate change”.

It should be useful to consider what science actually is. According to dictionary.com, science is a “branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws”.

Can’t deny the science around temperature records

With regards to global warming/climate change much has been made about a rise in temperatures.

When I consider the subject, I’m drawn to the body of facts around temperatures particularly.

I then consider how accurate, organised and far more widespread has become the method of recording temperatures.

I would assume that scientists these days would say that the records are the best ever recorded and studied. We have better equipment, more organised record-keeping and more points on the planet where temperatures are recorded.

That being the case, wouldn’t the records from 100 years ago be less accurate than today’s? And wouldn’t there be fewer records as well?

If scientists are saying that the technology and record keeping from 1919 is as technologically advanced, accurate and widespread as it is today, then I have a serious problem with their reasoning. And what about the records from 1819?

You get the picture.

How has science demonstrated changes?

So, yes, I do question those who claim that global temperatures are on the rise based on record keeping from more than 100 years ago. And I do that using the scientific method of studying a “body of facts or truths systematically arranged”.

And, therefore, I fail to see how it can be scientifically demonstrated that conclusions around global temperatures can be drawn from less reliable data gathered from another era.

By that reasoning alone, I certainly question any claims that global temperatures are rising.  There is not enough data to deduce anything from the science before us.

As well, I propose that doesn’t make me a “science denier” but rather someone who is looking at the data with a critical, scientific approach.