Are we sure we are really ‘following the science’?

Now I don’t think that phrase, “follow the science” means what we think it means. I know we hear it a lot, but I’d like to show three instances when it just doesn’t really mean what we think it means.

Since it has been the big news for months, let’s start with the COVID-19 or SARS-2 virus. We were told from the start that we needed to listen to the experts and the science. But it seemed early on those experts weren’t following any kind of science. First it was, “It’s not a big deal” to, “Everyone needs to lock down and pray the Angel of Death passes over your house.”

Then we were told that masks are not effective and if you wear them for long periods, they can cause other health issues. (Check the National Institute of Health Study 2015). Now we are told that if we do not wear masks PEOPLE WILL DIE!

Our very own governor has been screaming at us to follow the science and yet he now says the CDC site has bad information. The CDC and Dr. Fauci have both stated that schools should be open for in-person teaching, but our governor is following the teachers union over the “experts” and science.

The next science hoax concerns the repository at Yucca Mountain. The state of Nevada for years has been telling us the science does not support the safe construction and operation of the national repository at Yucca Mountain. Funny, all the national labs agreed with the report of hundreds of scientists’ work after spending 15 billion dollars on it. The review staff at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission(NRC) believe the science supports construction and operating it will be safe, yet the state of Nevada contends that they have other science to refute this science and yet they continue to fight having the NRC hear the science.

I really wish they would follow the science of this issue, not the politicians.

The last example is global warming - I’m sorry it is global climate change now. First off, let me say I absolutely believe that there is global climate change, as it happens all the time. The problem I have with this “science” is that the amount of input they use to form a reasonable hypothesis is far too small to make decision that would affect the entire world’s economy. This would also most likely hit the United States harder than any other country.

Here is my problem with buying into the hysteria:

The planet is about four billion years old. Mankind has been around, as far as recorded history, about seven to 10 thousand years. In all of that recorded history, we have about 150 years of actually daily weather reports, temperature etc. Now some of the believers say we have 2,000 years as ancient reports tell of mini-ice ages and floods etcetera.

So, we are taking 2,000 years of data and extrapolating that these last two centuries prove that the Earth’s climate is going through a change and that mankind is responsible. Even though we have no written records, we know that when dinosaurs roamed, the planet was much hotter and yet they drove no cars or flew planes. Leaving that silliness behind, just on the amount of data that went into these global climate change forecasts, the outcome has to be flawed. Imagine studying one case of COVID-19 and extrapolating the outcome for everyone who got that virus. If the person lived, not a big deal. If they died, deadly epidemic.

Trying to predict the weather is hard from day to day let alone for a four-billion-year-old planet.

So, the next time you hear, “Follow the Science”, you can bet that person is trying to sell you something you just do not want to buy.

If we are truly going to follow the science, and oh how I wish we would, we will first need to get the politicians out of the science. It is just too tempting to use “science” to take away people’s rights. It’s even worse when the science is clear, and politicians decide that they know better what is good for you.

On these three issues it is past time we follow the science not political parties.

Dan Schinhofen is a former Nye County commissioner and a longtime Pahrump resident.