Can't Trust Scientists—Really?

If scientists can’t predict hurricanes with perfection, how can we trust them to accurately forecast the extent of climate change?
 
I haven’t actually come across an argument based on this question, but it would be no more foolish than many of the denials of the man-aided destruction of our planet. It’s exactly the kind of anti-science “analysis” we have heard so much on this controversial subject that should be non-controversial.
 
Let’s take a look at it and see if there’s any merit to such a contention.
 
What is it the hurricane experts are doing?
 

• They analyze the data available to them and, based on that information and their expertise, predict the most likely track a storm will take.
• They recognize their projections have no guarantee of perfection, so they provide an indication of the potential error of their forecast.
• They gather additional data.
• Employing the new information, they apply it to the latest situation and update the forecast accordingly.

 
I can hear the climate deniers pointing out how much a forecast can change over the life of a hurricane, and there is no reason to expect a prediction of a future earth to be any more accurate.
 
But would an argument like this have any merit?
 
Not really!
 
Let’s see how climate researchers have attacked the subject.
 

• Preliminary investigations are made and, based on the data accumulated and the expertise of the researchers, they formulate a theory.
• When they can’t be precise on all repercussions, they may, for example, provide ranges for possible sea water or average temperature rise by a certain year.
• They gather additional data.
• Incorporating these data into currently known information, the theory is updated.

 
Notice that the steps are pretty much the same as for weather forecasting. Because that’s how science works. So why don’t our deniers have a point? Why should we believe in climate change when we can’t accept an early path of a hurricane?
 
Here’s the difference.
 
The updated information in the case of hurricane prediction often points to deviations in the previous path and the scientists report it with honesty.
 
The updated information in the case of climate change prediction verifies the findings of the past and the scientists report that with honesty. Perhaps they might modify some of the earlier points such as amount of sea level rise. But the key is that in this area the new information does not show significant variation from previous research. The evidence is irrefutable: Our planet is changing for the worse and human action bears great responsibility.
 
The conclusion on a hurricane’s path changes because new evidence requires reinterpretation.
 
The conclusion on climate change remains unaltered because new evidence supports the previous theory in study after study.
 
In both cases, the conclusions based on revised information reflect the true situation. In both cases the scientists are being honest.
 
Why is it so hard to accept?
 
And as far as the future of the earth is concerned, it will be harmed much more by ignoring the results of climate change than by the devastation of any one hurricane.