The inspiration for these posts came from reading two articles about the rising cost of climate change. The articles in question were “Accounting for the Future” in the Summer 2021 issue of Environmental Defense Fund Solutions Newsletter and “What Are The Costs Of Climate Change?”, an online NPR piece dated September 16, 2020. Both articles claimed climate change had cost the “more than $500 billion” in the US over the past five years. Neither elaborated and neither provided a link or reference for the figure of $500 billion.

So, what does one do with this assertion of fact? Some options:

  • Investigate the claim and remain noncommittal about its truth-value until questions are answered to your satisfaction (if they ever are).  

  • Register the claim as a possible fact but remain noncommittal about its truth-value. Reject further investigation as too time consuming.

  • Accept the claim as true or true enough, and leave it at that.

  • Accept the claim as plausible, which is good enough to present it as established fact in the service of some higher purpose, e.g., to motivate people to forego fossil fuels. Reject further investigation as quibbling about details and overlooking the bigger picture.

So, what is the “right” way to approach assertions of fact? There’s no one answer. No one has the time, energy, or expertise to research all claims of fact. Not every statement of fact needs to be challenged anyway. But when such claims are news (as opposed to long-established and well-known facts) and they are based on scientific evidence,  don’t assume their veracity without looking a little closer at that evidence.

But even if purported facts turn out to be true or at least plausible given the current evidence, they don’t convey much meaningful information without additional context. For instance, does $500 billion in weather-related damage reflect a trend related to the climate or some other factor, such as increasing population density in storm-prone areas or exceptionally high inflation in the construction industry? Hard to say without more digging.

But here is something I can say: be wary of science news that neglects to name its sources.