What is the Process of Science?

Lesson Plan 6 – Day 1

How do we know what is �‘good science’?

• Scientists follow logical paths that refine our knowledge
• uses quality data and methods to arrive at a defensible position
• The modern scientific process looks somewhat like this:
• Idea → Research → Conclusions → Publication → Feedback → Research

​

• All scientific ideas are subject to challenge and modification

Quality Control

• The scientific community polices itself for quality
• publication of research results
• independent scientists believe the paper is ‘good science’
• uses quality data and methods to arrive at a defensible position
• This does not necessarily mean “correct science”
• all experiments must have repeatable results

​

More Quality Control

• Research results that do not agree with other results are published as long as it is ‘good science’
• Over time, science is self-correcting
• An open debate of theories pushes out weak ideas until a strong consensus is reached

​

Scientific Consensus

• When the scientific community comes to a consensus, this means the idea has
• withstood rigorous testing = ‘good science’
• represents our best understanding of the subject being studied
• Some uncertainty will always remain
• Scientists strive to minimize uncertainty to reasonable levels

​

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

• It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change.
• Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis.
• Differing viewpoints existing within the scientific community are reflected in the IPCC reports.

​

The IPCC Fourth Assessment (2007) states:

• “Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is very likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentration”

(“very likely” is defined as >90% likelihood)

• It is “extremely unlikely” that all observed warming could be due to natural cycles (“extremely unlikely” is defined as <5% likelihood)

​

Appearances of an ongoing debate

• In the United States, political interference in climate change science contributes to the appearance of an ongoing debate about the causes
• Journalism and other media provide equal coverage to climate deniers as to the consensus of the IPCC

Science in the Policy Arena

• Science is an important factor in decisions the government makes about health, security, and sustainability
• Science is only one aspect of the policy process
• Manipulation or suppression of science before it enters the public policy arena is not OK

​

​

​

Consequences of Political Interference� in Climate Change�

• Interference: Political appointees with no scientific training edited EPA climate reports and barred climate scientists from speaking to the press
• Consequence: The public becomes misinformed about the harmful consequences of climate change, indirectly supporting policy inaction

​