Is anyone really an expert? Yes, yes they are.

There is overwhelming evidence for climate change. Period.

This climate change is caused by the stupid selfish shit we are all doing.

Yet people, politicians, and all sorts of self-proclaimed experts without any credible counter-evidence, credentials or authentic expertise - or even common sense for that matter - will say things like “I don’t believe in climate change.” To which the only reasonable response is – “So what.” I don’t believe in the Tooth Fairy but it has no relevance to anyone’s dental practice.

The point is this, there are literally thousands of peer-reviewed studies showing the same thing. Don’t believe “speculative science” is legit? Okay, fine, but it doesn’t it make any less so, as Neil deGrasse Tyson has pointed out. The problem, however, is that some of the people who would seek to undermine and even have and propagate a disdain for expertise, are actually in positions of power or influence those who are.

For instance, we have pretty much an entire political party that does not “believe” in climate change. Are you kidding me? Science by its very nature is not based on belief. One can argue that cold hard materialist reductionism is insufficient to explain all of life’s mysteries (this is where I break with people like Tyson), however, as the name suggests materialism is pretty damn useful for explaining the behavior of the material universe and its constituent elements.

Even common sense would tell us (although again it doesn’t have to because we have evidence) that the planet is being made uninhabitable for human beings. Our planet is a finite space, like our backyards. And you can only shit in your own backyard for so long before your backyard is full of shit (feel free to quote this profundity).

And “climate change deniers” are just the tip of the melting iceberg. The Internet era has given a platform and even an audience to all manner of charlatans espousing all sorts of “theories” that run counter to what authentic peer-reviewed scholarship suggests is far far far more likely.

1. The United States never landed on the moon. This one is way too easy. Do these yahoos realize that the Soviet Union acknowledged the fact that this happened? Do these people really think that during the heart of the Cold War, that if there were a shred of evidence (I mean real evidence) that this was a ruse that the USSR would have sat back idly and let the U.S. win this extremely vital showdown in the propaganda war? Come on.

2. The earth from which the U.S. apparently never launched satellites and spacecraft is in fact flat. So we’re back to this notion disproved five centuries ago? Really? Dude, even the Pope thinks you are out of your mind. Yes, all of those images of the Earth from above were all fabricated. Even though science, common sense, and visual fucking evidence prove without a reasonable doubt that the Earth is not flat…I just can’t.

3. The Earth is only 6000 years old. Those who believe this tend to cite pseudo-science and the Bible. First of all, it is amazing to me that this matters so much. If you believe in God (an area where belief would be appropriately applied) then the power, glory and magnificence of that eternal power is neither diminished nor enhanced by the age of you, me, the Earth or anything else. The idea that carbon and other types of radiometric dating are not 100% reliable is often mentioned. This is true. However – the scientific reliability of religious texts is somewhere around 0%.

So why does this happen? Where does this distrust of the experts come from?

A lot of it, like a lot of everything else, stems from greed and selfishness. Making the changes necessary to limit or reverse the global climate crisis would require a loss of profit for corporations (at least initially) and a whole lot of sucky sacrifices for the rest of us.

Much of it stems from a literalist interpretation of religious texts. If scientific models can forecast the future with accuracy, they can also make accurate judgments about how old the Earth is and how life may have evolved since then. To some, this undermines their non-empirical belief systems, which again I don’t quite understand in that by nature religious beliefs are metaphysical rather than physical.

A sense of powerlessness also drives these delusions. The scientists and other academics are viewed as an elite class that through birthright (certainly not because of thousands of hours of commitment and hard work) unfairly get to decide how one should view the world around them. People feel oppressed. And rightfully so. There are a ton of powerful entities that threaten our liberties and wellbeing. But scientists, historians and anthropologists are not the oppressors one should be concerned about.

It is not shocking that many of the people who gravitate toward alternative “theories,” buy the idea that real peer-reviewed, fact checked and accountable news outlets are fake and unsubstantiated fake news is real are adolescents. Blind rebellion against authority is a common part of asserting one’s burgeoning adulthood and independence. It is annoying as hell in my history classroom, but also presents teachable moments. What is surprising, and more than a little bit alarming, is the fact that there are grown ass men and women who have mentally foreclosed on rebellion against what they still view as an untrustworthy “system.”

The system is rigged against them. Rather than exhibit the patience, hard work, and attention to detail it requires to actually learn the methodology that can allow one to legitimately challenge authority, they simply deny the legitimacy of the system and its methodologies and feel vindicated. The playing field has been leveled. Now my ignorance is on par with or even superior to your “false” knowledge.

This is dangerous. Now, rather than applauding hardworking and committed experts and taking advantage of their expertise to enrich one’s own understanding of the world around us, one not only lacks the skills necessary to apply a healthy skepticism in a manner that would be impactful, some even join the chorus of liars in demonizing the experts.

I have a master’s degree in American history from a State University in New York. This is not a super prestigious accomplishment by any means but it did require commitment to a craft. I have more expertise than some but far far less than lots of other people that put in the extra work and further study. When I read the works of PHDs in history, or psychology, biology or astrophysics, I have the right to question their theses. However, I cannot do so without credible evidence. But here’s the thing, I generally accept at least the plausibility of what these experts have to say. It is not because I’m some kind of lemming that blindly follows the experts, it is not because I don’t question authority or don’t have unique thoughts of my own - it is because I do not have to do the heavy lifting of challenging these experts, at least not in the areas in which I was not trained. Why? Because they do it themselves. Maybe climate science is bunk. Guess what? This will eventually come to light. Not because some adolescent minded individual living in his mama’s basement at age 35 “doesn’t believe” or because some politician is trying to get reelected, but because the process of scientific investigation will have provided sufficient evidence to substantiate a new theory. At that point should I and all the climate scientists feel embarrassed for our former naivety? Absolutely not. It will be likely that the next theory that (hypothetically) renders the current one incorrect will have been built from the foundations of the current on it is replacing.


(image from nationalgeographic.com)