Unquestioned belief in theories troubling

April 16, 2007 —

There is something I want people who invest a belief in global warming to make note of: the month of March. According to weather.com, March 2007 was one of the coldest Marches in the last decade.

Within the last few years, global warming has become increasingly discussed throughout the country and the world. The hole in the ozone layer is getting larger because of pollution's adverse effects upon our atmosphere. This hole is allowing a larger amount of radiation to enter the lower levels of our atmosphere where it is trapped. This is causing temperatures to gradually rise, the polar icecaps to melt, and so on.

This is the basic theory of global warming. If you look up information on global warming on the Internet, numerous Web sites proclaim this theory as fact, which is an issue: theories are not facts.

To say that there are studies out there that prove global warming is inaccurate for a few different reasons. First, no scientific study is absolute proof. Anyone who has taken basic science courses knows this. Science teachers note that the purpose of the scientific method is to test things over and over, and that at best, all that is created is merely a theory.

Second, the existence of studies to prove global warming means that there must be studies attempting to prove the exact opposite. There are studies and information out there that attempt to dispel global warming. The scientific study of the atmosphere and weather has only existed, with any level of accuracy, for about a century. Furthermore, anyone who pays attention to the weather forecasts knows how inaccurate they can be even today, and yet full merit is given to studies on global weather patterns.

Third, there is often the distinct error of judgment that people make in thinking that science is objective. First and foremost, nothing is objective. Everything is somehow affected by individual opinions, beliefs, and perceptions. The scientist that chooses to devote his time proving global warming has ceased to be objective due to the fact that he does not devote time to the opposite ideology. To prove something, you must also disprove the antithesis of that same thing.

These are the very basic principles of science and even thought. In order to believe in something, to invest in an ideology, a person should question whatever it is. They should seek out the opposing ideologies in an attempt reinforce their own.

The studies that refute global warming note that we cannot know if we are simply in a global warming trend natural to the planet. They say that the icecaps may be melting, but maybe they have been melting forever. They don't deny that we are polluting the planet, but it might take centuries for pollution to have any real effect.

Does this mean that global warming doesn't exist? Is that what I'm getting at? No. My point is so much more basic. I'm trying to get people to realize that they shouldn't just trust in something without questioning it. Most people seem to understand that there are levels of objectivity in politics and the media but ignore that science is just the same. In fact, science is often used in these systems to convey messages, make points and further agendas.

What is the most baffling to me is how people question science when it comes to their faith, but believe the evening news when it tells of new studies showing how chocolate can be healthy for you.