Standards of proof for attributing real world events/damage to global warming should be the same as in clinical or environmental lawsuits, argue Lloyd et al. The central question that we raise is effective communication. How can climate scientists best and effectively communicate their findings to crucial non-expert audiences, including public policy makers and civil society? To address this question, we look at the mismatch between what courts require and what climate scientists are setting as a bar of proof. Our first point is that scientists typically demand too much of themselves in terms of evidence, in comparison with the level of evidence required in a legal, regulatory, or public policy context. Our second point is to recommend that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommend more prominently the use of the category “more likely than not” as a level of proof in their reports, as this corresponds to the standard of proof most frequently required in civil court rooms. This has also implications for public policy and the public communication of climate evidence.

劳埃德等人认为，将现实世界事件/损害归因于全球变暖的证据标准应该与临床或环境诉讼中的证据标准相同。我们提出的核心问题是有效沟通。气候科学家如何才能最好、有效地将他们的发现传达给重要的非专家受众，包括公共政策制定者和民间社会？为了解决这个问题，我们研究了法院的要求与气候科学家设定的证据标准之间的不匹配。我们的第一点是，与法律、监管或公共政策背景下所需的证据水平相比，科学家通常对自己的证据要求过高。我们的第二点是建议政府间气候变化专门委员会在其报告中更突出地建议使用“更有可能”这一类别作为证据级别，因为这符合民事法庭最常要求的证明标准房间。这也对公共政策和气候证据的公共传播产生影响。