I can admit that I do not know much about climate science. Can you?

Are you smart enough to know you don't know? “Climate science”

I recently asked myself, “Self, what do you actually know about climate science?”  My honest response: “not much.”  I happen to believe that it is very important for me to be aware of where I am ignorant.  In fact, there are a boatload of things that I do not know much about.  Allow me to list a few:

• Hematology (physiology of the blood)
• Photolithography of silicon chips (computers)
• CDMA (radio system for cell phones)

I have no problem admitting that I know next to nothing about these particular subjects HOWEVER, I also do not hesitate to rely on them every day.  Neither do I question the validity of the science that serves as their foundation.  My ignorance of these subjects has NOTHING to do with the validity of the science behind these technologies WHATSOEVER.

• Am I a hypocrite?  No.  
• Am I ignorant of the details? Definitely.  
• Is this normal?  Very. 

Now… let me ask you: would it make any sense if at some point I chose not to “believe in” or “trust” the scientific methodology that produced the results of my blood panel or that governs how the apps function on my phone?  How about if I chose not to accept the physics of the combustion engine or the chemistry of fuel/energy conversion in my vehicle?  Not only would it not make sense, it would expose an ugly tendency that leads me to accept a contradiction within my thinking that exposes me as a hypocrite.  Another way of putting this is that I would be engaging in unwarranted doubt.  Ask yourself what it even means to “doubt” the science behind these technologies?  

And please note that I did not say you could not be skeptical about the social or political aspects of these technologies.  Questions about the effects and impact of these technologies can create very productive discussions that can be enlightening and informative.  But that is completely different from questioning the time-tested and near-universal acceptance of the scientific methodology that produces these phenomena in the first place.  Skepticism comes with a certain responsibility; one has to be willing to learn enough to know how to develop questions that have a specific target.  “Shotgun” skepticism is as incoherent as all-encompassing faith or belief; these cognitive extremes are always unhealthy.

So here are some things to consider:

You, like me, have very little actual knowledge about the science undergirding climate change.  This is not a license to speak irresponsibly about it.  For example:

1. Although you probably have no idea how blood is analyzed to yield a full panel, you probably don’t think that your doctor “just made them up.”  You accept the science that produced them.  
2. You use a cell phone which is the epitome of advanced science and the technology produced from it; you trust that your Facebook app will tickle your fancy and your GPS will get you to your destination.  Or do you think it is some magical rectangular box whose insides are comprised of pixie dust and miniature fairies?

It is time for some brutal honesty: you have as little knowledge of these things as you do of the same exact scientific method that is the foundation of climatology.  For example, here are some of the most basic concepts of climatology:

• Equation for energy balance: the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant
• Distinction between solar radiation and thermal radiation.
• Ice cores and isotopes
• Milankovitch cycles
• Albedo
• Solar flux

If you are honest, you will admit that you have probably never heard of these things.  All you need to do now is admit that you have no respectable basis upon which to “question” climate science.  Speaking as if you do just betrays two things: 1. that you are ignorant and either don’t care or don’t know you are, and 2. You have lost your ability to be embarrassed by your own display of #1.  Either way, withholding your “opinion” is the wisest and mature thing to do.

Last question: How can truth mean anything if the very precondition of its existence is absent in your mind?  

Cherry picking your “truths” is less than flattering.

The tricky mirage of the "new normal"

Why resisting this all-too-American tendency will make you stronger.

On the heels of Trump’s big speech to the Senate, how many of us have heard or read something like the following from one of his bow-chested supporters: “so what did you think of that?” or “how do you like him now?” or “pretty impressive, huh?!”  This is a mark of true desperation for his supporters and many of them are blind to it… let me explain how.

Cut the ropes and think freely

Any individual who can sincerely ask the question above is a person who suffers from the delusion-inducing meme of “the new normal.”  If you are unfamiliar with this phrase, here is how this phenomenon operates: no matter how shocking or strange something might be initially, if exposed to it long enough, we can be easily lulled into accepting it as routine.  This viral meme infects both liberals and conservatives; neither are immune to this.  Let me show you how to break out of this hypnotic mindset; you will revel in how good it feels to be self-aware.

For example… Hillary’s discourse markers were a distillation of hackneyed, regressivist thinking that, over time, metastasized into its own Frankenstein-ish persona of ultra politically-correct drivel.  This jargon warped her mind to the point where, if questioned as to whether a circle was round, she would be initially non-committal only to then ask what demographic she might be speaking to.  WTF! Right?  Her chameleon-esque word-play leads one to honestly speculate as to whether she is the intellectual equivalent of the Borg in Star Trek.  For several years now, this phenomenon has developed a life of its own, becoming our “new normal.”

Are you sufficiently self aware?

So it is with Trump; while his unorthodox “straight talk” was both shocking and refreshing precisely because our political discourse had been so empty for so long, his undisciplined, uncultivated and immature rhetoric gradually established a new low for our political discourse; and we are nowhere near the bottom yet.  


But wait!  Oddly, even among the most fervent of his supporters, there are still some who rightly cringe at some of the wild and indiscriminate statements that emerge from his puerile mind.  No matter; our nearly constant exposure to his Tweets makes it typical.  We expect it from him, or, more importantly, we don’t expect any more from him.  And viola, we gently slide into a “new normal.”

Now we come to the crux: if you were truly impressed with Trump’s speech then you have confused his ability to read from a teleprompter with who he has revealed himself to be. The “new normal” has hoodwinked you; subconsciously expecting the usual chaotic Trumpisms, you are now shocked that he can hold it together for more than 30 minutes and follow the script laid out for him.  Caught up in the wistful and wishful fantasy of wanting to believe that he is more, you grasp impetuously at the first sign that Trump can be anything other than a disordered, vindictive adolescent…  You proudly exclaim...

“You see! He is not completely unhinged!”

And therein you betray your hand and reveal what you really think.  Unfortunately, only someone who is either in denial or romantically wistful of Trump could produce a comment like this.  

Don’t be this person.  Find YOUR center and be unapologetic about it.  Go tell it on the mountain: the dualisms of “right and left,” “democrat and republican,” and “liberal and conservative” are bankrupt and need to be seen as the principal obstacle to any chance of having responsible and productive discourse.  

Abandon the sinking ship of inbred political polarization.  There is an ocean of ideas out there that don’t fit into these false categories.
Jump in... the “independent” water feels great.