The science is still out on that ....

Unfortunately the earth is still flat if conservatives have their way.

*sighs*

Okay.

Science hasn't always been right.  (There I said it.)  In fact, science is based on a lot of theory because it's difficult to prove such things otherwise.

HOWEVER ...

Let's use some common sense about the basics as we know it.

If we stop embracing what science tells us - then we're only going to revert into a country that's lagging behind in science (oops, we are now.)  To deny that "the science is out" basically eliminates nearly everything around us from manufacturing, to computers, to the internet, to the clothing we wear or the houses we live in.  It negates your existence to view this entry.  Period.

We are all products of innovations made as a result of science.

Think on that when you want to utter "the science is still out on that."

Can scientists disagree?  Absolutely.  It wouldn't be a peer-reviewed setting if other scientists didn't test and refute their findings based on scientific fact.

Read that again.

It's not faith-based fact.
It's scientific fact.
It's not based on money.
It's not based on capitalism.
It's not based on some political leaning.
It's a basis of fact conceived through scientific principles that man has relied on from the beginning.

When you have scientists - saying: "this (insert thing here) is happening," then it should be at least considered.  At the very least the information should be examined and thoughtfully considered.  Even if it cuts against what you have known, science tests our ability to rationalize the process and conclusions reached by someone else's study.

Good scientists keep an open mind at all times and don't shut doors.

Will there be dissenters?  Yes.

Will there be disagreements? Yes.
Will there be conflicting opinions?  Yes.
Can scientists be bought to say whatever they're paid to say?  Yes.

Good scientists can dismiss the distractions and focus on the applicable science before them.  Good scientists won't be swayed by political opinions, personal beliefs or peer pressure.

The problem with science is that it is as easily corruptible as journalism has become.  With an infusion of politics - how can we expect scientists to remain professionally neutral when there's money, funding and careers at stake?

The narrative isn't: "does climate change exist or not."  The real narrative is: "how can we rely that our scientists are looking at the evidence without skewed lenses?"

It's perfectly okay to disagree on account of fact and evidence.  I'm all over that.  But I can prove to you that the earth is not flat because we have a curvature thing going on and we have some pictures from others that have (supposedly) been to space that can prove the earth is round.

If your science says the earth is still flat despite my evidence and if you're going to stand by that, then it's going to be impossible to agree.  Further: it is flawed to rely on an outdated, proven otherwise belief.  We are beyond that now.  Why keep with the ... "I don't know, the science may still be out on that" bit?

Let's skip forward a bit to climate change.

It's completely naive to believe that human existence has not affected the earth. 
- Species have died and have gone extinct because of us.  59 different species that once roamed the earth no longer do because of our interference in their existence.
- We have rerouted water supplies to suit our needs while changing the ecosystem that benefited from the original source water.
- We have plowed the earth to plant crops over existing land, plants and animals.  We have disrupted our ecosystem for the basis of pro-profit farming and ranching.
- We have cities that cover fields of earth with tar and asphalt so that we can park our vehicles.
- We poison and pollute the water supplies by dumping our refuse into streams and lakes to "tolerable levels" because manufacturers and factories don't have any other place to dump their shit after.
- We exhausted our earth's resources so that we're afforded luxuries and other "necessities" we have in our lives.  Our homes.  Our cars.  Our jobs.

We also live in a society that focuses on the capitalistic greed.  When there is an obvious and apparent financial motivation involved, then that should be figured into someone's prevailing opinion.  It's a belief process that has been woven into the politics and belief structure of our society.  When that belief or an intervening bias that interferes with the scientific analysis, then that opinion is tainted and can't be considered reliable.

There's the grand conspiracy by climate change deniers that there's a huge financial windfall involved with the climate change movement.  One tiny problem: there's no proof.  None.  If there's a conspiracy then show me the money.  Except - there is money at stake when it comes to the deniers as they are protecting their corporate interests.  They are afraid of the constraints and costs involved to protect the environment.  They stand to lose a lot of money if controls are put in place to impede or stop their toxic output.

Now .... to be fair.....

I will fully admit that there's a lot of pressure to "own up to climate change."

Problem: it impedes scientific opinion when the pendulum swings too far in the other direction so that the pressure and influence forces just to get another voice to sign on.

*sighs*

So.

If we can truly admit that there's an overt bias on the right and intense peer pressure from the left, then we can remove the defective opinions and rely on what we know and what we see.

We affect change to animals on this planet: true.
We affect change on the our environment when we lay down roads, when we erect buildings and houses: also true.
We affect change to our water supply by the contaminants we pollute them with: again, true.

So when the argument is made that "the science is out that," I shake my head and close my eyes to the helpless perspective of those that want to sit in denial than consider the evidence seriously without their Mr. Money Bags Monopoly blinders on.

Create an argument rooted in fact and evidence so that it's reliable, then we can have an honest discussion on climate change.

Then maybe we can start working on dismantling that whole "the science is still out with that" bullshit.