First a disclaimer, I’m not a medical doctor. I have no particular expertise nor do I have any experience in the healthcare industry except as an occasional client. With that further admission as context, what are the problems that Congress and our President want to solve through new laws? From all that I’ve heard uttered from the proponents of this pending legislation, it appears they are focused on three perceived problems.

Perceived Problem 1 - Some people don’t have insurance.

The estimates vary. During the presidential campaign of 2006-2008 we heard figures as high as 45 million. Now we hear estimates as low as 20 million. Whatever it is, it is a big number. What are the actual causes of this problem?

1.    They cannot afford it.

2.    They don’t want to pay for it.

3.    They choose not to purchase it because they think they don’t need it.

4.    They don’t realize they have access to it—Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, etc.

5.    They are illegally in the country.

6.    Their employers don’t provide it and one or more of the above.

Perceived Problem 2 - Costs are escalating.

Over the past many years, costs for services, equipment, pharmaceuticals, and insurance experienced double-digit annual percentage increases.  Employers reduce benefits in order to keep costs under control and more people choose to gamble they won’t need insurance because of limited incomes and other priorities. Why are the costs escalating?

1.    The costs of more uninsured people are absorbed by fewer people and the employers who can and do pay for benefits and services.

2.    Malpractice insurance rates escalate due to more and larger settlements.

3.    There are shortages of primary care physicians and certain specialists in response to increased liability.

4.    There is an increase in costs of services of specialists due to improved medical practices, modern medical technology, liability insurance rates, and government regulation.

5.    Hospitals and clinics have to pay higher salaries for medical and nursing staff due to shortages and competition.

6.    Hospitals and clinics face escalating liability for malpractice.

7.    Drugs are increasingly expensive to invent, manufacture, market, and distribute.

8.    Reductions in Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements to hospitals and physicians result in higher costs being redistributed to private insurers and their clients.

9.    Government regulations have unintended consequences.

Perceived Problem 3 - Some people are making a fortune in this industry.

Who would that be? The biggest winners would appear to be the trial lawyers, but certain industry CEOs, executives, and specialists receive significant compensation for their services.  Congress and the President seem to believe it is politically popular to target some of these so-called “fat cats” while ignoring others. They feed on the envy and jealousy that their politics creates and they want to take credit for going after these evildoers for commanding multimillion dollar incomes. As hard as they try, they will have great difficulty controlling compensation of private industry executives. There are too many ways around their regulatory efforts. Meanwhile they choose to enable, or at least to ignore, the medical malpractice lawyers and the escalating costs that result from their enormous settlements. Why do some make a fortune?

1.    Juries tend to award very large settlements when there are no limits to liability or punitive damages, and when lawyers demand high fees and commissions for their services.

2.    The market determines the compensation of CEOs, executives, and other specialists.

Obviously, many in our country and maybe even a majority agree there are problems with healthcare and its related industries. When solving a problem, it is a good idea to understand the problem and its causes before you craft a solution. In this instance, it would appear that our political leaders have decided to solve some problems while ignoring others. It also appears they are willing to create different problems for some people in order to solve some of the problems of other people. Amazingly, it appears they don’t think we are capable of solving our own problems and they must take control of the situation or the world as we know it will come to an end. Apparently the pending apocalypse is scheduled for the third week in January. Action must be taken by then or we’re all going to die!

Lost in the holiday season and in the political fever of the times is the realization that we are almost over with the aughts. Are we ready to enter the decade of the teens? 

The past ten years brought generally positive and exciting experiences for this humble servant. My terrific and absolutely wonderful wife endured my plentiful peccadilloes without serious complaint. Our four relatively normal college educated offspring entered adulthood—three are happily married and each are making their independent way in the world. We even have a healthy and prospering twelve year old dog named Skye—half Lab and half Chow—who seems happy to see us when we arrive home after a long day “toiling in the vineyards.” Our world includes a beautiful home in a friendly neighborhood on a golf course in rural south Florida where the weather is just about perfect 87 percent of the time. Professionally, we’ve never been more fulfilled. We’re both educators, she teaches kindergarten and I’m a community college president. Current plans call for both of us to retire in a few years and then to begin a new adventure along this journey we call life. Perhaps my greatest fear is of waking from this dream to find an existence rather less comfortable. Counting my numerous blessings while reflecting on the past decade may be personally enjoyable, but such an enumeration offers scant interest to a visitor of this site. Please forgive this narcissistic interlude.

Recently, I’ve caught myself wondering about the future more and more. The teens will be my eighth decade breathing this air. Each breath seems more precious as time pulls me along. For some reason, the passage of time quickens its pace as I age—our days and nights are so full and moments of quietly pondering so rare. 

Enough of this self-absorbed context, now please allow me to do some forecasting. Here is my first attempt at predicting some of the developments and happenings of the future. My focus is on the year 2020—what will we see on our planet by then?

1. The political winds continue to swirl as we end the second term of a conservative President who along with a more supportive congress will have remediated some of the changes implemented by their more liberal predecessors.
2. International tensions derived from cultural and religious conflicts continue to threaten our way of life as technology further shrinks the planet bringing different perspectives, different intentions, and different means to bear down upon populations struggling to compete and to survive.  
3. The weather is surprisingly cooler as we who live in North America exit the second of three or four decades under the influence of the Pacific multidecadal oscillation.  The global warming alarmists moved on to a different hoax/threat—those who use fear to gain power are exposed, but they fail to comprehend their own folly.
4. Energy is cheap, abundant, and environmentally friendly since hydrogen derived from a variety of inexhaustible sources supplements and replaces natural gas in older power plants and provides inexpensive electricity for homes, schools, factories, and transportation.
5. People around the world communicate and interact instantaneously and asynchronously as social networking pervades technologically advanced societies.
6. The Higgs Boson is known due to remarkable discoveries at the LHC in Cern, and the four forces of the physical universe unite as four manifestations of one.
7. People enjoy the cleanest air and natural environment since the middle ages as carbon is captured and recycled, and the various and sundry effluents of modern industrial civilization are managed cost-effectively. 
8. Natural gas and oil are found to derive from inorganic processes deep in the earth’s crust and mantle and fears of exhausting the supply of this essential resource have disappeared. The burning of fossil fuels (which are not just from fossils) for the production of heat and energy is rare in advanced societies except for aesthetic and nostalgic applications. 
9. Education of the young and the old enters a renaissance as society embraces variety, individuality, excellence, and technology while gaining a deeper understanding of how and why people learn. 
10.  Modern humans in advanced societies embrace spirituality and undergo a transformation from controlling to adapting beings seeking to comprehend their world, their universe, and their creator.

This was fun! I hope I’m around to enjoy this utopian state.

There are many reasons to reduce the use of fossil fuels, but none of those reasons justifies a gross distortion of science for the purpose of political advocacy. 

A core group of “scientists” manipulated the data. The manipulation duped the undiscerning media, the politicians, the United Nations, and much of the public. Some politically motivated personalities saw an opportunity to embrace a cause that would bring them fame and fortune—even a Nobel Peace Prize. The fraudulent manipulation created a partisan divide with liberals arguing that governments must seize control to save the world from anthropogenic global warming, and with conservatives resisting the regulatory excess and the ever-expanding, bloated bureaucracies that threaten the loss of precious freedoms.

Representing the liberal perspective this week was John Rennie, the former executive editor of Scientific American. He published an article entitled “Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense” in which he enumerated seven alleged "claims" of the “Contrarians”, as he labels anyone who rejects the notion that global warming is caused by human activities, and specifically, the burning of fossil fuels. He then goes on to explain why he believes those "claims" are nonsense. Mr. Rennie is a science journalist of considerable renown and a university professor. In his rather condescending essay, it is clear he has no clue why many climate scientists disagree with the exaggeration and oversimplification that has become the popular meme of global warming. Mr. Rennie’s ad hominem attacks expose his political leanings but lend no clarity to the scientific debate. He confuses and conflates the uninformed wonderings of well-meaning layman with the important inquiry of legitimate scientific investigators. It is obvious that Mr. Rennie believes in his heart that the activities of man in this modern industrialized civilization caused the global warming observed during the past half-century.

I’ve subscribed to Scientific American magazine for more than 50 years and I hope to enjoy this wonderful publication for the rest of my life, or until it ceases to be published, whichever comes first. As I read Mr. Rennie’s article in the online Scientific American Newsletter, and then when I heard him interviewed on the Scientific American Podcast, I was struck by two things: 1) he does not understand the science, and 2) he does not understand or respect anyone who disagrees with him. Most egregious of all, he belittles and derides those he stereotypes as “Contrarians” and “Deniers”. He has no patience for their arguments or for their “claims”. Wow! 

Carbon dioxide is an important component of our atmosphere (currently, about 385 ppm in clean dry air). There is considerable evidence that the concentration generally increased over the past several thousand years with a more rapid rate of increase observed since the middle of the nineteenth century, following "The Little Ice Age" as it is commonly called. It is well known that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere absorbs infrared (heat) energy that radiates from the earth and also from the sun. This causes the atmosphere to be warmer than it would otherwise be if no carbon dioxide were present. Carbon dioxide molecules are linear with a carbon atom in the middle bonded to two oxygen atoms each sharing four electrons with the carbon atom. A double covalent bond exists between the central carbon atom and each oxygen atom in the molecule. Carbon dioxide only absorbs infrared when the molecule is bent or asymmetrically stretched, and this occurs only when molecules collide with each other, with other molecules, with molecules of surfaces present at the boundaries of the atmosphere, or with particulates present in the atmosphere. The higher the concentration of carbon dioxide and the higher the temperature, the more collisions, the more bending and stretching, and the more infrared (heat) absorbed. This heating of the atmosphere is wrongly called the “greenhouse effect” by virtually everyone. Greenhouses don’t work this way, but that is another story.

Carbon dioxide is not the only component of the atmosphere that absorbs infrared. In the atmosphere, the total concentration of greenhouse gases varies considerably in different environments. In a warm humid environment, such as tropical oceans and rainforests, greenhouse gases may comprise as much as 4 percent of the atmospheric gases and most of the infrared (heat) from the land and sea is absorbed by these gases retaining heat in the atmosphere. In a cold dry environment such as the polar ice caps, greenhouse gases may represent only about 4/100ths of one percent of all atmospheric gases, and very little infrared is actually absorbed. In the warm humid environment, carbon dioxide is responsible for less than 1 percent of the greenhouse effect, while water vapor and the other greenhouse gases absorb nearly 99 percent of the infrared that is absorbed in the atmosphere. In a cold dry environment, carbon dioxide is by far the most important greenhouse gas absorbing almost all of the infrared that is absorbed, although there is relatively little infrared absorbed in these cold dry environments. Clouds, aerosols, and particulates play a significant role in regulating heat absorption and the weather patterns that result.

There are many sources of the carbon dioxide that is in the atmosphere, and we could conveniently divide these sources into two categories, anthropogenic (man-made) and everything else (wrongly called “natural sources” – since man is also part of nature). The burning of fossil fuels is an obvious anthropogenic source of carbon dioxide, but it is not the only anthropogenic source. We exhale carbon dioxide as does every respiring, aerobic, life form. We burn trees and other vegetation to clear land for development or because we’re too stupid to put out cigarettes and campfires properly. There is no debate that mankind’s activities add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. There should be a healthy debate about the extent to which this anthropogenic source modifies regional and global climate.

The oceans and volcanoes also release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. As the oceans warm, all gases, including carbon dioxide, become less soluble and escape into the atmosphere. This is why the oceans have been releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere since the end of the last glacial period about 12,000 years ago. Much of the increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by the natural warming of the ocean, not vice versa. Extensive rift zones caused by spreading tectonic plates on the ocean floor extend around the world releasing heat and additional carbon dioxide, among other materials, into the oceans. The Earth cycles through cooling and warming periods as a result of its position, the changing inclination of the axis, and motions relative to the sun, the moon, and the plane of our galaxy. The sun is also a variable star and solar forcing follows a fairly predictable pattern related to sunspot activity. Most people don't realize that we are currently in an ice age characterized by alternating glacial and interglacial periods. Earth is now in a warming phase of an interglacial period with global atmospheric temperatures and sea levels generally rising during the past 12,000 years. These natural cycles normally extend for thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, and even many millions of years. Civilization is a late arrival on the scene and its impact is only during the last 10,000 years or about 2-millionths of the age of the Earth. If we compare the age of the Earth to a calendar year, civilization would have begun at 1 minute and 10 seconds before midnight on New Year’s Eve. 

Because Earth is an irregular oblate spheroid that spins and wobbles on its axis as it revolves in an ever-changing elliptical orbit around the sun, the oceans also circulate and we refer to patterns of circulation as ocean currents. There are warm and cold currents in the oceans and there are deep as well as surface currents. The oceans are warmed by the sun and from the heat released into the core and mantle from radioactive decay of materials present in the planet's interior. These ocean currents circulate and change in periods that generally last decades, and for this reason they are called multi-decadal oscillations or MDO’s. These ever-changing currents affect patterns of weather. El Nino and La Nino are such weather patterns derived from major currents in the Pacific Ocean. Because of the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation), we are about 10 years into a cooling phase that historically lasts about 30 years. This partially explains why temperatures in North America have been cooling during the last decade, since about 1998. If these weather patterns continue as they have for the past several thousand years, we should continue to experience colder than average temperatures in North American for the next 20 years, or so. Then, it will most likely begin warming as it did during the seventies, eighties, and nineties—when the global warming alarmists were certain we were heading for catastrophic global warming with rising oceans flooding islands and coastal areas. Ironically, those of a similar ilk sounded the alarm that we were entering an "ice age" back in the late sixties and early seventies after 30 years of cooling temperatures. It was actually a result of Atlantic and Pacific multi-decadal current oscillations during the present interglacial period. If you’re looking for trouble, you’ll certainly find it. 

Science has not yet determined whether greenhouse gases in the atmosphere contribute to positive or negative feedback or both. History demonstrates the atmosphere operates with negative feedback because, frankly, we're still here. Global warming extremist and most computerized climate models assume a net positive feedback mechanism and that we're approaching the tipping point--a catastrophic outcome. Negative feedback means that the atmosphere is self-correcting. If we add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then the warming will cause more water to evaporate and more clouds to form and that will block solar radiation from reaching the surface. Positive feedback means the atmosphere is not self-correcting--heating causes more heating which causes more heating--a runaway greenhouse consequence. Clouds play a significant role and only a few investigators have recently begun to understand this mechanism of negative or positive feedback. There are no long-term records of global cloud cover. The science in this area of inquiry is immature.

Scientists have not yet determined to what extent human activities contribute to climate change. The extremist at each end of the political spectrum argue either that mankind is totally at fault or that we deserve no blame at all. The liberal politicians and legacy media line up with the extremists on the left where it is assumed to be the fault of mankind. Rennie’s fantasy “Contrarians” are on the extreme right and they allegedly would deny that humans have any influence on the planet, its weather, or its climate. As is often the case, the extremists are completely unencumbered by the facts. They're goofy! I resent Mr. Rennie suggesting that everyone who is not a left-leaning extremist must be a "Contrarian" at the other extreme of the continuum. On this point, he is delusional.

The answer for mankind is, as it has always been, adapt or we will not survive. This planet is dynamic! It is constantly changing. Nothing we can do will prevent the climate from changing. Yes, we should reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. We need to do this for political, economic, and environmental reasons. But eliminating all fossil fuels will not prevent the weather or the climate from changing.

When scientists become advocates for their scientific hypotheses, whether for political or self-aggrandizing reasons, they cease being scientists, and they become bullies, or worse. When scientists belittle, deride, condescend, stifle, censure or chastise the contributions of other scientists with whom they disagree, they are nothing less than evil.   We now have evidence of such behavior on the part of a core of leading advocates for anthropogenic global warming. With the release of emails and other documents from the servers of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit, the destructive mindset is exposed in all its glory. Today, November 24, 2009, The Wall Street Journal offers a good summation.

This global warming hoax perpetrated by a cabal of elitist intellectual snobs should attain legendary status. Consider the potential harm done to our planet, our country, our economy, and most importantly our people by this group of self-centered narcissists who put their own glory, not to mention their own funding ahead of the pursuit of truth—with no concern for scientific integrity. And from their own words, it is obvious they were self-deluded—the worst kind of evil. They misused science to influence opinion leaders, politicians, the media, and common ordinary people who could not know better. They used their knowledge and intellect as a weapon to win their spoils. These are not the first to do so, nor will they be the last, but alas, they have been rendered naked by their own folly.

Climate changes! It always has and it always will! Humans will adapt, just as they have in the past when the planet was warmer and when the planet was colder. We must be smart about conserving our resources and protecting our environment.   But we don’t have to create a mythology in order to persuade others to do likewise. The truth, or the continuous pursuit of it, will indeed set us free.

These are the opening paragraphs of remarks by President Obama at the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon’s Climate Change Summit in New York City on September 22, 2009. Amplifying these opening statements, the remainder of the speech serves to further expose the amazing ignorance of the author and the naïve abetting of a dangerous agenda by the President of the United States.

9:46 A.M. EDT

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you very much. Good morning. I want to thank the Secretary General for organizing this summit, and all the leaders who are participating. That so many of us are here today is a recognition that the threat from climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing. Our generation's response to this challenge will be judged by history, for if we fail to meet it -- boldly, swiftly, and together -- we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe.

No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change. Rising sea levels threaten every coastline. More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent. More frequent droughts and crop failures breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive. On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes as climate refugees. The security and stability of each nation and all peoples -- our prosperity, our health, and our safety -- are in jeopardy. And the time we have to reverse this tide is running out.

And yet, we can reverse it. John F. Kennedy once observed that "Our problems are man-made; therefore they may be solved by man." It is true that for too many years, mankind has been slow to respond or even recognize the magnitude of the climate threat. It is true of my own country, as well. We recognize that. But this is a new day. It is a new era. And I am proud to say that the United States has done more to promote clean energy and reduce carbon pollution in the last eight months than at any other time in our history.

Listening to this speech requires incredible focus, stamina, and a strong bit in one’s teeth—unless, of course, one is mesmerized by the tone and color of the delivery or otherwise unencumbered by reality. The President proclaims a litany of accomplishment since assuming office in January that would lead one to believe he surely walks upon the very waters rising all around us. It is obvious that the President is clueless about climate, weather, geology, energy, and even history. Otherwise, he would not allow himself to be so exposed to the entire world. 

Allow me to react to some of the malarkey in these remarks.

Climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing.

Actually, climate change is normal. It is not serious, nor is it urgent or "growing" (whatever that might mean). Climate is always changing—always has and always will. Humans have been challenged with climate change throughout history—just consider the Norse who inhabited Greenland until the Little Ice Age came along. Our ancestors successfully adapted while lacking the technology and knowledge that exists today. Surely we are at least as adaptable. The President, and others of a like mind, seems to think there was some ideal climate that existed before modern industrial society. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Our generation's response to this challenge will be judged by history, for if we fail to meet it -- boldly, swiftly, and together -- we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe.

Who knows what awaits humanity in the future if we could somehow prevent the climate from changing. We don’t really know to what extent we contribute to climate change. We don’t even understand if the current anthropogenic influences would cause or prevent some catastrophic future, or would have any measurable effect on future climates. How would the President know what might be possible for future advanced generations to accomplish? Furthermore, what future--ten years, 50 years, 1,000 years, or more? In the future, the Earth will enter another glacial period and humans in that period may be looking for ways to heat up the planet. They may wish we’d given them more of a head start. Humans are adaptable creatures, and some will ultimately survive almost any possible future. History judges harshly those who commit to utter folly. Expending our lives in the pursuit of some consensus climate deserves harsh judgment.

No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change.

I agree!

Rising sea levels threaten every coastline.

Sea levels, and land levels as well, are constantly changing at different rates in different locations. Generally, sea levels have been rising relative to the land for 10 to 12 thousand years—since the last period of glaciation. The most accurate estimates from recent research show an average sea level rise of 1.3 mm per year as measured over the past 50 years. This equates to about 5 inches in a century. There is no evidence for any unusual trend over the last century as compared to previous centuries. According to maps created by the early European and Chinese explorers, sea levels were several feet lower during the Columbian age of exploration and discovery.

There are several reasons for the natural rise of sea level. Fresh water from the melting glaciers enters the oceans, thermal expansion of the oceans occurs as the oceans warm, but isostatic rebound of the land also occurs due to the reduced weight of the ice sheet over the land. Wind, currents, solar variability, the position of the moon in its orbit, tectonic plate motion, and orbital and positional dynamics of the Earth all lead to changes in sea level. Furthermore, not all coastlines are experiencing rising sea levels, and not all oceans are even at the same level.

More frequent droughts and crop failures breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive.

It is hard to disagree with the statement, but is the President asserting that anthropogenic climate change is causing this? If he is, he is way out on a limb with his friends. Certainly, there are causes of crop failures, hunger, and conflict other than human caused climate change; perhaps natural climate variability would be one of those other possible causes. On the other hand, we have evidence that natural climate change caused crop failures, hunger, and conflict throughout the recorded history of civilizations. In the past, our species learned to better manage agricultural practices, to plant their crops in other locations, to seek food from alternative sources, and to compete with others, human and non-human, for scarce resources. Is our President claiming that if we can stop the climate from changing we’ll eliminate all crop failures, hunger, and conflict?

On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes as climate refugees. The security and stability of each nation and all peoples -- our prosperity, our health, and our safety -- are in jeopardy. And the time we have to reverse this tide is running out.

Sadly, on our planet human suffering continues as it surely will continue into the future. The absurd notion of stopping the climate from changing or of preventing volcanoes from erupting, blocking tsunamis from scouring the coastlines, lifting sinking islands, and quieting tremors in the earth beneath our feet is a fools folly of extraordinary proportions. Perhaps it would be more logical to move people to safer locations while feeding, clothing, and educating them. Attempting to stop climate change is crazy. The futility of the effort would quickly bring us to our economic knees. There is no clock on climate change. It happens! 

And yet, we can reverse it. 

Reverse it to what? Does the President have a particular climate of the past that he’d prefer we reinstate, or is he positing a return to some imagined ideal climate state prior to human’s arrival on the scene. How arrogant can a world leader be? How ignorant? How naïve? Perhaps Congress, in its infinite wisdom, could decide on the climate they’d prefer and then enact a bill to mandate it. That would keep them busy for awhile, I'm sure.  

John F. Kennedy once observed that "Our problems are man-made; therefore they may be solved by man." It is true that for too many years, mankind has been slow to respond or even recognize the magnitude of the climate threat. It is true of my own country, as well.

I believe John F. Kennedy referenced specific problems of his time, not all problems affecting humankind, then, now, or in the future.   I don’t believe he considered climate change to be a serious, urgent, or even relevant problem. The answer to climate change is adaptation. It is good news that our country has not fallen for the false threat of climate change and instead allocates its scarce and valuable resources to tackle only those problems that are within our ability to resolve, and by the means available to us.

We recognize that. But this is a new day. It is a new era. And I am proud to say that the United States has done more to promote clean energy and reduce carbon pollution in the last eight months than at any other time in our history.

True, the President has promoted clean energy, at least his idea of clean energy. Unfortunately, he ignores some of the more plausible clean energy technology. The observed reductions in carbon emissions result from the economic recession and the high cost of energy.  

We are in a recession, brought about by too much government involvement in energy management and too much government involvement in the housing and financial industries. This President vigorously promoted this excess!

Keeping our sanity when flooded with sound bites, headlines, twitters, and news capsules requires perspective. The challenge seems greater because the sources of this torrent intentionally exaggerate and purposefully distort just to gain our attention. They are competing for audience and the revenue thus derived. We just want to understand our world.

So, how do we keep our perspective, and our sanity, when so much of the information about our world comes to us filtered through these imperfect sources? How do we counter this maelstrom of misinformation? This deluge of drivel profoundly influences each of us and often causes us to draw false conclusions and to make bad decisions that have serious consequences for our families, our communities, and indeed, for the entire world. 

Even the labels associated with contemporary issues evolve and devolve into political correctness and special interest persuasion. Every important news story or headline that lingers for more than a day gets a tag that draws vivid associations and fertile assumptions. These tags create the meme that spreads often like a malicious virus forever infecting our minds with a false reality. Consider the following subjects.

•               Global Warming/Climate Change

•               Bird Flu/Swine Flu Pandemics

•               A Nation at Risk/Failing Schools

•               The Struggle for Civil Rights

•               Bush’s Katrina

•               Health Care Reform/Government Option/Public Option

•               The War on Terrorism

•               Freedom of Choice/Abortion Rights/Right to Life/Anti-Abortion/Pro-Life

•               Evolution/Creationism/Intelligent Design

Each of these issues conjures a complex set of notions and emotions related to our experiences and the information and attitudes we’ve encountered and remembered recently and through the years. Allow me to briefly analyze one of these subjects.

Try this experiment. Ask friends if our public schools are rotten. Chances are they will answer, yes! Ask them how they know and they’ll tell you about the high dropout rates, declining SAT scores, violence in the schools, drugs, incompetent teachers, and any number of other ways they know that public schools are rotten. So, case closed. Our public schools are rotten. 

Where did we get these ideas about our public schools? Mostly, they derive from media reports but often from politicians, talking heads, as well as from various friends and family members—it has become the unquestioned truth that virtually everyone accepts. Few of us have ever studied the public schools and made the effort to determine whether the dropout rates have increased or if SAT scores have actually declined, to select just two of the arguments. We share anecdotes from the experiences of our own children and from our memories of being in school. If we already have a notion that schools are rotten, then we tend to assume greater credence in those anecdotes that reinforce our belief. In reality, none of these memes is correct.

More Americans have high school diplomas than ever before and a higher percentage of adults have high school diplomas than ever before. Don’t believe me? Go to the U.S. Census Bureau and check it out for yourself. In just one century, the percentage of adult Americans with high school diplomas has increased from only about 10 percent in 1909 to almost 90 percent in 2009, and it has never been higher than now.

Have SAT scores declined? Average scores declined in the 1970's and early 80’s because of efforts to encourage college education for more people and also because of increasing access to higher education. More people were taking the SAT. When you compare the mean scores of the populations taking the test in 1965 and 1975 you find a lower mean in the later year, but it was a very different population that was taking the test. If you compare the mean SAT scores of the genders and the different racial and ethnic groups in 1965 and 1975 you find that all of these subpopulations increased their average SAT scores, but that was never reported. Someone, actually several people, thought it wasn’t newsworthy—if it bleeds, it leads, and if it blasts, it lasts. And the average scores have continued to increase ever since with some very significant gains in certain subpopulations. 

Similar explanations exist to refute the other arguments supporting the notion that our schools are rotten. I've selected just two in order to make the case for seeking perspective.

There are articles and books, indeed libraries full of books, about this subject and all of the others in the list. The point—it is very difficult to keep our perspective when what we hear or read is only a very small part of a larger story about which we have little knowledge and limited experience. How do we keep our perspective when we are deluged with distortions and exaggerations?

This brings me to the entire subject of global warming, or climate change, or the greenhouse effect--pick the descriptor you prefer. This is a subject where most of us are found to the left-side of the ignorant-to­-knowledgeable continuum, including politicians, journalists, and even PhD climatologists. The science is immature, there are many factors and variables involved, and the atmosphere of the earth is an incredibly complex and even chaotic system. Knowledge of the interactions that occur at the boundaries with the land, the sea, the biosphere, and outer space extends beyond our present scientific grasp. The scientists understand quite a bit, they are learning more all the time, but their knowledge is far from a practical understanding that allows for general explanation and comprehension. We are very far from the wisdom that nurtures sound public policy. Furthermore, in science we will never know everything about anything. Most of us can only repeat what we hear the experts say, and how we choose our particular experts is a whole other story. We are too ignorant for our crap-detectors to function reliably.

I like to say that someone who is both arrogant and ignorant is unencumbered by the facts. I stole this notion from someone many years ago and I've enjoyed its simple truth. When we don't know what we're talking about, our ability to make fools of ourselves is truly unlimited. I've observed that really arrogant people are often really ignorant--it's scary. I also like to say that well-educated persons are those who have learned, very well, to hide their ignorance. This is a most ironic truth.

Next time a government official, a politician, a journalist, a teacher, a scientist, or a friend makes a statement that includes, or is based upon, an untested assumption, be discerning. Think about it, question it, consider the source, and do all of this before you repeat what you've heard as if it were truth. This takes discipline, but it is a discipline we should all pursue.

Before we commit billions of dollars to prevent something, perhaps we should discover if what we wish to prevent is likely to happen. If yes, then we should determine if it is a bad thing that we would want to prevent. If yes, then we should discover whether we have the means to effectuate a desirable outcome. 

Our government leaders appear to have skipped all of these basic questions. They have made certain assumptions and are debating potential laws (i.e., cap and trade) that would reduce our freedoms and "redistribute wealth." This is an example of ignorance born of populism married to a frightening arrogance. We have elected officials who don't really care if what they are doing is the right thing to do. They only care if it is popular and if it can be listed among their accomplishments. 

Where is their responsibility to learn? Where is their responsibility to lead? Where is their responsibility to protect our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?    Enacting such laws in response to political pressure, and very questionable science, violates the trust. Governments, at least our government, are supposed to be instituted to secure these rights through the just powers derived from the consent of the governed. I'm afraid our government has devolved into a partisan mud-wrestling match resulting in a dysfunctional labyrinth of laws and rules. It has become addicted to its own dysfunction. Heaven help us.

Science is never settled! "Settled science" is an oxymoron! If it is "settled" it is not science, it is dogma.