|
|
I just got back from talking with some of the world's brightest high-school students. It's enough to restore faith in the future. The occasion was the International Science and Engineering Fair (ISEF), where 1,500 students came to display and defend their science projects. ISEF is sponsored by Intel and administered by Science Service. Science Service publishes Science News, where I hung my hat for many years before joining SI. But until now I'd never had the opportunity to attend an ISEF. The event came to me this time, in Albuquerque. I'd been anticipating it ever since being struck by the enthusiasm in 2004 of two dedicated high-school teachers who have been working full time since then as the local organizers.
|
The students I talked to were filled with passion as they described their research and answered my questions. They are intelligent, of course, but, more important, they demonstrated curiosity, determination, perseverance, and resourcefulness. It isn't easy doing science, but these young men and women (many were female) had these qualities and had done what it takes.
One girl had been developing her project for six years now. And somehow they had all gained access to good scientific laboratories, in universities, government, or industry, and their data and equipment. It is so important to help and encourage motivated young people like this. Its payoff is our own future. Such students need not become professional scientists to have their experience benefit us all. Their deep immersion in the processes of science, if only for a time, will make them better citizens the rest of their lives.
Critical e-mails from readers skeptical of global warming began arriving as soon as our May/June 2007 cover story on the subject began reaching them. They are furious. Almost all began by expressing disappointment, even anger, that a magazine with skeptical in its title hadn't debunked what they obviously think of as a myth. Two canceled their subscriptions. Most didn't refer to the detailed scientific information in our cover article by NASA scientist Stuart Jordan or in the excerpts we presented from the latest IPCC report. So I couldn't tell if they'd even read the articles. One did admit he (they were all males) hadn't gotten beyond the third paragraph. And all this before we even publish, in this issue, Part 2 of Jordan's report. (We publish about half of his second half; we've omitted a section on mitigating global warming, for space and because, in SI, for now, I want to focus on the science. But the whole thing is available on the Web.)
A couple of points: skepticism is not a position but a determination to use science and reason in arriving at conclusions. Science is a methodology, not an ideology. Evidence prevails. Jordan's report is an attempt to present the current status of the best peer-reviewed scientific evidence. If, in the future, new and better evidence shows that global warming is all a myth and chimera, in marked contrast to the situation now, we'll be right there reporting on that. In the meantime, we'll continue to present and evaluate the best evidence on these and other important controversies. |