Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.
Support the IDS in College Media Madness! Donate here March 24 - April 8.
Friday, March 29
The Indiana Daily Student

opinion

COLUMN: The ideas behind climate change require no debate

One thing you learn as a science major is how few things in science are almost completely agreed upon across the board.

Almost everything in science is constantly in flux, and for an academic, that is great because it allows so many intelligent people to have real debates about ribosomal structures, protein structure and chemical 
mechanisms.

Which is why, when the majority of scientists agree on something, it is so essential to pay attention because it doesn’t happen very often.

That’s why I think paying attention to the concerns relating to climate change is so important. Humans’ role in causing it is supported by over 90 percent of scientists. This number is astronomical for scientists.

The president-elect’s selection of a climate-change denier for his EPA transition team and his comments on the Paris Agreement is a cause 
for worry.

Climate change is a fact. The world is getting warmer. Since the 1980s, the average temperature of the world has grown 
rapidly.

Leading scientists since the 1960s have all attributed this to human-made carbon emissions. It seems like the scientific community has made up its mind: global warming is real, it is caused by us and it is a pressing danger. Yet, we continue to ignore these studies because the regulations are hurting the very industries that caused the problem. It’s just us that don’t want to see 
the truth.

I understand climate change isn’t sexy. Hardly anyone is likely to become famous for supporting it . I also understand that it will hurt jobs in mining and manufacturing. But there really aren’t two sides to this story.

As much as we would like it to not be the case, the majority of these scientists will receive more grant money to pursue their sciences if they are proven correct.

Some may get a bonus from their university or their research institute or a fellowship or prize that will provide them with a lot of money. But the majority won’t.

Yet, we seem to think people involved with the mining industry don’t have their own biases. Why are we reporting these views points as equivalent of peer-reviewed science and not as the crock that they are?

Not everyone in the world is a climate scientist, but doesn’t that mean that we should be listening to people who are?

Maybe instead of arguing about Mr. President-elect’s tweets or his eating habits or where he decides to live in the future, we should focus on something that will affect us all, whether we deny it or not.

Get stories like this in your inbox
Subscribe