DO YOU TRUST THE SCIENCE?

So yesterday I was in a Twitter space where climate change was being discussed. It was an open debate about climate change and possible solutions. Now, as expected in these sorts of debates there are always groups who want to impose their ideas on others with their usual rhetoric.

"You are giving climate-change deniers a platform"

"Trust the science."

I am no expert environmentalist or meteorologist. I rely on debates like this to form an opinion on issues of this nature. Now seeing people actively trying to stop unbiased debate gets me sceptical about their position. I certainly will not listen to someone who tells me to trust the science when he cannot articulate to me what the science says, especially when there is contrary evidence to his or her claim.

Let's revisit the pandemic

The lockdown period was one of the most polarising periods in our history. I was one of the people who agreed to stay at home during the pandemic and I was mad are those who were not taking the safety measures seriously.

However, there was no one in my sphere I know who died from the virus. Was covid a scam? I cannot say but I do believe it wasn't as deadly as most people claimed it was because if it was the case then there should have seen massive deaths in Nigeria where the lockdown measures were nonexistent.

So in a situation like the previous pandemic where there are contrary opinions about the virus and the efficiency of the vaccines amongst different demographics and experts, would it be wrong to question the supposed science? Would it be wrong to have an informed debate about the information we were provided with?

Help me understand

I do not trust the government or its agencies; I do not trust big pharmaceuticals as they profit from selling drugs; I do not trust the media. I am sceptical about every piece of information I receive from supposed verified sources or authorities. The only way I can verify the supposed expert opinions is through open debate

Trust is not scientific. Science is based on empirical evidence. So I don't want to trust the science. I want to review what it says and ensure that data is not easily falsified or represented. When it comes to matters that are beyond my understanding, I rely on open discussion about the subject matter. It is the rational thing to do.

Back to climate change

Now in the case of climate change, most people are clamouring for renewable energy to reduce CO2 emissions. This is an expensive route most emerging economies cannot afford. I do not subscribe to the idea that emerging economies in the global south should cut down on their carbon footprint as they produce less than 10% of global C02 emissions. These economies need cheap fossil fuels to run and develop their economies.

Also, the supposed science isn't the solution. The data (might) say the globe is warming, but it doesn't say anything about stopping C02 emissions, that's just one solution to the problem. There are other solutions and we should have healthy debates on what solutions are best. There is nuclear power, afforestation, etc So we should be exploring these options as well.

Renewable energy sources cannot replace fossil fuels (now). Most rely on energy generated by fossil fuels to be created and sustain. I do believe in the transition away from fossil fuels especially in developed countries where they can afford such changes. However, any radical change to our energy system can have a drastic impact on our species, and even planet.