The improbability drive

Being a scientist requires one to accept difficult truths, for example, conclusions are never absolute. When it comes to researching things like global warming two truths are undeniable: conclusions are not only provisional but speculative at best, and the human variable goes beyond a source of error and becomes a paralyzing roadblock. What I have read so far of State of Fear reinforces these stubborn realities, and seems to present the difficulty in dealing with them more than analyzing the research.

I had no expectations and no idea about what this book to present save for what Robin intimated in class (that was anti-global warming.) I wanted to think it would be a piece of crap, a handbook for idiots who couldn't grasp greater scientific concepts. But I set that aside. The front and back cover quotes led me to believe I was going on an adventure. And there is a sense of adventure, but it doesn't seem to advance the story of the clash of the scientists; it's obligatory to rein in an audience otherwise uninterested by the "deeper" subject matter. So far, I have failed to find the characters "fierce and compelling" as the critics declare, but instead find myself relating back to Douglas Adams’ Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Kenner is the eccentric Beeblebrox, always two steps ahead in an unpredictable direction, Evans is the lovable goof Arthur Dent, both frustrated and enamored with the companions he joins on this unwitting quest.

Even with the footnotes and the most basic concepts put into layman's terms, I don't feel any pressure to take a side. In fact, by the time we are introduced to the Vanutu team I was confused to which side book’s argument was taking. Researchers don't seem to challenge Mr. Evans's blackbox certainties. Instead, they relate to his sensibilities with the graphs. They don't try to distract him and want him to confirm his confidence in the accuracy of the data (107). They don't exercise the usual rhetoric that you would expect from someone arguing for or against conspiracy theory. By confirming their points at each step, and supporting the fictional story by the fact that they are repairing for a legal argument, they expect that Mr. Evans, as well as the reader, is too smart for the usual sleight-of-hand. If this section of the book is intended to convince me of something, it has yet to do so.

It wasn't until the section where Kenner is arguing the motives behind changing documents that I finally felt a parallel to my own opinion but I needed to defend. I felt a little disgusted when I realized it was a very unscientific one. "You have to speak loudly-and yes, maybe exaggerate a little-if you want to get their attention" (308). As unethical as this statement is to scientist presenting facts, reality that the audience is impassioned, easily skewed, and far from scientific, different tactics must be employed. Sadly, it's like explaining an adult concept to a child in terms to understand only a child will eventually grasp the concept when he is older.

So, I have more to read. Will I change my ideas, those before this book or those about this book up to this point? Sorry, I am a bit behind. As much as I love the class and miss our discussions, I found something that occupies my time and heart much more.