Editor and General Manager
Possibility number one
It’s an international scientific conspiracy. All scientists are liberals; there is not a conservative among them. They are anti-business and, as such, they are pro-environment. They get together at scientific conferences, in the corridors of the academy, in the labs in corporations and research institutes, and discuss how the data indicates that the planet is not warming, that greenhouse gases are not affecting global temperatures in any meaningful way. But they all, unanimously and without breaking ranks, agree to tell the world a story that is exactly the opposite, because, well, who knows. Tree-huggers can’t be trusted.
Possibility number two
Every scientist in the world is wrong. They take all the data that they gather and completely misinterpret it in much the same way, arriving at a conclusion that is completely false. All that scientific method stuff is a bunch of hooey. The schools they go to teach inaccurate and unreliable methods that they take out into the field, where they gather a bunch of information and get it wrong. It starts early, with teachers who have it all backwards indoctrinating the young. It continues in high school, where bright and engaged students all learn how to get it backwards in much the same way. Colleges and universities take public and private investments so that they can continue the process and graduate tens of thousands of really bright people who work really hard at continuing to completely misunderstand the world.
Possibility number three
A large number of bright, industrious science and engineering students go to work at corporations that make scientific instruments. There they take all their knowledge and training and work together to develop instruments and analysis techniques that provide completely inaccurate data. They then sell these instruments to scientists who take them out into the field, and, unaware of how fallible the equipment is, proceed to get completely screwed-up data that they use to formulate inaccurate conclusions. Right now, scientists and engineers, the best and brightest, are working with researchers to develop the next generation of poorly functioning equipment. Then what? Lots of hard-working, thoughtful people take this data and make important decisions, and then spend lots of time doing really crazy things. People like the U.S. Army and government security agencies. People at the United Nations. The leaders of all the countries in the world take all this misinformation and get together and sign pacts about how they will mitigate the consequences predicted by all the scientific nonsense. Insurance companies, major industries, countries and cities around the world—all wasting time and effort and money to address problems predicted by bad data.
In a widely quoted interview with The New York Times (www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/us/politics/donald-trump-visit.html?_r=0), U.S. president-elect Donald J. Trump suggested that he would have an open mind regarding the science behind climate change, while also suggesting that he doesn’t trust climate scientists. I wonder what they may have done to earn his distrust, other than presenting data that conflicts with his instincts. Meanwhile, he nominated Scott Pruitt to head the EPA; Pruitt is one of that agency’s most vocal and hostile critics, and as Oklahoma’s attorney general brought multiple suits challenging EPA regulations on carbon emissions and water pollution.
It’s hard to know what to make of it all, and Mr. Trump himself has said so many contradictory (even seemingly unhinged) things that trying to discern what he might do is futile. I have to wonder, What am I doing here? Some scientists and business professionals may read this. Maybe I’ll even earn a rueful chuckle out of the possibilities suggested above. But the “deniers”? Their current ranks take the practice of confirmation bias to new extremes. Like Trump, they don’t trust scientists, for scientists present information that doesn’t fit their world view. They are disruptive, intentionally so: When facts are denied, there is no chance to debate what to do with the information. When, in desperation, more facts are put on the table, they are seen as confirmation that the fallacies and conspiracies are deeper and more entrenched than expected. I doubt that “deniers” would endorse any of the scenarios posited above, and I also doubt that reading it will change opinions at all. I used to think that well-meaning and sincere debate at all levels of society was useful, that, over time, the small conversations influenced the big conversation—a free and open press and freedom of expression meant the full and pointed vetting of ideas. Now it seems like pointless venting.
Possibility number four
Like those in other professions, most scientists are at least competent professionals, or very good, even great at their job. They rigorously review their work, and upon sharing, it is vetted again by their community. Those who ignorantly or willfully insist on disagreeing insult the work of the world’s scientists and injure the world they and their constituents inhabit. My dad had a saying, “Kicked by a mule, the man said, ‘I’ll consider the source.’” If only the consequences were as simple as a bruise.
Steve Ernst is editor and general manager, American Laboratory/Labcompare; [email protected]