Robert Mazurek teaches science that he does not understand at all

Copyright: Screenshot/YouTubeScreenshot/YouTube

the last The generation does not forget itself.

Climate activists from this organization regularly hit the roads in Warsaw, and they also poured paint on a mermaid in Warsaw and disrupted the opening of the horse racing season. In this way, they want to draw attention to the worsening climate crisis and persuade politicians to act.

Interest in the collection has certainly increased recently. So much so that two representatives of the latest generation were invited to speak on Channel Zero. Hosted by Krzysztof Stanowski and Robert Mazurek.

At the beginning of the discussion, the latter tried to argue that there is no scientific consensus on the human impact on climate change. Moreover, the journalist also said that consensus in science itself is undesirable.

– There is no such thing as a global scientific agreement. Moreover, there is no consensus in science, because if it existed, it would mean that science does not exist. All science is about questioning the status quo, Mazurek said.

He spoke similarly later in the conversation. – Consensus in science is absolutely deadly. Science only advances when there is no consensus. When one scientist questions another's discovery. The journalist said: Only then can science develop.

– This is terrible. Disastrous and insulting for many scientists, it is presented as a group of people who have to argue about everything – comments David Myslewicz, promoter of science and founder of the channel “Attention!” Scientific nonsense that has amassed nearly 800,000 views on YouTube. Participants.

Myśliwiec apparently titled his latest article: “Robert Mazurek Doesn't Understand What Science Is.” He explains in the commentary that the role of science is not to question the status quo, but to investigate how the world works. To say that reaching consensus means the end of science is, in his opinion, a “misrepresentation.” It is a distortion with a primary purpose: to give credence to individual voices that deny human influence on the climate, when the overwhelming amount of evidence shows that it is clear.

The generalist of science also provides an illustrative example. Mathematicians have found that two plus two equals four. Should mathematics be excluded from the group of scientific disciplines because some consensus has been reached?

– no. And this is the best and most beautiful thing about science, in my opinion, that there is room for change, for developments, for revolutions, but also to maintain the status quo. Some laws of physics and some laws of science remain the same for years. The fact that no one questions them is not their fault in any way. And you could say more: Because they've withstood centuries of potential skepticism, that makes them more credible, Myslewick explains. also asked scientists related to climate science to comment. This is a portal that has been educating about climate change for years: its causes, consequences and ways to reduce it.

-In the natural sciences there is no 100% certainty. However, our belief that something is true becomes stronger the more independent evidence we have that points to the same thing. When we have a lot of them, we assume that something is probably true – and on this basis we can look for other things – explains Dr. Alexandra Kardash, editor-in-chief of Nauka o Klimati.

According to Kardash, “There is no point in endlessly questioning basic findings.” -If someone wants to do this, he must provide exceptionally strong evidence to support his thesis and, as a result, refute those about which there is consensus. He adds that scientific consensus is based on evidence, not on someone's opinions.

Likewise speaking is Marcin Popkiewicz, nuclear physicist, megatrend researcher, author of several best-selling books and co-founder of Nauka o Klimacie. Science works on the basis of observations. In this way explanations are created about what is happening and why. Thus the hypothesis is created. If something revolutionary comes out of it, if it overturns the old consensus, we should plan experiments whose results only we will know. This is how we deepen our knowledge. If the hypothesis is successful and confirmed by subsequent experiments, it turns into a theory – Popkiewicz describes the scientific process.

The expert stresses that consensus in science is desirable. Thanks to him we were able to make smartphones, the Internet and airplanes. If the vast majority of researchers agree on something, it means we already understand the problem well.

There is no such thing as universal scientific agreement. Moreover, there is no consensus in science, because if it existed, it would mean that science does not exist. All science is about questioning the status quo

Science is not about challenging the status quo, but about understanding the world better. Reaching consensus is one of the benefits of science. This means that in a given case, several scientists independently reached similar conclusions based on different evidence

Zero channel,April 24, 2024

We understand this better, as evidenced by subsequent publications by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This is the world's most important body of scientists, which since 1990 has issued six reports on the human impact on climate change.

In the first report, scientists said they were confident that “emissions from human activities are significantly increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.” In their second report, issued in 1995, they concluded that “humans have a significant impact on global climate.” Certainty about human influence grew over the years until it eventually became undeniable. “Human activity, primarily through the emission of greenhouse gases, has undoubtedly caused global warming,” the authors of the latest 2023 report said.

The document summarizes knowledge from more than 100,000 peer-reviewed scientific articles on climate change.


All content supported by the European Media and Information Fund (EMIF) is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily reflect the views of EMIF and the Fund's partners, the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation and the European University Institute.

Simon Bugalski

Editor of the website, journalist, manages the “Journalist for Climate” profiles on social media, author of texts, among others: for “Wyborcza” and the “Ziemia na rozdrożu” portal.

Copyright © 2016 – 2024. Made with love by the team. All rights reserved.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like

Astronomers have found water in one of the oldest known pairs of galaxies

SPT0311-58 is one of the oldest known galaxy pairs in the universe.…

An interactive map of the universe available from the browser level

The map has been created It is the result of over 15…

Intergalactic supernova. Astronomers brag about the first such discovery

Supernovae are unknown. These are cosmic explosions, many of which have already…

A planet that is very massive relative to its star. It challenges our knowledge of the universe

The planet in question is more than 13 times more massive than…