Real Science

Our new Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, made a statement today attacking the oil and gas industry for its contribution to climate change. Personally, I would rather hear such talk from some authority that is a bit closer to environmental science than banking. Geithner, in fact, seems to have his hands more than busy trying to stem the outflow from my 401k. I can attribute his attack more to the disdain he holds for the evil rich than to his knowledge of Mother Earth and methodologies of science. After all, it is much easier to build the science around a conclusion than to seek the truth. Really?

I am neither a research scientists nor an environmental specialist. On the other hand, I was trained in the modern methods of science and spent some years studying earth sciences, all couched in the liberal arts, before applying that training to a long career. Yes, it was a rare, if not unique, career. In it, there was the pursuit of truth (the science) and the appreciation of perception (the belief). So how does all of this lead to Geithner and his remarks?

Earth is a hugely complex natural machine, as is the body and consciousness of each of us. [The issue of science and religion is for another time.] If you're curious about the earth-human continuum, read Edward O. Wilson's Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (1975), followed by his Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (1998). In spite of all knowledge that modern science has brought to us in the last century, we are still far from understanding the mechanisms that Geithner has reduced to punishment for the oil and gas industry. In other words, truth is somewhere in the future. Of course, that does not mean that we should be paralyzed by our gaps in understanding global environmental change. Where evidence and review call for action, we should act. Before making a decision, we must examine both the observation and the observer with care. In doing so, we can separate truth from polemic.

To me, there is no question that global climate change, past and present, is real. To what extent human occupation of the planet has affected that global change significantly is open to question. To say that such activities threaten Earth needs even greater research. Just examine the disagreements among environmental scientists. One could say that this "peer review" process, so far, has confirmed the uncertainties more than the hypotheses themselves. In addition, it is unfortunate for science and civilization that environmental advocacy has been hijacked by the anti-capitalists and unhinged leftists. Positioning the logic and reason of science against the emotion and demands of the ideologues often results in a loss for science. We need to understand that revealing truth, let alone searching for it in this hostile environment, is difficult even under the best of conditions and funding climates. Four centuries ago, Geithner's comments were occasionally backed by torches and pitchforks. My children deserve a better future.

Who will be next to bash the "evil industries" among us? Can't say who, but I'm sure it will be coming soon. When it does, think about this short essay and decide for the real science.