Scientific Skepticism | Dr. Steven J. Allen

97% is a number you might have heard a lot in the last few years. That’s the number of scientists who supposedly believe in global warming theory. That 97% claim is questionable, but let’s ask the more important question: why do we find the idea of consensus convincing at all? The terms “Global Warming Skeptic” and “Climate Change Skeptic” are insults, but those who use this line of attack ignore that science only works when there are skeptics. Science is rooted in replicable research and experimentation. A scientist examines an existing set of facts, and concocts a theory that explains those facts. He or she makes a prediction to test that theory. If the prediction comes true, that constitutes evidence to support the theory. If the prediction fails, that undermines the theory, and the scientist goes back to the drawing board. It doesn’t matter whether a scientist is on the payroll of the American Cancer Society or a tobacco company, whether he is a Communist, or a Jew or a Baptist, beats her spouse, or volunteers at a soup kitchen. Only the evidence counts.

But what happens when someone gets the evidence wrong and it needs correction? That’s what critical peer review, aka “skepticism,” is for. In biomedical sciences, non-replication rates are estimated to range between 75 to 90 percent. Venture capital firms now take it for granted that 50 percent of published academic studies cannot be replicated. Imagine what would be done in those cases if there were no skeptics. Business and medicine would be at a standstill. If climate skeptics end up being correct, those attempting to silence them will go down in history alongside the members of the “scientific consensus” that, in years past, agreed that the earth was the center of the universe, that continental drift was impossible, that canals existed on Mars, and that evils such as white supremacy and eugenics were scientifically true.

When told of a publication entitled “100 Authors Against Einstein,” Albert Einstein reputedly said, “Why one hundred? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.” Science cannot function if skeptics are harassed and ostracized. When someone is challenging a scientific consensus with facts and logic, that’s to be encouraged, not dismissed due to politics. Argument, not anathemas, is the way to approach scientific issues surrounding climate changes. To learn more, you can read our study on Climate Change advocacy at climatedollars.org. I’m Dr. Steven J. Allen, thanks for watching..

Conservatives Avoid Global Warming Talk During Heat Wave

And along these same lines, not nearly as serious, although the argument could be made it actually could effect just as many or more people, we’ve been having this insane heat wave recently, Louis, all over the country, especially here in the Northeast. And, I mean, I’m wearing shorts now, I’ll admit it. I won’t show you, but I am wearing shorts. My bottoms are shorts. And maybe Louis, too, I can’t even tell from where I’m sitting. Louis: I am, yeah. David: Notice that the conservative talkers, including Fox News, aren’t mentioning that the heat wave proves that there’s global warming, right? Because you remember, Louis, if it’s cold in winter, we’ll hear Fox News saying oh, there’s obviously no global warming here. In fact, take a listen to this. Steve Doocy: Despite it being bitterly cold outside in the northern plains, we hear a lot about global warming.

David: Right. Despite it being incredibly cold in a part of the country where it’s incredibly cold during the winter… Doocy: Perhaps we should be worried now about global cooling. David: Right. You’re not hearing anything now. This is an insane heat wve, you’re not going to hear a word about it from Fox News. And the reality is that individual instances of hot or cold weather, as we know… Louis: I mean, in reality, yes, this is not proof that there’s global warming. David: However, you know what’s interesting? NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt actually said that it’s, quote, “very probable that any particular heat wave happening now will be shown to have [been] more likely a result of global warming,” adding that of all the different extreme events that can happen, the partial attribution of heat waves to ongoing climate change is actually one of the easier connections to make. I’m not making the connection, NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt is; my point is.

.. Louis: Yeah, we’re just saying Fox only talks about what’s convenient for them.\ David: If it’s cold one day during winter, it’s proof that global warming doesn’t exist, however, three weeks of hundred-degree temperatures in Massachusetts during the summer, no mention of anything. No mention of anything. So it’s time to wake up here and stop the whole equivocating on this issue. It’s time to stop putting everything on equal footing. On the one hand, 99% of scientists say global warming is a real issue and can be attributed to man’s activities, and on the other hand, we managed to find a handful of scientists who say maybe it’s not, right? It’s not on the same level. Louis: Global warming is just, is a small part of the bigger picture. If we’re not looking at alternative energies, alternative fuels, ways to be clean and efficient, then that’s an even bigger problem. David: Not only that, I misspoke, global warming is not even the right term to be using, it’s actually climate change. Louis: Climate change, right.

David: Climate change, because it’s really about more erratic and unpredictable climate behavior than it is just about it being warmer than average. Louis: Right. David: Let’s talk about what’s happening on today’s bonus show, because we’ll be talking about fake Apple stores in China. And Louis before the show was going on one of his insane anti-China rants. And again, Louis has no problem with Chinese people nor Chinese anything, but he does seem to have a big problem with the Chinese government, do you not? Louis: I do. David: So expect a rant from Louis on today’s bonus show. Also, a man indicted in a semen-tainted yogurt case, very bizarre story that Louis, very, very interested in covering and discussing at..

. in great detail, I think it’s fair to say. And a South African man presumed dead wakes up in a morgue. You know what? I’ve had dreams where that happens to me, where I’m worried that somebody thinks I’m dead, and therefor they’re doing whatever, and then I wake up, and it’s not a good situation. Louis: We’ll just have to tattoo “Open Eyes” on your eyelids. It’ll never happen. David: Right. I don’t even understand what Louis is talking about, but I’m sure he’ll explain it to us on the bonus show. So www.DavidPakman.com/membership. Of course, you’ll also get the full podcast commercial-free. Back after this. We’ll be talking to Cenk Uygur about leaving MSNBC. Is he still on good terms? I don’t know. Announcer: The David Pakman Show at www.DavidPakman.

com. Transcript provided by Subscriptorium Multimedia Linguistic Services. For transcripts, translations, captions, and subtitles, or for more information, visit www.Subscriptorium.com, or write us at subscriptorium@gmail.com..