There’s no such thing as settled science, and that’s a fact
“Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact.”— Thomas Huxley
It didn’t take long for the right-wing media to declare that the recent March for Science was anything but, that it was simply an attempt by the progressive left to enlist science in the antiTrump movement, especially regarding the contentious issue of climate change.
Looking back in time, science and the truth it reveals have been angering people for centuries, exemplified by Galileo’s contemporaries who refused to look in his telescope. But then, “What is truth?” asked a jesting Pontius Pilate. Science is tricky. It is dynamic, everchanging. What seems “settled science” may be turned on its head in five years.
What is troubling now is that so many people insist that not only humancaused climate change but also its solution are settled issues which merit no further debate or discussion. Apparently, people are supposed to believe that climate scientists are as infallible as the Pope in Rome. Opposing viewpoints are treated as heresy. Skeptics are verbally tarred and feathered, branded as closedminded morons who threaten the future of humanity. And, they add, there is scientific consensus on the issue, so there.
Regarding scientific consensus, read what noted author and science enthusiast Michael Crichton has to say on the topic: “Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
Lay people are understandably frustrated as they try to weigh competing claims from both sides. Humans are causing the planet to warm. No, they’re not. Are too. Are not. Such people have neither the time to wade through thousands of scientific research papers nor the training to interpret the reams of data contained in those papers. Whom should they believe?
In response, Crichton points out that many people are not good at understanding the behavior of complex systems in the natural world, as evidenced by the ham-handed efforts of the National Park Service to control wildlife populations and the disastrous fire suppression policies of the Forest Service. Climate is a vastly complex and intricate system. He suggests it is unlikely that this complex and intricate system will behave in such a simple and predictable way that if one component, carbon dioxide, is reduced, we will therefore reli- ably reduce temperature.
The gods in heaven must be giggling at the hubris of humanity, thinking the actions we take will have a significant impact on the Earth’s climate. After all, mankind has not so far been able to exert much influence over the activities of our lively planet. We have been unable to stop earthquakes, tornadoes and tsunamis, or steer hurricanes away from the East Coast. We are like grains of sand on the beach in the face of nature’s awesome power.
Another point to ponder: Those who are old enough may recall doomsday scenarios from the past which turned out to be as accurate as the National Enquirer’s yearly psychic predictions. Remember “The Population Bomb”? In this 1968 best-selling book, Stanford University professor of biology Paul Ehrlich confidently proclaimed that 65 million Americans would starve in the 1970s and England would cease to exist by 2000. Well, England is still with us, and America now suffers from an obesity epidemic.
The reality is, scientific instruments are not crystal balls, and scientists are not soothsayers. In spite of our best efforts, the planet may continue to warm, or because of our best efforts, it may not. It is impossible to predict the future with accuracy, but people can take comfort in this quote fromMark Twain: “I’ve seen a heap of trouble in my life, and most of it never came to pass.”
Teresa Keegan works for the courts in Denver. E-mail her at b161tak@yandex.com.