Scientific discoveries often meet with opposition when they challenge conventional beliefs. Probably the first example of this was Anaxagoras, who was exiled from Athens in 450 BC for proposing that the sun was not Apollo riding his chariot across the sky, but instead a flaming ball. Of course, the most famous example is the Catholic Church’s suppression of Galileo’s work on heliocentrism. But it seems odd, at a time when science so dominates our daily lives — almost every technological advancement in modern times is based upon knowledge gained through science — that there should be opposition to scientific discoveries. But, there is still a Flat Earth Society in existence, and two in five Americans believe in a strict creationist account of human origins.

Of course, in modern times we no longer show our mistrust of science by running scientists out of town or trying them for heresy, but instead opponents use more subtle approaches by obfuscating scientific discoveries through the media. One tactic is to use some particular disagreement between scientists over a minor question and then claim it is a major, if not falsifying, dispute in the field. This tactic has been used repeatedly against evolution. However, cutting-edge research often produces disagreement between scientists on particular points, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that a well-established discovery is about to be overthrown.

Another common tactic is to claim that there is no scientific consensus on an issue. After all, why should nonscientists believe in a finding if not all scientists do? This tactic is very effective because it feeds off of public ignorance of how science works. Science does not work by strict consensus. If it did, one curmudgeon could befuddle the entire scientific enterprise. Instead the scientific community works on a problem until it is “settled” — all scientific views have been stated and reasonably evaluated by the scientific community — and then the scientific community moves on to other questions, leaving stragglers behind.

Today, this tactic of claiming that there is no scientific consensus is used by opponents of the science behind global warming to great effect in the media. However, within the scientific community, there is an “effective” consensus on global warming: global warming is happening, and we are causing it.

In 2009, a survey was conducted of earth scientists. Of the 3,146 respondents, 82 percent said “yes” to the following statement: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” Of those scientists who were climatologists actively publishing in the field, that number rose to 97 percent. So, the more you know about the science, the more you believe that humans are causing global warming. (I’d dare say you couldn’t get 82 percent of Americans to agree on anything that contentious, so that is a pretty effective scientific consensus.)

Add to that the response of scientific organizations whose members number literally in the tens of thousands of working scientists. More than 70 national and international scientific societies have come forward with statements supporting the science behind global warming — most calling for immediate action. The most prestigious society in the U.S., The National Academy of Sciences, made the following statement in 2005: “The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”

Well, I can hear you say, what about those 687 “dissenting scientists” on Senator James Inhofe’s (R-OK) list who are on record as denying global warming? A recent analysis of Inhofe’s list reveals the following: Only 10 percent could be identified definitively as climate scientists, while approximately 80 percent had no refereed publication related to climate research (many were weatherpersons, others economists and social scientists, and some were not even scientists). Some on the list are even on record as accepting the scientific community’s consensus view on global warming. Compare Inhofe’s list now with those listed above and you’ll see a distinct minority of working scientists who are on record as rejecting global warming.

It seems that as long as people seek the truth about our natural world, there will be others who will try to obfuscate that truth.

Readers can email the author at: jm.horner@yahoo.com

From left, Garrett W. Jacobs, Nick Hellbusch and founder David Amster-Olszewski set up SunShare to build community solar gardens in Colorado Springs. Photo by Andrew Wineke