Climate change consensus is growing

“All scientific ideas … are inherently provisional, meaning that science is always willing to revise these ideas if warranted by new evidence.” (Understanding Science 101) “Scientific knowledge is always tentative and subject to revision should new evidence come to light.” (National Center for Science Education) “Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.” (National Academy of Sciences)

As the forgoing statements from prominent scientific organizations make clear, science doesn't claim to prove anything with absolute certainty. Rigorously researched scientific findings based on an abundance of verifiable evidence (such as those associated with climate change) can be assumed to be “true” with a very high degree of confidence. Nonetheless, even these findings are subject to modification or rejection in light of new confounding evidence. This tentative/provisional nature of science is one of its greatest attributes.

Monte Heil (Daily Bee, Nov. 3, 2024) continues to argue that provisional science is “junk science.” What scientific training and credentials does he have that would persuade us to value his personal opinion over statements from mainstream scientific organizations? He appears to be suffering from a bad case of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome — the tendency for a person to overestimate their expertise on a subject about which they have a poor understanding.

Mr. Heil is correct that the scientific consensus on climate change is not 97%. It is now at least 99%. (“‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans”)

JACK DeBAUN

Dover