You cannot make an accurate conclusion on climate change until you have looked at the experimental data yourself. The reason is because people who have looked at the data have made claims that climate change is both real and threatening, and that it is not. It is impossible to know who is telling the truth, so the only way you can truly know if climate change is real or not is if you look at experimental data and interpret it with the scientific method.
There is no room for opinion in the scientific method. It is purely objective, yet arguments over the existence of climate change still persist in politics. The fact that people have looked at the evidence and have come to differing conclusions is contradictory. It points out that someone is using the scientific method incorrectly. Climate change can never be proven, it can only be supported by data or rejected by data. If everyone interpreted the data in a way that is true to the scientific method, they would all come to the same conclusion: that either climate change is real, not real, or cannot be determined with the available data.
At this point in time, there is a large body of “evidence” that supports climate change and its adverse effects as told by the mainstream media, but the media typically fails to provide specific experimental data and interpret it in terms of the scientific method. Therefore, it is impossible to know if they are telling the truth. I doubt that a mainstream news anchor spends his or her time reading studies on climate change, trying to understand it.
In August 2015, the New York Times ran an article that attributed the drought in California to climate change, saying that “[e]ven though the findings suggest that the drought is primarily a consequence of natural climate variability, the scientists added that the likelihood of any drought becoming acute is rising because of climate change.” The author of a scientific study was quoted, and a link to the study was provided on the NYT website, but at no point in the article was specific scientific data printed and critically analyzed. It is very hard to take climate change seriously when all you ever see is “scientists warn” and “evidence shows” in the media.
You can spend time trying to guess why people have their own specific opinion on climate change, but in the end, it is wasted time, because there is only one answer, and you can only know that answer by looking at the data yourself and truly understanding it in an unbiased manner. It is stupid to believe in climate change because you saw an article on the Huffington Post about a “world-renowned scientist’s dire warning.” The media is a business, and the company with the best product makes the most profit. The best product in news reporting is the most exciting news. Sometimes the truth is warped in order to make it more entertaining, so the media is not always the most reliable source for information on climate change.
Climate change has become extremely politicized, as seen in America’s two political party’s differing policy approaches towards it. Some think that it is a tool used by politicians to cause fear and gain control. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said in an interview on Fox News that climate change is a “big scam for a lot of people to make a lot of money.”
Climate change causes fear. It is scary to think that human activity harms the entire planet. But the fear has no foundation. It is based upon debate after debate and news article after news article. There are so many differing opinions, all of which are worthless. You can only know if climate change is real by reading the data yourself and understanding it with the scientific method. So I implore you: if you have never looked at the data, please do not participate in the discussion.
