Andrew Miall's letter raises many questions of the role and obligation petroleum geoscientists
play in educating their communities and society at large. The perception, ostensibly held north
of the border, is that: Evolution is no longer part of the U.S. educational curriculum, and a cabal
of conservative parents and dogmatic religious evangelists are shutting down free inquiry.
It s further opined that the best and the brightest of theUnited States will soon purchase
one-way tickets to more intellectually hospitable countries.
To paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the death of the teaching of evolutin in the United States
may be a little exaggerated. I can vouch that the teaching of evolution continues unabated at
the public schools in northern Virginia.
In contrast, several years ago I wrote the dean of the public research university where I earned
my undergraduate degree, objecting to the lack of skepticism concerning global warming theory in
department news letters and research focus. In response, an assistant to the dean wrote back
telling me to go elsewhere with my concerns.
But Miall's pereptions raise interesting parallels. Miall is certainl correct in saying that
most every petroleum geoscientist embraces climate change as fact. On the other hand, on an
anecdotal level, most industry based geoscientists view global warmng as a plausible theory,
but with significant flaws - such as its failure to link atmospheric CO2 levels to
the climatic perturbations recognized as the Medieval Maxima and the Little Ice Age, which
occurred over the past 1,000 years.
Unlike evolution and climate change, which are based on careful examination of past events, global
warming theory is based on computer model extrapolations into the future. Since the future has
not happened, global warming theory is, necessarily, a faith-based exercise.
The parallels between the teaching of evolution in the United States and global warming theory
is the irony of one group of dogmatists trying to de-elevate evolution from undisputed fact to
the theory status, and another group of dogmatists trying to elevate global warming from theory
to undisputed fact status. As we all know, these groups will brokk no dissent, absolutely
confident in the righteousness of their faith-based point of view.
The richer irony is that the United States is able to absorb the shrill arguments of these
dogmatistis and muddle to the "least worst" position, which may be a characteristic of a healthy
and functioning deomocracy.
Ramsay A. Barrett, Marshall, VA
. . .