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.