Global Climate Change and What We Know of Science

A radio talk-show host reviewed my book the other day with an eye toward having me on his show.  He wrote back just now:

… I found it to be interesting, though I should tell you I’m one of the people who don’t believe in global warming….I also believe we have enough fossil fuels to last for hundreds of years if we were allowed to get it … I think it (having you on the show) would make for an interesting segment.

It most certainly will be an interesting segment. I always try to be polite with everyone, and especially so when I’m on the air, but if the subjects of the science of climate change and peak oil comes up (and one has to think it’s likely they will) I propose to ask the host to provide his background in climate science and geology. If, as I suspect, he has none, I’ll gently point out that I honestly don’t understand how intelligent people like him have beliefs that diverge from the commonly accepted positions of science.

I know there are people who believe in astrology, or that the Earth is hollow, as examples. But why? All I know – or think I know – about cosmology or geology is what I’ve read in textbooks in school, or in papers more recently, which are essentially digests of the positions of modern science.  And here, the preponderance (to say the least) of the evidence regarding the formation of the planets would suggest that a hollow Earth isn’t at all likely.

I would even go so far as to say that I’m incapable of seriously entertaining an idea that flies in the teeth of all this.  Shouldn’t anyone be?

Personally, I defer to the thousands of scientists who have spent their lives studying the issue, noting that 97+ of them think that global climate change represents a serious threat to life on Earth.

The work of all these people means something to me.  Why did we study science if we intended to ignore it?