The burden of proof is the responsibility to provide evidence for a claim. In science, the person or group making a claim must support it with valid evidence; it is not up to others to prove it wrong. A new hypothesis is accepted only when enough reliable evidence has built up to support it.Climate change shows why this matters. Scientists who claim that human activity is warming the planet must provide data, a mechanism and predictions that can be tested. Equally, anyone who claims the warming is natural must provide evidence for that alternative, not simply point out uncertainty.The scientific community checks claims through:
• peer review: other experts in the field examine a paper's methods, data and conclusions before it is published in a journal;
• replication: other scientists repeat the work to see if they get the same results;
• discussion at conferences, and reviews of all the evidence by bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).Science rarely proves anything with total certainty. When a risk is serious and irreversible, decision makers often apply the precautionary principle: action to prevent harm should not be delayed just because the evidence is not yet complete. Opponents argue that costly action needs stronger evidence.Claims about climate are also made by governments, businesses, campaign groups and the media. These may be affected by bias, for example if a company would lose money from limits on emissions. Deciding where the burden of proof lies, and whose evidence to trust, is part of the social and ethical debate about climate change.
• peer review: other experts in the field examine a paper's methods, data and conclusions before it is published in a journal;
• replication: other scientists repeat the work to see if they get the same results;
• discussion at conferences, and reviews of all the evidence by bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).Science rarely proves anything with total certainty. When a risk is serious and irreversible, decision makers often apply the precautionary principle: action to prevent harm should not be delayed just because the evidence is not yet complete. Opponents argue that costly action needs stronger evidence.Claims about climate are also made by governments, businesses, campaign groups and the media. These may be affected by bias, for example if a company would lose money from limits on emissions. Deciding where the burden of proof lies, and whose evidence to trust, is part of the social and ethical debate about climate change.