{"id":286188,"date":"2023-11-02T13:23:47","date_gmt":"2023-11-02T12:23:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=286188"},"modified":"2023-11-02T13:23:50","modified_gmt":"2023-11-02T12:23:50","slug":"climate-change-a-curious-crisis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=286188","title":{"rendered":"Climate Change: A Curious Crisis"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fundamental problem with the climate crisis narrative is that it is simplistic and gives us only one side of the story.\u00a0It is as though man-made climate change had been put on trial in the court of public opinion on a charge of crimes against the planet and humanity \u2013 but with only the prosecution case presented to the jury.\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n


From Climate Etc.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Iain Aitken<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As explained in my new eBook,\u00a0Climate Change: A Curious Crisis<\/em><\/a>, the climate change \u2018debate\u2019 has long-since become a Manichaean, deeply polarized, \u2018you are either with us or against us\u2019 war of words in which both sides accuse the other of being closed-minded and refusing to accept the \u2018facts\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Instead of a respectful exchange of views and the seeking of mutual understanding and common ground we tend to find sarcasm and ridicule and ad hominem<\/em> attacks, as mutually intolerant, entrenched positions have arisen based on different interpretations of the science and evidence and different perceptions of risk. What should have been a mutually cooperative, disinterested, value-free search for the truth (basically, \u2018science\u2019) has morphed into a combative, biased, value-laden promotion of positions and \u2018point scoring\u2019 over opponents (basically, \u2018politics\u2019). Lest they yield any dialectical ground to their opponents, \u2018doomsters\u2019 are deeply reluctant to admit (perhaps even to themselves) that climate change might actually be predominantly natural and benign \u2013 and \u2018deniers\u2019 are deeply reluctant to admit (perhaps even to themselves) that climate change might actually be predominantly man-made and dangerous.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So what is the doomsters\u2019 story? One of the most prominent and vocal doomsters is Ant\u00f3nio Guterres, the UN Secretary General, who, in August 2021, described the IPCC\u2019s Sixth Assessment Report as \u2018a code red for humanity. The alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable: greenhouse\u2011gas emissions from fossil-fuel burning and deforestation are choking our planet and putting billions of people at immediate risk\u2019. And in response to the news that July 2023 was likely to be the warmest July since records began he stated, \u2018The era of global warming has ended; the era of global boiling has arrived.\u2019 So what is all this \u2018irrefutable evidence\u2019 of the climate crisis that has so convinced Guterres and his fellow doomsters? Let\u2019s examine a few representative examples:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(1) We know, based on the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory,<\/strong> that increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (e.g. by burning fossil fuels) will cause global warming to occur.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(2) We know, based on ice core data (and more recently direct atmospheric measurements), that in post-industrialization times the carbon dioxide level in our atmosphere has already risen by about 50% to a level that is unprecedented in more than 14 million years \u2013 and the rise rate is accelerating.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(3) We know, based on the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, that the post-industrialization global warming cannot be explained by natural phenomena.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(4) We know, based on all the leading temperature datasets, that in post-industrialization times about 1.2\u00baC of global warming has already occurred, a level of warming that is unprecedented in at least the last 2,000 years (and probably the last 125,000 years) \u2013 and the rise rate is accelerating.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(5) We know, according to the World Meteorological Organisation, that the last 8 years have been the hottest years since records began and each decade since the 1980s has been hotter than the previous one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(6) We know, based on global tide gauge and satellite altimetry data, that in post-industrialization times the global mean sea level has already risen by about 9 inches as a result of global warming \u2013 and the rise rate is accelerating.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(7) We know, based on satellite observations, that Arctic sea ice has already declined by 50% and is declining at a rate of about 12% per decade as a result of global warming \u2013 and the decline rate is accelerating.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(8) We know, based on observations and attribution studies, that extreme weather around the world has already become more frequent and intense and, based on the world\u2019s largest study of climate-related mortality, that that is already causing almost 10% (5 million) of global deaths each year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(9) We know, based on the Paris Climate Accord, that warming must be limited to 1.5\u00baC to avoid the most dangerous climate change impacts \u2013 and that based on the current warming trends that critical threshold may be crossed by 2030.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(10) We know that by the end of this century there could be up to 6\u00baC of warming (i.e. exceeding the 1.5\u00baC critical threshold by 4.5\u00baC) potentially resulting in catastrophic climate change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The adverse climate change impacts noted above are just representative \u2013 many more could have been added, such as ocean acidification, coral reef loss, biodiversity loss and species extinctions \u2013 and that\u2019s even before the consideration of potential \u2018tipping points\u2019 into irreversible climate change impacts. The climate crisis narrative (i.e. the cause and effect storyline) based on such evidence is simple and certain and compelling: our escalating burning of fossil fuels has caused a huge and unprecedented and accelerating rise in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere which have in turn caused a huge and unprecedented and accelerating rise in global surface temperatures which has in turn already caused huge and unprecedented and accelerating climate change impacts on the planet and mankind \u2013 and very soon it\u2019s going to get catastrophically worse, unless we stop climate change by stopping burning fossil fuels. In this narrative climate change is a new and terrifying man-made phenomenon, an existential threat that has arisen as an insidious \u2018by product\u2019 of rampant industrialization and capitalism and that it can, and must, be stopped by urgent global decarbonization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So how many of the above ten statements are actually true? I would argue that all<\/em> of them are true \u2013 at least exactly as worded \u2013 and assuming<\/em> we accept as beyond reasonable dispute the \u2018scientific consensus on climate change\u2019, Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, climate models, analyses and conclusions of the IPCC, the \u2018internationally accepted authority on climate change\u2019. Trusting the IPCC and believing such evidence and the frightening story it apparently tells is entirely rational and reasonable; in fact, why would any rational, reasonable person doubt it? On the face of it this evidence alone makes an irrefutable case in support of the existence of a climate crisis and it\u2019s surely not at all hard to understand why so many people accept it \u2013 and think that those who do not accept it (the so-called \u2018climate deniers\u2019) are deluded, badly-informed, badly-intentioned, scientifically-illiterate, irresponsible fools (or are perhaps covertly in the pay of Big Oil).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But what if we don\u2019t <\/em>just accept as \u2018beyond reasonable dispute\u2019 the IPCC\u2019s \u2018scientific consensus on climate change\u2019, its Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, climate models, analyses and conclusions, but instead consider criticisms of them by \u2018denier\u2019 scientists? In that case we find that the \u2018simple and certain\u2019 climate crisis narrative unravels and becomes decidedly complex and uncertain. I deconstruct the ten statements above and set out some of the key complexities and uncertainties in my eBook<\/a>, in which I conclude that we simply don\u2019t know (with a confidence level sufficient to inform climate policy)<\/p>\n\n\n\n