The Guess and Check Podcast

Finally finished a book my girlfriend​ got for me a few months ago, called Merchants of Doubt. In it, the authors cite almost 150 pages of sources, detailing exhaustively how organizations like the heritage foundation and the American enterprise institute received millions of dollars from corporations to sponsor systemic campaigns of misinformation about environmental issues such as global warming, smoking, acid rain, and the overuse of pesticides. these organizations outright denied decades of scientific evidence, exacerbated environmental issues that we still face to this day, and propagated a society that mistrusts science to an unbelievably depressing degree.

Usually, I can tear through books in just a few days. this book took me months, as it utterly shattered my optimistic view the American citizen. According to this book, the average American citizen has a very weak understanding of science. 25% still doubt that the science on smoking is resolved. 25 years after the U.S. national academy of sciences first announced that fossil fuel use led to global warming, and 12 years after H.W. Bush signed the U.N. framework convention on climate change, the media is still putting out the lie that global warming is a debate, and not a settled scientific issue.

Make no mistake, this is not a liberal or conservative media issue; the media in general uses "balance" to promote supposedly equal points of view. This simply does not exist in science generally, and especially in environmental science.

this is not to suggest by any stretch of the imagination that there is an equivalency of misinformation between “liberal” news sources and conservative ones; while the New York Times occasionally frames global warming as a “debate”, the wall street Journal published an article on global warming on June 12th, 1996, accusing a leading climate scientist of fraud in his scientific study. the Wall Street Journal author of the article wrote that information had been deliberately deleted from the climate science study, that the revisions that were released (as a matter of scientific peer review; more on that later.) were eliminating the opinions of climate skeptics, and therefore skewing the results.

this is an unbelievable slight in the scientific world, as it spells an end to any scientific career. If you manipulate data, you are excommunicated from the community and any study you happen to be a part of will rarely if ever be published in any reputable scientific journal. This is a career ending slight that, if true, would have destroyed the climate scientists career.

The climate scientist then drafted a letter to the Wall Street Journal detailing exactly what had happened and why the revisions took place. The letter was signed by 40 of the climate scientists colleagues who had been working on the study for the IPCC with him.

the Wall Street Journal would not publish the letter at first.

After 3 tries to fight the slander that was bing directed towards him, the scientist finally got the letter published. However, the letter was heavily edited, and the scientist’s explanation was so watered down as to hardly matter. Furthermore, when other scientists from the lead investiagtor’s team wrote to the Wall Street Journal, THOSE letters were heavily edited as well, leading to the impression that the lead investigator’s actions were dishonest.

the so-called liberal media does not, as far as I can tel, engage in deliberate misinformation campaigns IN REGARDS TO SCIENCE the same way that blatantly right wing media does. This is a travesty. It is a disgusting smear on scientist’s p[profession and their life’s work, and it must be acknowledged. 

two more points; peer review and a the saying “everyone is entitled to their own opinion”.

First: peer review is a vital process of the publishing of scientific papers that is rarely if ever mentioned in any media “debate.” Rather than succumb to the high level of evidence and argument that peer review demands, many corporations and right wing non profits simply publish their own studies that are never reviewed, never challenged, and who get far greater publicity due to the greater amount of money that goes into their publishing. Peer reviewed scientific studies tend to be read only by other scientists. Corporations make a POINT of publishing their materials to as many people as they can get them too, including state and federal politicians.

this process is utterly vital to the scientific community; by having other experts review each other’s work, logical fallacies are caught, experimental procedures are refined, and the overall quality of the work is improved in the name of truth and factual accuracy. Privately funded studies do not adhere to ANY of these rules when it comes to environmental science.

this leads into a fundamental problem with journalism as a whole; in promoting the idea that “balance” is more important then emphasizing truth, they have created a culture in which the phrase “everyone is entitled to their own opinion” is floated as a justification for views that are utterly impossible to justify factually. this is DISGRACEFUL. We SHOULD NOT presume to lecture scientists on the subject they have studied for decades, and assume that because we read an article in the NY times or the Wall Street Journal that we understand the subject matter as they do. read the PEER REVIEWED LITERATURE from those scientists and you will have a case.

You, the reader, are not entitled to your own opinion when it comes to science, or indeed almost any other subject. there are FACTS, there are OBJECTIVE THINGS TO BE KNOWN, and your opinion is not valid unless you know those objective facts. You do not have my respect, or my blessing, to spout meaningless, emotional, unscientific drivel simply to prop up your moronic beliefs. 

If there is one thing this book has taught me, it is that the need for better education related to critical thinking is more important then ever. We cannot continue to have a population that has such a lack of scientific education and understanding to be so misled by corporations and heritage foundations. This is not eh fault of millennials; we have been systematically screwed over by politicians who do not care for our personal success or our intellectual betterment. We have the means, the intelligence, and the tools with the internet to better ourselves 

Please, as someone who has an incredible passion for science, and more importantly the facts and arguments, take my words seriously. Do not write them off because I am being emotional; this is the single greatest issue that faces our generation. If we do not become better intellectually, if we do not challenge the misinformation campaign head on and become scientifically literate, we will continue to see a further advancement of the status quo. We have already seen the results of this persistence; no meaningful carbon or methane regulatory practices. no serious, adult conversation about the idea that not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. the popularized notion of scientists as arrogant, or pretentious. the rising environmental crises worldwide as a result of rising global temperatures. 

This is not a sustainable trajectory. we must become critical consumers of information, demand better coverage of scientific issues from the media, and recognize when we’re being fed a crock of shit by organizations that don’t give a damn for science, truth, or intellectual progress. they care only for their bottom line, and the sooner we recognize that, the sooner we can change things for the better.

I never ask this, but please, share this post. To my few followers who I know and love intimately, you know how much this issue means to me. I want to reach as many people as possible with this post, if only to spread the idea as far as it can go.

Again, tying this research in with schools seems appropriate given my length previous section on the educational side of teaching and learning critical thinking abilities. According to the Harvard School of Public Health, one in four parents believe that the school their children are attending does not provide enough emphasis to physical education (HCPH 2013). Furthermore, the poll found that 68 percent of parents polled reported that their school does not provide daily physical education classes (HCPH 2013).

Exercise science is well settled on one major point; exercise is good for the whole body, including the brain. However, this is not a fact that is emphasized in public schools, or encouraged by federal policy. Thanks to No Child Left Behind, reading and mathematics scores are deemed more important than the physical health of the student. As stated in the education section, these subjects are important, but without proper exercise to facilitate learning, executive control, and critical thinking, we are shooting our students in the foot before they even begin to run. Since No Child Left Behind was passed, administrators at public schools have reported that physical education, art, and music classes have been cut back drastically in order to comply with the federal regulations.

This is a mistake.

Truly motivational video from Nike inspiring people to fight for victory till the last breath.

From their debut album, I Love you This video should be considered free advertisement for the band and album I own nothing, all credit goes to The Neighbourhood