Leave Science to the Scientific Community

To the Editor:
We have among us in Cape May County scientific “experts” who regularly write letters to the Herald denouncing sustainable energy and climate change on a variety of grounds. The latest was by a Court House writer who said, “For passionate environmentalists (aka enviros) global warming is settled science.” I didn’t know to whom he was referring – Secretary of State John Kerry who admits that there is a small number of scientists who disagree with the mainstream? or perhaps Bush appointee to head the treasury, Hank Paulson, who is both an officer in The Nature Conservancy and a strong promoter of clean coal? or the Union of Concerned Scientists who advocate limited building of small nuclear reactors? or the new president of Penn State? The writer sounded so certain, I suppose that he personally knows all or most “passionate environmentalists.”
But when he spoke of “enviros” (in contrast to people like himself, perhaps “coal heads?”) thinking that climate science is a “settled issue,” I became suspicious. While I have taught math including calculus for years, I must admit that I don’t know much science. However, I hope that few (if any) serious environmentalists would think that science is ever “settled.” Perhaps settled in the sense that climate change is now “settled,” that is, the vast majority of scientists agree that it is highly probable, but not “settled” in the sense that there is no room for disagreement or future conflicting data.
In fact, I thought that disagreement was almost always the case for virtually every scientific issue from the impact of plate tectonics on volcanic activity to the degree that sunlight causes skin cancer. In fact, it is my understanding that disagreement in the scientific community was both healthy for science and the rule, not the exception. I would not like to think that environmentalists are so ignorant of the nature of science, that they would be making such a basic mistake.
If they did, they would be no better than the ignorant climate change deniers who believe that because there is some disagreement about the nature and extent of climate change that means we should reject the consensus conclusion of the majority of the scientific community. Is that stupid or what?
Even sillier, many of those same people think that they, with virtually no knowledge of any of the many component fields in climate science, are in a position to judge which scientists are right! What a joke.
I, as a layman, would never dream of suggesting that I am in any position to judge who is right. How could I possibly know who was correct? I just go with what the majority of what scientists say. When the great bulk of the scientific community say that there is a high probability that climate change is occurring at a rate not explained by normal climatic variations, I accept that.
That way, I leave the bloviating and posturing to the likes of Bill O’Reilly and the guys at the local bar … and various letter writers who love to pose as being knowledgeable.
In short, we should leave science to the scientists. Science is not opinion. Science is not a team sport. We shouldn’t be cheering for one side or the other.
That’s not to say that the majority of scientists are always right. It’s just to say that they will probably come around to rectifying their errors if they aren’t.