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 . . .