The author of “What if climate change isn’t real” starts off by suggesting that only 95% of scientists believe in climate change … only 95%. Apparently, if at least 5% of experts disagree with something we should seriously question the validity of the other 95%.
Maybe the author is a one-percenter …
The subheader to the title of this piece is, “What should we do if science turns out to be wrong?” My first thought is, “nothing.” Who cares? I mean seriously, what is the worst case scenario of climate change not being a really, really big deal?
We live on a cleaner planet with less trash floating around in the ocean?
We have more options for fuel, which will increase supply and lower prices?
Yeah, sounds rough.
As it goes on, the blog does begin to redeem itself as it weighs the pros and cons of taking action to fight climate change. In the end, the author decides takes a “why not” attitude saying that we may as well go ahead and do something since the risks of climate change outweigh the risks of lack of climate change.
Overall, this whole blog is not well thought out and doesn’t really make any compelling arguments. It reads like something that was a required writing for school. The points are stretched and the logic is sketchy.
MDST 485 Class Blog 
Sceptics is the British spelling of the word. The author is European, so this isn’t surprising. Generally, it’s good practice to avoid too many critiques of grammar and spelling in these posts, because we don’t always know the author’s first language or origin. It happened that an ESL student in a previous class was severely criticized by a former student who didn’t realize English was not her first language. Apologies for the out of the blue comment; I just wanted to post a defense of intercultural tolerance.
Oh, man! You’re right, I didn’t even think about that! I will edit, thanks for the call out!