In response to D. Horne’s sweeping generalisation that ‘deniers are wrong’, I’d like to point out that there is truth to the statement that science is never settled. I direct him to the University of Berkeley’s Museum of Paleontology website which lists a number of common misconceptions that lay people have regarding science. Two of these relate to what he said and may help enlighten him:
Misconception #1: Science is complete.
Correction: “It’s easy to think that science is finished. This is far from accurate. Science is an ongoing process, and there is much more to learn about the world. In fact, in science, making a key discovery often leads to many new questions ripe for investigation. Scientists are constantly elaborating, refining, and revising established scientific ideas based on new evidence and perspectives.”
Misconception #2: Science proves ideas.
Correction: “Journalists often write about ‘scientific proof’ and some scientists talk about it, but in fact, the concept of proof – real, absolute proof – is not particularly scientific. Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it. Science accepts/rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them.”
It is thanks to people who question and challenge so-called ‘facts’ that human life and society grow and progress.
If Galileo Galilei lived today, Mr Horne would probably also label him a conspiracy theorist or ‘denier’ for supporting the Copernican system’s model of the solar system centred on the Sun.
He also claims that, given time, he could name 150,000 scientists yet himself could not provide even one name.
For his benefit, here is a site that provides the names of 500 scientists and professionals who wrote and signed a letter to the UN Secretary-General stating there is no climate emergency, led by Prof Guus Berkhout of the Netherlands (https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/there-is-no-climate-emergency-say-500-experts-in-letter-to-the-united-nations/).
Furthermore, scientific evidence and perspectives are not always about quantity but quality.
I find it very irresponsible to label critical thinkers as ‘deniers’ and ‘are wrong.’ If we cannot question the status quo, how are we expected to evolve and grow into intelligent human beings?
There are also always two sides to any issue – each with their valid arguments.
Finally, to further support the notion that science is never settled I quote from this website (nzcpr.com/climate-change-alarmism/#more-37371):
“On the basis of recent science, the UN has halved to only 2.5°C its prediction of global temperatures by the year 2100… The collapse of long-standing global warming expectations is largely the result of the UN’s belated rejection of the most extreme scenario of future emission levels – known as RCP8.5.
This unrealistic input to climate models has for many years applied a massive upward distortion to the calculation of likely future temperatures.
The implications are huge, since all reports produced by the Climate Commission, NIWA, the Ministry for the Environment, the Department of Internal Affairs, and many other agencies, are based on the now obsolete PCR8.5 and SSP5-8.5 scenarios and will need to be redone.”
Obsolete – ergo, the previous scientific facts have changed. Science is, thus, not settled.
Dr Lilia Sevillano, Howick
