It’s hard to argue with climate change deniers. I suppose they feel the same with believers, but I’ve found it’s hard to argue with folks who use ironic sound bites to make their point. You know the ones I mean; they respond to a particularly cold day with “where’s that global warming?” As if one cold day, or even 20 in a row are a rebuttal. In fact, one of the most pithy of the comments begins with “They thought an ice age was coming in the 70s.” We know this thanks to the likes of Hannity, Beck, and the thousands of myrmidons parroting them. We didn’t know a lot of things in the 70s that we know now. This isn’t an argument that holds any water.

Scientific American reminds us how desperately some people will cling to anything that proves their point, even long after the numbers have changed. Once a little doubt always a little doubt.

How the “Global Cooling” Story Came to Be

The great thing about science is that it’s self correcting, eventually. With the scientific method you’re encouraged, required even, to posit a theory, gather data, perform experiments, and analyze the results. If it fails to prove your hypothesis either you’re wrong or your method of testing is flawed. So, you try something else until you can prove it. Without enough data it’s just belief.

Science is great like that. Scientists argue, sometimes publically about science. They call each other idiots, fools, blind. Some scientists delight in savaging conclusions if only for the cool points. They’re human beings, after all. Personally I’d feel like a fool if years from now I discovered my belief in the importance of trying to manage human effect on climate change was based on flawed or even falsified data. But because they’re human beings and inherently flawed doesn’t mean the science is flawed. I know it’s awfully tempting to judge a belief on the fact all humans are capable of deceit, dishonesty, and treachery. Why, all knowledge is suspect then.

Humans do stupid things when they really want something to be true. They believe it so deeply and viscerally they warp reality to suit their own convictions. When scientists are caught we rightfully root them out, but they’re held up as proof the whole science is suspect. Forget the thousands of other papers supporting the science, go for the scandal! Oral Roberts, Jim Baker, and other religious leaders are always forgiven by their flock, all while secular hawkers sell tickets to the show. But the same lenient sheep turn wolfish on science and it just boggles my mind.

Science demands good data, if only to protect one’s reputation. It turns out there are few retracted papers in this field, but over time old data does become invalidated. That’s what science does! The data instead becomes clearer over time, more refined as we observe more.

Deniers must learn to use science if they wish to prove scientists wrong. There is simply no other way. It’s like trying to win at football using the rules of baseball. Doesn’t work.

Believers need to find ways to effectively deliver good science and root out corruption and bias. They need to communicate more effectively the real meaning of the data, leaving less room for the hecklers and rabble rousers.

And remember; for there to be a conspiracy there must be a motive. I’m having a hard time coming up with a real, sustainable conspiracy managed by a cabal of widely dispersed environmental scientists. Without the billions available to an oil conglomerate they’d find it impossible to manage much more than a few social campaigns on Facebook.

In other words, a few thousand nerdy scientists can’t stop arguing over things like the cancellation of Firefly or the importance of string theory long enough to throw a stone at the giant. They’ve got jobs in the morning and papers to write at night.