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.

We have no center anymore… the labels of “democrat” and “republican” are bankrupt

The political is now a binary of illiberal extremes; the “right” is increasingly rabid and the “left” is so regressive that both sides may be irredeemable at this point.

In our current climate, almost nothing should be more obvious than the absurdity of labeling oneself as a “democrat” or a “republican.”  Only those who are enamored with the sound of their own partisan BS could possibly think that this duality still has any merit or consequence.  I suspect that more and more people sense how imbecilic and farcical it is to pretend as if any issue could be easily and neatly bifurcated in such a way.  “Liberal” and “conservative” don’t fare much better because these terms are loaded with such emotional baggage that they have become nothing more than ways to end a conversation rather than serve as a starting point.  We need a new “center.”  But how?

If you have gotten this far, this post is for you — an individual who refuses to succumb to the intellectual retrogression that has gone viral in our culture and inevitably leads one into a pit of confusion and factional hysteria. Allow me to suggest a possible pathway out of this cerebral chasm; I will attempt the reclamation of a very misunderstood word… “liberal.”

To say that this word is encumbered with connotations is an understatement. Highly uninformed folks on the right will shudder at the sight of it just as thoroughly ignorant folks on the left will get dewy-eyed at the sound of it.  Ready for the facts?  Democrats and Republicans, left and right, “regressives” and “neo-cons” are ALL “liberals”...  Is this crazy talk? Allow me to make sense of it.

We are all sons and daughters of what is known as the “liberal” enlightenment (Google it… you might be surprised by what you learn).  The Framers of the Declaration and the Constitution were greatly influenced by the likes of Thomas Paine and John Locke, among many others.  In a nutshell, liberalism is a philosophy that encompasses concepts such as: property rights, civil rights, liberty, equality, individualism, and rationalism, often with close attachments to the idea of progress, market economics, and internationalism.  

These *liberal* cornerstones are no less important today than they were in 1776; there is not a progressive, a conservative or an “alt-right theocon” who wouldn’t defend their right to own property, pursue being an entrepreneur or practice freedom of their religion to name only a few.  So-called “conservatives” and “progressives” are merely particular flavors on the broad spectrum of general principles that constitute liberalism.

Ultimately, it may be the case that rescuing the tradition of “liberalism” is a hope whose ship has sailed.  The reclamation of “liberal” from the burdensome and politically-laden term “left” may be impossible at this point.  I have tried to furnish a new perspective on the issue and one can only hope to reinvigorate the public’s interest in the tradition that is the thread that makes up the fabric of this country.  We need a new center for our politics; the very possibility of intelligible and productive discourse seems to depend on it, indeed, require it.