Get with the program: Why deny science?

A few years ago, I read a novel about the 1889 Johnstown, Penn., flood entitled, “In Sunlight, in a Beautiful Garden.” Through the book and my subsequent research, I learned the captains of industry who owned the South Fork Dam and Resort on Lake Conemaugh chose to ignore or deny a number of reports describing structural weaknesses in the South Fork Dam.

As the National Park Service web site for the Johnstown Flood National Memorial notes, “The life and death of the South Fork Dam is a story of an immense structure that was never given the care such a structure demanded.” The result was the destruction of an entire town and the deaths of more than 2,000 people.

I see a parallel to current attitudes about science. For example, instead of accepting the consensus of 97 percent of scientists (who state our climate is changing due to human activity) and working to institute corrective actions, we have politicians and media pundits denying climate change exists. So . . . are they telling us we should throw our science curriculum out the window? And will they quit going to the doctor?

Speaking of medicine, some of these same science deniers shout loudly about ethical dilemmas like abortion. One of the favorite arguments against it, especially for procedures after 20 weeks, is “fetal pain.” However as a recent Salon article noted, doctors know the nervous system in fetuses is not developed enough to register pain until at least 24 weeks. That is a fact. As the doctor interviewed notes, “Science is not going to get the brain to connect faster.”

So in this case, denials are made to hide the truth.

And ultimately for some science deniers, such protests against reality may reflect a genuine belief tied to their religion of choice. As a Christian, I personally do not believe the tenets of my faith and the facts of science are mutually exclusive.

But in the case of climate change, I suggest the drivers behind the denial narrative are motivated by something more base – money.

If you track the funding behind the few studies refuting global climate change, you’ll find corporations and individuals who make money via the offending pollutants, e.g. coal, oil and chemicals. And the politicians who deny climate change is caused by human activity are financially tied to these companies.

Meanwhile across the world, our denial of facts endangers all life forms. For example, whole hives of honey bees are dying off, and we rely on them to pollinate our crops. If they disappear, how will we sustain our food supply? Or will we be next?

And we know climate change is occurring from our observation of extreme weather events: last year’s drought followed by this spring’s cold, wet weather, not to mention 70-degree temps in August. From the last decade we can add: Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy; massive tornadoes in Joplin, Mo., and Moore, Okla., to name just two; and major winter snow storms, now being named like hurricanes.

So we can continue to deny reality or we can take action. Because the truth is businesses across the world have been adjusting for years. Ask an insurance actuary. They have been re-writing rates according to weather patterns and locations for at least 25 years.

I think it’s time the rest of us got with the program.