She sees a bogus documentary produced by a failed politician and takes that as science. Someone should remind her that she lives on a planet that revolves around a star and that there have been several geologic epochs characterized by different climatic features. This is ignorant sentimentality mistaken for religious faith. Has she ever gardened? It's a good way of getting a real feel for weather. Perhaps she should read this:
Most Scientific Findings Are Wrong or Useless. (Hat tip, Dave Lull.)
A 2015 editorial in The Lancet observed that "much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue." A 2015 British Academy of Medical Sciences report suggested that the false discovery rate in some areas of biomedicine could be as high as 69 percent. In an email exchange with me, the Stanford biostatistician John Ioannidis estimated that the non-replication rates in biomedical observational and preclinical studies could be as high as 90 percent.
Consider climate change. "The vaunted scientific consensus around climate change," notes Sarewitz, "applies only to a narrow claim about the discernible human impact on global warming. The minute you get into questions about the rate and severity of future impacts, or the costs of and best pathways for addressing them, no semblance of consensus among experts remains." Nevertheless, climate "models spew out endless streams of trans-scientific facts that allow for claims and counterclaims, all apparently sanctioned by science, about how urgent the problem is and what needs to be done."