Renewable Energy Hub

That’s not a headline you’ll see. No journalist hounded scientists in the cancer research fields to give a yes or no answer to the question: “Did Mr Smith’s death from  lung cancer come from his smoking habit?” to which the correct scientific answer is: “No one smoker’s cancer death is proof that cancer causes smoking.”

As a result, no headlines blare “Mr Smith’s cancer not due to smoking, say scientists!” – and so most people do understand that the science shows the clear risk of cancer from smoking, heart attacks from high-cholesterol diet, diabetes from sweet junk food and so on, because journalists covered the science scientifically.

We know that the more scientific question is: “Is this cancer projected to occur more often in those with smoking habits like Mr. Smith’s?” This is how we understand risk – in other fields.

But with the results of climate change, journalists seem unable to understand, and communicate the equivalent  “Are climate events like this projected to occur more often resulting from adding more greenhouse gases from fossil-fuel burning?” And the answer to that is: “Yes.”

Because of this media failure, wacky alternative theories about the cause of climate change are on the increase. Islanders losing crops to the sea say evil spirits did it. A highly influential Russian politico in Moscow suspects the broiling weather is being perpetrated on Russia by HAARP. Even flood victims in Pakistan don’t see the connection to global warming.

Read more of this story »