Global Warming Hysteria: Destroying the Meaning of “Fact” to Win Debate

“The scientists” are on the warpath because global warming hysteria has been questioned and due to the substantial loss of credibility in global warming science itself  in recent months.  (The two things are not synonyms.)  But that is no excuse to further undermine the science sector’s credibility by pretending that anthropogenic global warming is a “fact,” when it is no such thing.  But that’s what some want to do to win the global warming debate.  From “Defeating the Merchants of Doubt,” by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway  (Nature: Vol 465|10 June 2010, abstract only, no link):

Scientists have much to learn about making their messages clearer. Honesty and objectivity are cardinal values in science, which leads scientists to be admirably frank about the ambiguities and uncertainties in their enterprise. But these values also frequently lead scientists to begin with caveats — outlining what they don’t know before proceeding to what they do — a classic example of what journalists call ‘burying the lead’

But that’s how science properly operates, which is one crucial way in which it is supposed to differ from public advocacy. Alas, Oreskes and Conway don’t get that crucial distinction, or in their desire to prevail politically, don’t care:

We believe that the preponderance of evidence is such that scientists should now clearly label anthropogenic warming a fact. Why do they have so much trouble doing so? Perhaps in part because this judgement requires a broad overview that is difficult for today’s specialized researchers to feel confident in. Again, they need to take the time to gain that view, if they are to respond effectively to doubt-mongers.

If the point is to convince the public that AGW is a “fact” as the general public understands the term—as in a thing that is indisputably true—this is nonsense on its face since the assertion made is based in the article on a “preponderance of the evidence.”  A preponderance of the evidence might be described as a majority of the evidence (in law it means generally 50% +1), which means there is contrary data, and indeed, that the alleged “fact” might not be true.  Here is a standard dictionary definition of the word “fact:”

Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.

Clearly, AGW is not a matter of certainty as are the existence of genetic engineering or the life of Chaucer.  Thus, the public is not going to believe that AGW is a “fact,” and will correctly conclude that the word “fact” employed in association with AGW is entirely misleading.

But Wesley, the scientists might respond,  a fact in science is not the same as a fact popularly understood (thus, begging the question: Then, why use the word?) Beyond that, calling AGW a fact in the scientific sense of the word also doesn’t work.  Here’s how Stephen Jay Gould described facts versus theory in science in the context of discussing the evolution debates. From “Darwinism Defined the Difference Between Fact and Theory:”

Facts are the world’s data; theories are explanations proposed to interpret and coordinate facts.

Thus, scientifically, it would be accurate to state that global warming has occurred in the last 100 years. That is a scientific fact.   That’s what the data shows.  That this fact is caused by human activity is a theory that seeks to explain why it happened.  It would thus be inaccurate scientifically to call AGW a fact, even if it were true to a metaphysical certainty, which it is clearly not.  Thus to call AGW a scientific fact is erroneous scientifically.

In conclusion: Whether the word is used in the popular or scientific sense, it is wholly unwarranted.  Doing so would thus be a form of hype intended to induce hysteria to achieve a political end.  Thankfully, that doesn’t work anymore.