Case Study of Objectivity in Science: Climate Change

PI提议调查两个有争议的气候科学案例，试图阐述我们对气候模型如何被测试和确认的理解。她的案例研究将涉及代理地表温度变化重建的“曲棍球棒”模型，以及对流层变暖的争论。然后，她将在几位气候科学家的帮助下，检查IPCC（政府间气候变化专门委员会）在第四次评估报告（2007年）中对这些争议的处理，以初步确定IPCC是否符合该组织在其指导方针中规定的极高的程序客观性标准。她的主要成果将是对气候模型确认的分析。她还致力于对IPCC报告进行公正的分析。她还指出，在辩论中，不同党派对证据和确认的概念存在潜在的重要哲学差异。她将对这一有希望的早期领先进行有力的调查，如果结果证明它在辩论中发挥了重要作用，她将把它写下来。首先，哲学文献中很少有关于气候模型测试和确认所涉及的原理或细节的文章。她计划开始通过对两组有争议的气候模型和数据的确认和测试分析来填补这一空白。其次，海伦·朗吉诺的程序客观性范式与政府间气候变化专门委员会采用的程序之间的初步相似之处是非常惊人的。PI已经对Longino关于客观性如何在科学中起作用的观点进行了一次“实地测试”（2005），她希望通过这个新的案例研究，她可以对“客观性”的哲学文献做出进一步的贡献。她还期望能够对IPCC在她将要审查的两个极具争议的案例研究中是否达到了其非常高的程序客观性标准做出判断，以及她将公布哪些结果。更广泛的影响公众能否信任IPCC的报告及其调查结果的客观性，可能会对针对全球变暖这一既定事实所采取的国际政策决策产生重大影响。这些决定的关键在于对IPCC结论的具体信任程度，即人类原因对观测到的20世纪变暖趋势以及预测到的该趋势在21世纪及以后的持续负有重大责任。PI对此类讨论提出的贡献或见解旨在帮助科学界、政策制定者和公众社区认识到IPCC在其气候科学报告中所遵循的非凡标准。此外，如果在哲学框架中存在，正如它所显示的那样，在一些关于关键领域的建模和测试的可接受性的争论的基础上存在范式差异，这值得公开和直接的讨论，而不是从一方到另一方使用“科学方法”的简单挑战。因此，她提出的研究旨在为科学哲学家、科学家本人、政策制定者以及广大公众更深入地了解气候科学做出贡献。她计划至少写一篇关于气候模型是如何为受过教育的普通大众测试和确认的文章。

IntroductionThe PI proposes to investigate two controversial cases of climate science, seeking to elaborate our understanding of how climate models are tested and confirmed. Her case studies will involve the 'hockey stick' models of proxy surface temperature change reconstructions, and the debate over troposphere warming. She will then examine the treatment of these controversies in the Fourth Assessment Report (2007) by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), with the aid of several climate scientists, in order to ascertain to a first approximation the IPCC's accordance with the organization's very high standards of procedural objectivity, as set out in their Guidelines. Her key result will be an analysis of confirmation in climate modeling. She aims also to produce a fair analysis of the IPCC Report. She has also noted a potentially important philosophical difference between different parties in the debates in their notions of evidence and confirmation. She shall follow up this promising early lead with vigorous investigation, and write it up if it turns out to be playing a significant role in the debates.Intellectual MeritsFirst, very little has been written in the philosophical literature on either the principles or details involved in climate model testing and confirmation. She plans to start to fill this gap with her analysis of confirmation and testing of two sets of controversial models and data in climate modeling. Second, the prima facie resemblance between Helen Longino's paradigm of procedural objectivity and the procedures adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is very striking. The PI has already conducted one "field test" of Longino's views of how objectivity works in science (2005), and she expects that she can make further contributions to the philosophical literature on 'objectivity' with this new case study. She also anticipates to be able to make a judgment concerning whether the IPCC has met their very high standards of procedural objectivity in the two highly contested case studies she will be examining, and about which she shall publish results.Broader ImpactsWhether or not the public can trust the IPCC reports and the objectivity of their findings has potentially large consequences for international policy decisions taken in response to the established fact of global warming. The crux of these decisions concerns the degree of trust lent specifically to the IPCC conclusions that human causes are substantively responsible for the observed twentieth century warming trend and the predicted continuations of that trend through the twenty-first century and beyond. The PI's proposed contribution or insight into such discussions aims to aid the scientific, policy-making, and public communities' awareness of the extraordinary standards to which the IPCC holds itself accountable in its reports of the climate science. In addition, if there are, as it appears, paradigmatic differences in philosophical frameworks underlying some of the debates regarding acceptability of modeling and testing in crucial areas, this deserves open and direct discussion, rather than simplistic challenges from one side to another to utilize "the scientific method." Thus, her proposed study is designed to contribute to deeper understanding of climate science not only by philosophers of science, but also by scientists themselves, policymakers, and also the broader public. She plans to write at least one article on how climate models are tested and confirmed for the educated lay public.