Scientific proof in climate change research

Definition

Scientific proof is the means by which a question comes to be considered sufficiently settled, on the basis of scientific argument and evidence. What makes a theory, method, or result count as scientific has been controversial, both among philosophers of science and as a practical issue in courts of law. The term “proof” is also problematic. To prove originally meant to test (the word stems from the same Latin root as “probe”): Thus, something successfully tested has been “proven,” but such proof is, contrary to popular expectation, no guarantee of truth.

Scientific theories create confidence through their ability to explain and predict events. In an experiment, investigators test their theory about how the world works: If certain forces are in play, then specific results should be observed. Hard sciences (such as physics and chemistry) often allow for such simple testing. Social sciences (such as economics and sociology) do not permit this, though there is dispute whether this is because they cannot offer good theories or because they deal with more complicated aspects of the world. Confidence in claims is increased if they are supported by evidence from distinct and various sources. Confidence is diminished if those who discover, test, or report facts seem to lack objectivity.

Significance for Climate Change

While climates cannot as yet be created in a test tube, it is possible to compare the theoretical expectations of a given theory or model with what is known about the past. When the available climatological evidence consists, for example, of or ice cores, scientists hypothesize earlier events that would explain that evidence. When a climate model correctly “predicts” facts (such as temperature) known to be correct for the data available from the past, there is some reason to take its future predictions seriously. One such example is climate models, which look at big-picture trends over time and account for both anthropogenic and environmental factors. On the other hand, if a theory gets the past wrong, that is reason for suspicion (though, in some cases, it might be reason for a correction of the historical record).

Climate systems are so complex that there is room for much disagreement about what constitutes the facts of Earth’s climate, about the history of those facts, and about the causal relationships determining them. Consider, for instance, the gradual disappearance of the snow in Kilimanjaro. Coastal protection activist Mike Tidwell reported in 2006 that Kilimanjaro would be free of ice within a decade as a result of warming climate. Skeptical environmentalist Bjørn Lomborg, on the other hand, claimed in 2007 that Kilimanjaro’s ice loss is attributable not to temperature changes but rather to a drying climate.

Both arguments relied on the reports of others, and with regard to such reports there is controversy about what is, or is not, scientific proof. Tidwell has characterized the leading climatological reporting agency, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as “the largest scientific collaboration in human history,” but skeptic Roy Spencer claims that “most of those 2,000 'scientists' are actually bureaucrats and governmental representatives; very few of them are climate scientists.” He believes that these representatives promote policy for ulterior reasons and find the science after the fact to justify their positions.

There is an important asymmetry between alarmists and deniers. For those who believe climate change to be occurring through processes over which human beings may be able to exert some control, waiting until all the evidence is in risks fatal delay in reversing causes and mitigating effects. They think it prudent to emphasize the scope of the risks, while avoiding the endless qualifications that are part of normal scientific practice. Those who minimize the idea of global warming, on the other hand, see no need for a rush to judgment. They view alarmists as overstating troubling results and understating qualifications and uncertainties, using oversimplified science to achieve policy objectives.

Bibliography

Curd, Martin, and J. A. Cover, eds. Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues. New York: W. W. Norton, 1998.

Doherty, Peter. The Beginner’s Guide to Winning the Nobel Prize: A Life in Science. New York: Columbia University Press, 2006.

Haack, Susan. Defending Science—Within Reason: Between Scientism and Cynicism. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2003. A

Herring, David, et al. "What Evidence Exists That Earth Is Warming and That Humans Are the Main Cause?" Climate.gov, 12 Oct. 2022, www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what-evidence-exists-earth-warming-and-humans-are-main-cause. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.

Lomborg, Bjørn. Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming. New York: Knopf, 2007.

Maslin, Mark. Global Warming: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Palmer, Tim, and Bjorn Stevens. "The Scientific Challenge of Understanding and Estimating Climate Change." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116, no. 49, 21 Oct. 2019, pp. 24390–24395, doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1906691116. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.

Pearce, Fred. With Speed and Violence: Why Scientists Fear Tipping Points in Climate Change. Boston: Beacon Press, 2007.

Spencer, Roy W. Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and Misguided Policies That Hurt the Poor. New York: Encounter Books, 2008.

Tidwell, Mike. The Ravaging Tide: Strange Weather, Future Katrinas, and the Coming Death of America’s Coastal Cities. New York: Free Press, 2006.