期刊
CLIMATIC CHANGE
卷 165, 期 3-4, 页码 -出版社
SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10584-021-03061-9
关键词
Extreme event attribution; Standards of proof; Policy and evidence; Legal contexts of climate attribution; Science communication
资金
- NSF SES [1754740]
- Indiana University Distinguished Professor Funds
- Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie
- Divn Of Social and Economic Sciences [1754740] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
In order to effectively communicate climate evidence, researchers suggest lowering the standard of proof to "more likely than not" and point out that climate scientists typically demand too much of themselves in terms of evidence.
Standards of proof for attributing real world events/damage to global warming should be the same as in clinical or environmental lawsuits, argue Lloyd et al. The central question that we raise is effective communication. How can climate scientists best and effectively communicate their findings to crucial non-expert audiences, including public policy makers and civil society? To address this question, we look at the mismatch between what courts require and what climate scientists are setting as a bar of proof. Our first point is that scientists typically demand too much of themselves in terms of evidence, in comparison with the level of evidence required in a legal, regulatory, or public policy context. Our second point is to recommend that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommend more prominently the use of the category more likely than not as a level of proof in their reports, as this corresponds to the standard of proof most frequently required in civil court rooms. This has also implications for public policy and the public communication of climate evidence.
作者
我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。
推荐
暂无数据