This week I think I’m going to take my readers on a ride through various thoughts of mine regarding global warming and climate change and take you through arguments I have heard from both sides of the spectrum. In my mind, climate change isn’t necessarily settled science. There are still many questions that need answered. As we answer more and more questions, a picture becomes more clear and eventually the world will come to a conclusion.

The main item I want to discuss with you is a segment I saw take place between Tucker Carlson and Bill Nye “the Science Guy” on Tucker Carlson tonight on Fox News. Yes, I can hear the moans and groans right now (if you want to know my opinion on bias, come talk to me at one point). Let’s be clear, I barely watch the news anymore and the only guy I really enjoy watching is Tucker Carlson. I think he can be considered a generally fair guy with tons of experience. He’s forty-seven and has worked for CNN (youngest anchor ever), MSNBC, Fox News, and was editor-and-chief for The Daily Caller. On the other hand, is Bill Nye, who many of you probably know. Technically he is a mechanical engineer, not a scientist, but he gained wide notoriety for his show Bill Nye the Science Guy that ran from 1993 to 1998. You could probably consider the man a national treasure.

Anyway, these two men had a great conversation on global warming and climate change. I believe some very important questions were asked. The segment started out with Tucker making reference to a live event that Nye had with Bernie Sanders in which Bill Nye claimed skeptics of global warming suffer from the psychological delusion of cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is a type of stress experienced by individuals who perform actions contradictory to their beliefs. Bill Nye began the conversation on how scientists are trying to understand how skeptics think and why their world view is not connecting with evidence being put forth by the scientific community. The two then turned their discussion towards skepticism, in which Carlson argues that skepticism is important in many aspects of our lives, especially science. I agree with that thought. I think we should always question our hypotheses and what we know. That’s even more important when we get new information, right? Bill Nye believes that “deniers” now go beyond skepticism. A true statement. If you are in denial, then you go beyond mere skepticism to completely taking a side. He furthers by saying there is overwhelming evidence of climate change they refuse to accept.

This is where the conversation takes an interesting turn. Tucker reframes the conversation claiming he believes that most people accept that climate change is a thing. I personally agree, I think we have proven that climate change is very real. Evidence suggest our planet has experienced many climate changes ranging from super warm periods to ice ages. I would say we experience a shift every day. At least through my understanding. Then Tucker adds on the part I am still trying to figure out, is climate change at this point natural or do humans play a large part in it? If humans do play a part, how much of the change is a result of us and our activities? Bill Nye answers those questions. He claims on the segment that the question is settled and humans play a large part in the warming of our planet. The reply to this assertion is one I find important though. Tucker asks, “To what degree is climate change caused by human activity?” Bill Nye clearly has difficulty answering this question and is only able to provide anecdotal evidence. He claims that changes that would happen in a 15,000-year period take place over a few decades. Other evidence includes people in Europe able to grow grapes on land farther north and how opening new ski slopes is difficult. To me this shows the difficulty with quantifying the effect of humans on climate.

In my opinion, truly knowing the cause of humans on the climate of our planet is an almost impossible question to answer. We make conclusions based on changes in various factors on our planet. Say the temperature rises a degree and at the same time carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rises 2%. Now we make conclusions from the data. So, one side might claim that the increasing carbon dioxide increased the temperature of the planet. On the other side, they might claim the temperature was rising due to other factors and it caused ice to melt, thus releasing more carbon dioxide into our atmosphere. The planet Earth is a complex ecosystem constantly affected by more variables than we can really understand all at once. It’s like the most complex equation placed in front of humans. What I figure is our science is at too early of a stage to completely understand how all of the factors affecting our planet connect and our view is currently to narrow. Look how long it took for us to figure out the Earth was a globe and people still claim it’s flat. Yeah, I’m looking at you Shaquille O’Neal… The best way to really confirm the human kinds’ effects on our planet is a controlled experiment, but for that to happen we would need another planet exactly like Earth, in every single way, without people. Then we could track the changes that planet faces compared to ours. That’s a pretty tall order because we probably will never find another planet like Earth. With that we would be able to definitely know, but since we don’t we’re kind of working on partial knowledge. Of course, I could be wrong in my assertions but something I have learned in my time is that you can manipulate almost any study or piece of information to achieve your desired result or confirmation of a hypothesis. That’s why I believe skepticism is always important.

In the overall discussion, I think Bill Nye was left at a disadvantage. These are tough questions that were asked and I’m positive he didn’t have all the required info sitting in front of him to answer them. At the same time, perhaps that extends to the scientific community. Perhaps we aren’t as sure as we claim and there is more to the issue than we can possibly grasp? I’m clearly no expert and as much reading as I have done, I only have a limited view. Scientists perhaps know most of the answers or maybe they are claiming more than they really know. With climate change there are so many different sides to the argument with information that supports all sides. Like I have said earlier, facts can be spun to support a side even if the overall picture doesn’t. With this in mind, I urge everyone to be skeptical. Be skeptical of the millionaires claiming global warming is destroying the planet while they fly in their private jets, be skeptical of the people claiming global warming is a giant money laundering scheme to make the rich even richer, be skeptical of the scientists who claim they know everything. The truth is that climate science is still early in its progress, by age. It will take time to build a consensus. Tough questions have answers that are tough to come by. Most people didn’t believe Copernicus when he claimed the Earth wasn’t at the center of the universe. He died before the Copernican Revolution really took off. That’s why it is important to be skeptical of your view and the views of others. Eventually climate science will be settled, but I don’t think today is that day yet.