I’m no scientist. But I do know a few (including some friends and family members who may disown me after reading this). Based on much empirical evidence, I set out here to characterize the scientific community at large in an effort to educate the general public.

First of all, we should understand that scientists are serious folk who fill their days with serious deliberations and have little patience for nonsense. They do not moonlight as stand-up comedians. In fact, most have a sense of humor on par with that of, let’s say, Dr. Rand Paul (notwithstanding the recent epic “yard battle” where his neighbor beat him up for piling up flotsam at the property line).

Scientists do not laugh out loud at anything. They might be moved to turn up the corners of their mouths (appearing as much like grimaces as smiles) when confronted by someone’s inane acts or words, but they are prohibited from anything resembling a hearty ha ha. A snorting response to a joke would constitute a breach of ethics.

Dirty jokes are especially unappreciated by scientists. They know that sex is about two things only: lust and reproduction. Recently I was out with a science guy friend driving on a country road where we passed a field cattle. It happened that a lone bull was hopping on his hind legs in pointed pursuit of one heifer whom he had chosen and separated from the herd. While I found this to be a comical sight, my companion took the opportunity to explain the concept of pheromonal communication among humans and other mammals.

Scientists in general disdain the fallacies elicited through metaphors and analogies. The “eye of a storm” tells nothing about the pressure dynamics. A strapping buck is a well-constructed male deer. Cucumbers are no colder than any other vegetable. Someone whose head is in the clouds would have difficulty seeing and breathing. Eye candy? A confusion among the five neurological sensors.

For the sake of humor, scientists are drawn to a more sophisticated, occupation-oriented approach. For example, a neutron walks into a bar and asks the bartender how much for a drink. The bartender says, “for you, no charge.” Or this one: what does a subatomic duck say? Answer: “Quark.”

Child rearing is also serious matter for scientists. Their offspring are conditioned early in life. Restless kids are not encouraged to imagine sheep jumping fences, but rather to chant the elements of the periodic table. Parents always seek optimal efficiency in the psychological maturation of their children, who typically expose Santa Claus for the fraud he is by the time they are 3 years old based on the facts that chimneys are either obsolete or too narrow for anyone to climb through and that deer are mammals, and everyone knows that the only flying mammals are bats. By kindergarten, these children have mastered the concept of reproductive systems and are disgusted with the notion of a bunny that hides eggs.

What is most amazing to me about scientists is their ability to fathom large numbers, especially regarding measurement of time and space. Ninety-three million miles is unimaginable to me, yet scientists see it clearly and easily as if they had been to the Sun and back routinely. Whenever a new primate skeleton is discovered there is great excitement because it proves that our ancestors were here a million years earlier than previously estimated. And look at how they find such pleasure in looking at the rings of a tree, as if they were a telescope into the past! (My apologies for the metaphor.)

One more characteristic of scientists: Their sense of clothing and hair style places them just a notch above the Amish. Despite their love of ornithology, none aspire to feather themselves with brilliance. It is all about earth tones and leaving the hair to its natural frizz and/or limp oiliness.

But enough silliness. The truth is that I have the utmost respect for the scientific community-those who legitimize their professional endeavors through the implementation of the scientific method based on the principal of falsifiability. There is no magic in science, and all its energy is directed toward proving or disproving theories. And it is impossible to overstate how much we, as a society, rely on it in our everyday lives.

We listen to meteorologists when they predict a tornado, hurricane, volcano eruption or forest fire.

We heed the warnings of chemists and biologists when they tell us the ground water is contaminated or the air is too polluted to breathe safely.

We take the advice of doctors and dentists when they discover a danger to our personal health, and we read the FDA warning labels regarding the health risks associated with products we buy.

Here is the point of this essay: As professionals and real people, scientists are not politically motivated. They are not concerned with the court of public opinion, and they are keenly aware of the misinformation, exaggerations, and downright lies put out by politicians, education officials, corporate leaders, and even a few of their own corrupt members who sold out.

Most important, we need to listen to them, the 97 percent majority of them, when they tell us that Climate Change is really, really dangerous to life as we know it, and that man is indeed contributing to it.

Pete Howard is a Dunkirk resident, writer, musician and teacher. FOCAL Point strives to make insightful social commentary through the integration of Facts, Observations, Compassion, Awareness, and Logic.