Another exchange on climate change

The inspiring article “Science controversies past and present ” describes similarities among current climate change debates and some historical ones about the acceptance of Copernicus’s heliocentric theory and Einstein’s general theory of relativity. However, author Steve Sherwood does not mention an important key feature shared by each of the two historical examples: the accurately and convincingly corroborated predictions made according to the framework of both theories that led to their acceptance (no dogma needed) by the scientific community and ultimately by the public.

General relativity provided a specific prediction for the motion of the perihelion of Mercury, with no room for fakery. As Banesh Hoffmann put it, ¹ “There was nothing arbitrary that could be specially adjusted to fit the fact.” Similarly, as John Rigden wrote, ² Urbain Leverrier “did not simply say, ‘My calculations prove that something is out there.’ Not at all. Leverrier pinpointed a location: right ascension 22 h 46 m; declination, –13°24′.” With that precise information, Neptune was seen for the first time, was added to the map of known planets, and definitively indicated the Copernican system.

Perhaps the link missing from Sherwood’s article is a pointer to a precise prediction of a specific consequence of climate change.