New Science Suggests Increase of Ice at the Poles: Can Aristotle Help Us Have a Civil Discussion About the Research?

By Cynthia Neil, guest contributor

When the public is losing confidence in American institutions, Neil thinks Aristotle’s intellectual virtues can guide both policymakers and the public toward thoughtful, balanced responses.

At first glance, using an ancient Greek philosopher to frame our thinking about recent scientific studies of climate change and polar ice may seem a bit unconventional, but in 2025, is anything conventional?

Two recent scientific studies suggest that ice loss at the poles may be slowing, pausing, or reversing. Researchers from China’s Tongji University analyzed data from NASA satellites to demonstrate that glaciers in Antarctica declined in mass from 2002-2021 but gained mass from 2021-2023. In the Arctic, a team of UK and US scientists used advanced computer models to suggest that ice loss has “paused” in that region for the past two decades.  Moreover, they conclude that several other “pauses” in ice loss have occurred since greenhouse gases have been released into the atmosphere and initiated the current period of “global warming.” While these studies present intriguing findings, most climate scientists agree that the long-term trend continues to show significant ice loss at both poles.

Do these two new studies challenge conventional wisdom about global warming and climate change? Do they contradict it? Does it matter?

What Would Aristotle Do?

In a  New York Post op-ed, Roger Pielke Jr, a respected academic, reminds us that the global climate system is highly complex and unpredictable. He shares several examples of claims about ice loss in the Arctic made by political actors and activists that directed attention to the problem of warming at the poles but failed to materialize. Pielke argues that dire predictions from figures like former Vice President Al Gore and Sen. John Kerry contribute to skepticism about climate change when the extreme scenarios they describe don’t happen.

Climate change skepticism, in turn, drives apathy and political resistance in the American electorate which may have been in favor of reducing greenhouse gas emissions had they more faith in leaders’ motives. This skepticism thwarts potential policies that facilitate adaptation strategies and help to ultimately transition the country to more diversified energy sources. When advocates for aggressive environmental policies use inflammatory rhetoric and emotional appeals to gain political support, they further undermine the public’s faith in institutions and political leaders’ ability to identify and solve big problems—including those of a scientific nature.

“Climate change skepticism drives apathy and political resistance in the American electorate.”

In a politically polarized climate, it’s hard to discuss emerging science. How can concerned citizens and policymakers change the way we consume and act on emerging science and conflicting narratives about the impact of human activity? A way ahead can be found in the classical thought that guided Western civilization for thousands of years.

Many readers are familiar with the personal virtues of justice, temperance, and courage Aristotle outlined in the Nicomachean Ethics in 350 B.C. Perhaps less well known are the intellectual virtues he proposed in Book VI. When communicating matters about climate change and adaptation, modern policymakers should take a page from Aristotle’s book. In times when the public is losing confidence in American institutions, Aristotle’s intellectual virtues can guide both policymakers and the public toward thoughtful, balanced responses.

“Wise leaders shield scientific inquiry from politics and profiteers, allowing truths to be proven using testing and logic.”

According to Aristotle, wisdom—the combination of scientific knowledge and intuitive reasoning about fundamental truths—enables us to understand the most profound realities. Wise leaders understand that through scientific knowledge, complex problems can be investigated, understood, and potentially solved. Wise leaders shield scientific inquiry from politics and profiteers, allowing truths to be proven using testing and logic. They also acknowledge that bad actors may intentionally sow confusion or make sensational claims to gain recognition and rigorously vet the credentials of their advisors.

Prudent leaders possess the ability to deliberate well about what is good and beneficial for society in practical matters. They seek sound information and expert advice to guide their decision-making. Prudent leaders encourage and protect politically independent institutions and free inquiry. They encourage technological research and development to apply knowledge and solve complex problems. Prudent leaders also understand that the best policy balances ethics and practicality to serve society. Good-faith risk assessment and proactive planning to safeguard Americans from natural disasters, sea level rise, water-scarcity, food insecurity, and other negative impacts of climate change must be based on sound science.

American leaders will find strategic payoffs for availing themselves of this approach. Wise leaders maintain vigilance toward the activities of America’s adversaries at the poles and in the information sphere. Confusion around climate science, undermined confidence in institutions, and questions surrounding norms can weaken American civil society’s ability to help defend these regions from strategic threats.  Faith in climate related institutions can help policymakers and civil society achieve stated goals of harnessing vital resources at the poles.