74. Scientific Theory and the Precautionary Principle

I am currently taking my third environmental science course at Austin Community College, this one is entitled Environmental Geology.  One of the reasons I have been taking these courses is so that I can share things I learn, in this blog for example, about a subject I have always been very interested in and therefore am highly motivated to learn more about.  So here are some bits:

Scientific Theory:  A theory is a strong scientific statement that the hypothesis supporting the theory is likely to be true but has not been proven conclusively.  New evidence often disproves existing hypotheses or scientific theory; absolute proof of scientific theory is not possible.

The Precautionary Principle:  The idea behind the principle is that when there exists a potentially serious environmental problem, scientific certainty is not required to take a precautionary approach.  The precautionary principle was supported by the 1992 Rio Earth Summit on sustainable development.

Source:  Introduction to Environmental Geology, Fifth Edition, Edward A. Keller

So, when someone says that the theory of human contribution to global climate change has not been proven, they are correct, but neither has any other scientific theory.  Climate scientists will continue to test their hypotheses to try and find cracks in them.  Models will continue to be refined.  I doubt that any of them really want to believe that they are right in their consensus, but scientists are supposed to follow the data, like it or not. This process will continue and we need to stay tuned for further developments.  In the meantime,  I think we need to take their advice seriously as we would take a medical specialist's best advice if we have a health condition. It doesn't mean we shouldn't get other opinions, but trusting the experts is something we do on a regular basis anyway.  Why should this situation be any different?

When there is so much consensus among climate scientists about human-caused climate change, I feel compelled to say that I think it is very irresponsible to call their findings "junk science" without backing that up with at least equally credible evidence, or to say that we should not do anything until the theory is "proven", as it never will be.  It could very well be that a scientist will come along at some point with a new discovery, other scientists will pick up on it and try to reproduce the results, and the theory will be updated. That is how the process works.  That's part of what makes it not junk science.  Until then, we have to base our decisions on the best knowledge we currently have, from relatively objective sources that are respected in the scientific community as a whole, and keep an open mind to what new discoveries may come along.  What is it we've been hearing a lot lately? Hope and pray for the best, but prepare for the worst.  Better safe than sorry.  That pretty much sums up the Precautionary Principle.