Climate Science As a Social Institution

Abstract

We have argued that the near consensus among climate scientists does, all else being equal, constitute genuine evidence in favor of the theory anthropogenic global warming. Many skeptics have argued that all else is not equal, however. In particular, the so-called Climategate scandal of 2009 has been used by numerous skeptics to argue that climate scientists are lying or are unduly biased against skeptical views. In this chapter we consider these charges in the specific context of literature in the philosophy and social studies of science. We argue that science in general can provide good grounds for belief even though science is never devoid of politics and vested interests, and that there is no reason to think that climate science is different in this respect.