It has often been said that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but aphorisms, being as they are misconstrued from time to time, have switched this once important life lesson into an excuse to outright ignore facts that don’t fit with one’s goals.
Near the end of September, the Associated Press added the term “climate change doubter” to its style guide as the official term for deniers of climate change (deniers in the sense that they just refuse to admit that facts are true).
The AP style guide has effectively created a situation where people who believe they are entitled, to doubt facts now have a term that makes it seem like a rational, informed decision. As the debate on climate change continues, and the decisions we make become more and more crucial, giving equal value to the opinions of climate change deniers ignores that they are creating their own facts.
Issues of national debate, as you might expect, tend to be rather complex. Often, the narratives that govern these issues are split down the middle. One side being for and one side being against. You’re pro-choice or pro-life, you’re for or against the war in Iraq, you believe or you don’t believe in climate change. This sounds fair, but it has an unintended side-effect. Both sides are given equal attention in coverage and in respect of their opinion. This is perfectly appropriate for ethical debates, but in the case of issues like climate change, the act of being fair leads to the opinion of climate change deniers being taken hand-in-hand with actual scientific fact.
In the eyes of the public, the debate then seems to be between equal sides with an equally valid opinion. But in the case of climate change, that just doesn’t hold up. The debate tends to be between an overwhelming majority of the scientific community, that for some reason wants to destroy America’s economy, versus the super villains from “Captain Planet.” I’m hyperbolizing obviously, but the point remains. A wildly one-sided debate is being broadcast as an equal contest.
For its part in furthering this problem, the Associated Press presented a title to denialists that most would wear proudly. Their rationale was simple. They wanted to use the term “climate change doubter” instead of climate change denier, because, in their words, “those who reject climate science say the phrase denier has the pejorative ring of Holocaust denier.” If that sounds stupid to you, that’s because it is.
Doubt or skepticism implies critical thought and a full understanding of the topic. The issue however, is that most climate change skeptics have neither thought critically about climate change, nor do they understand it. By condoning the use of the title “climate change doubter,” we inadvertently give credence to an ideology that supports itself on just not knowing what they are talking about, while legitimizing it as a rational need for more evidence.
On a practical level, this creates a segment of the population that empowers decisions ignoring climate change. Even as an elected leader, it is rather easy to outright come out as being ignorant of the scientific research but still be willing to make decisions based on opinion rather than their actual knowledge. The long list of people that have done exactly this would be a little depressing to write, so instead we will focus on Sen. Marco Rubio, who once stated rather proudly, “I’m not a scientist” to avoid talking about the subject of climate change.
It’s a very confusing sentiment when one considers that he has based part of his political platform on outright denying man’s connection to global climate change.
Unfortunately for Sen. Rubio, facts don’t really care if you’re not a scientist and scientists don’t have a monopoly on them. Leaders like Sen. Rubio are able to take such wildly ridiculous stances because we allow unfounded opinions to stand with verified fact. It’s certainly not all the Associated Press’s fault, but it didn’t help.
In one week, the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference will begin. The hope is that it will mark the first global step towards reducing the harmful emissions threatening to exacerbate the problems caused by man-made climate change. In that time, many of us are likely to watch the news and maybe even have an assignment on the conference. During that time however, we have to remember that neither opinion nor fact should be without scrutiny, but in that same thought, realize that there is a clear difference between the two.
David Garcia is a first-year graduate student in energy science. He can be reached at [email protected].
