An Inconvenient Truth
An Inconvenient Truth – Review
Inconvenient truth, or correctly calculating deception? As a scientist, the book’s points — though equally fascinating — echo as insincere. Well-established steps involve the systematic method: (1) Pose a question, (2) Do research, (3) Construct a theory, (4) Test theory by experiment, (5) Analyze data, (6) Draw conclusions, and (7) Communicate the results among peers, inviting analytical review. Completing publication review, qualified reviewers among the technical community build a general consensus position. Peers can repeat tests independently to verify their results and assess main conclusions. These reinforce firstly proposed theories, refute ideas, or still draw entirely different directions and conclusions. While methods differ rather, observation, theory, test, analysis, conclusions and analytical review (and acceptance) represent the systematic method, carefully documenting theory development for analytical review and acceptance. Mr. Gore claims he based his conclusions on science, yet he rejects the systematic method. Though presenting his conclusions as if they were probably derived by science, he firmly rejects questioning his analyses or conclusions by science peers. In short, he rejects the systematic method’s duty to critically review his work. He argues ethical obligation to support his conclusions, precluding objective review by the same systematic processes from which he claims to have probably derived his work. Presenting his consequences as his facts, he firmly rejects testing their outcome with systematic method hypotheses. Should we be surprised then, when Mr. Gore says that anyone who doubts this must be morally corrupt? This places the scientist in an moral dilemma. Should he accept Mr. Gore’s premise and conclusions — “when you know all the facts” — or his ethical obligation, and follow science, entertaining fair possibility of other conclusions? Scientific theories are transitory. For the real scientist, an honest mind goes foremost, for science calls no complete truths. Since first passionately expounding technical search of phenomena, truth and the facts, Alhazen highly sought intellect, integrity and exact value over all else. Yet, Mr. Gore presents those who would doubt his conclusions as morally flawed — and even worse. And why? Because the results of an error may be so grave. So, Mr. Gore demands we scientists see him blindly, regardless of systematic processes, facts or conclusions. Blindly he will guide us, regardless of the cost to science, our integrity or society as a whole. Regardless of our technical qualifications, literary legacy or history. Science calls no morality, except perhaps the integrity of technical pursuit itself. If as we were previously taught, we follow that systematic method, questioning Mr. Gore’s methods or conclusions, then according to him we are morally corrupt. Yet to do otherwise compromises our professional ethics. So why does he say that? Because, we could be wrong, while he might be right. So on that basis, he need not prove his case, nor may we present ours. He discounts systematic methods and ideas to the base of his heap. But immediately following our profession, training and ethics, questioning the facts presented, we are morally corrupt. Sadly, one cannot fight religion with reason, and we cannot contest his illogic. Had they still read Mr. Gore’s accurate text, many scientists would dismiss his intuitive ideas like many others. Unfortunately, most have not, and as a result, some still endorse it (the National Academies of Science, for example). Mr. Gore even shared a Nobel Prize. What else can we say? But isn’t it ironic, the only truth that’s inconvenient here is that he’s successfully — and profitably — eventually sold his message as if it were science! J. K. August, PE, BA, BS, ME (science)