Worshipping Science

I have recently heard a couple of statements, while doing business, that really got under my skin and festered. The first person, whom I've dealt with for years, and knew to be a Baptist-style Christian leaned over to me and almost whispered, conspiratorially, "Most scientists are atheists" as a comment about why evolution is not true. The second person was a regional manager for an equipment manufacturer, and we we were with a customer. For some reason, he decided to start spewing religious nonsense in the middle of our sales pitch. First, he casually mentioned that he thought it was nearing the end times, which (in my opinion) is something you should only mention when you are actually in the cult meeting, right before you start mixing the Kool-Aid. His religious leader either didn't warn him not to spew his crackpot theories to outsiders, or they are the type of cult that is trying to recruit others into the fold. He then started talking about climate change and said, "If you believe the scientists, and I don't believe scientists." I remember biting my lip at the time and thinking, "Hey, idiot! We're SELLING science to this guy. Do you want him to think we manufactured our equipment using magic?"

The problem about scientifically ignorant, brainwashed, or willfully ignorant people that spew anti-scientific dogma is that they are often not challenged when they make ridiculous statements in mixed company. Too often, people of more refined opinions or manners politely ignore outlandish pronouncements in order to keep things pleasant. If you followed Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher, or Joseph Lyles they would tell you to challenge these people before their ignorance destroys society. I don't do that. Often there are good business reasons, but usually, it's just polite social convention not to make a stir, to try to get along. It's disconcerting that these people feel no such qualms when they make their bombastic statements.

But I do walk away and rehearse the argument to the bone heads that makes these statements.

Climate Change: People who consider themselves right wing or conservative feel that the other side is politicizing the issue. The feel that any attempt to fix the problem will make us less competitive and will interfere with capitalism's central tenet that it is glorious to get rich. You score bonus points if you recognize that as a quote by the former communist Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping when reforming China's economy - very ironic (and never actually said by him, according to wikiquote). Regardless of the source of the rhetoric, many believe that markets must always be left alone, and regulation is so adverse to capitalistic profits that it should be branded socialist or communist and denounced. Some people just don't want to face the enormity of the problem and can't believe that something as vast as the planet could possibly be effected by man. This ignores so much history and evidence right in front of us that it's hard to understand whether the person is actively ignorant or completely oblivious. I'm 46, born in 1962, and I remember as a child when they had leaded gasoline and not catalytic converters on cars. I remember how every car on the road had a visible smoke plume coming out of the back of it. I remember how trucks and trains always belched thick clouds of smoke, and factories didn't seem productive unless there were smokestacks billowing thick clouds of pollution. I remember when the streams and rivers were so polluted that you didn't dare eat fish out of them. I remember the sky never looking very blue unless you went way out in the country, and then you really noticed it, because it was so different. We took the lead out of gas, made polluting a crime, took phosphates out of detergents (which immediately made streams and rivers have less of those foamy brown patches), and put catalytic converters on cars. Then we realized that our power plants were acidifying the atmosphere and it was coming back down in the rain as weak sulfuric acid, also known as acid rain. We created it, we're dialing it back. Next up, scientists started noticing that we were creating a hole in the ozone. CFCs, chloroflorohydrocarbons, were the culprit this time. We used these chemicals mostly in refrigeration and cooling systems, but back in the peak of their usage, we also used them as propellants in aerosol cans. I remember they used to emphasize that they were in shaving cream and underarm deodorant. The Montreal Protocol outlawed these chemicals and we're finally starting to see evidence that the trend is reversing. So we have a history of discovering and solving climate problems, which is why it is so hard for me to understand why people keep insisting that this is impossible.

I think some people think we can't survive economically without fossil fuels, and we have to keep driving forward regardless of the consequences. They are figuring that we'll adapt to this new warmer planet and they reason, "how bad can it be, really?"

I would draw their attention to Venus, if they really want to know how bad it can be. Scientists often describe the planet Venus as having an atmosphere that exhibits a "runaway greenhouse effect". It's hot enough on the surface of Venus to melt lead. There are some gasses that are no longer in the Venusian atmosphere, such as oxygen, because the temperature has boiled them off into space.

Representative John Boehner, the Republican Minority Leader recently said that "the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen, is harmful to our environment, is comical". He goes on to say that every time we exhale, we release carbon dioxide. It is true that we produce carbon dioxide. No one is saying that CO2 is a carcinogen, but we are saying that CO2 in the wrong concentration is very hazardous to our atmosphere. If you don't believe that it can hurt you, why don't you let us seal you in a chamber and start filling it with CO2, and you can tell us when to stop.

I'm not even sure how to respond to the "scientists are atheists". I know that those kind of statements come when someone thinks that they are in a battle or an argument, when they really aren't. Scientists are debating reality with religious people for the hearts and minds of people. If anything, it's a fault of scientists that they don't try to argue their case, they often think that the facts are speaking for themselves. Meanwhile, religious people see this as a debate and they score points for simply putting up arguments and pushing an agenda. In the end, it's hard for me to see how this matters. The church may have put Galileo on trial for heresy and placed him on house arrest for the rest of his life, but that didn't make the sun revolve around the earth. And saying scientists are atheists does not change the fact that the earth is 4 billion years old, and mankind evolved from earlier primates.

I just don't know what to say to these people. The thought that it will all be clear to everyone 365 years from now is no consolation when we need to act now to help fix the problems of today that science has identified. I hope I never find myself in the position of ignoring the evidence because of politics or beliefs. The truth will come out in the end, I just want it to come out before the damage is irreversible.