Against the wind: a blinkered view on the possible effects of climate change

Al Blenney - 11^th November 2024

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) published the AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023 in 2023, which summarises five years of reports on global temperature changes, fossil fuel use and likely climate impacts.

This report is the summary of all reports of the IPCC’s 6th Assessment Cycle that were published between 2018 and 2023, which included more recent reports demonstrating how man-made greenhouse gases are causing unprecedented damage, and demonstrating that at current levels, many parts of the world will become unlivable in the next few decades.

This summary report establishes a firm scientific consensus about the urgency of the climate situation, its primary causes, its current destructive impacts – especially on the most climate vulnerable regions – and the permanent harm that will occur if warming surpasses 1.5°C, even temporarily.

Some of the findings of the report are:

• Human-caused climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe – with widespread loss and damage to both nature and people.
• The current level of greenhouse gas emissions will lead to increasing global warming in the near term, and it’s likely this will reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2035.
• We are currently at around 1.1°C of warming and current climate policies are projected to increase global warming by 3.2°C by 2100.
• Losses and damages will disproportionately affect the poorest and most vulnerable populations, particularly those in Africa and least-developed countries, creating more poverty.
• There will be living species loss; plants animals and insects,
• Some sort-of good news: sea level rises will “only” be less than about half a metre, much less than some of the more alarming predictions of – say - 3 metres.
• The time to act is now! To reduce man-made greenhouse gases substantially.

Unsurprisingly, not everyone agrees with the rather gloomy tone of the IPCC report.

Climate Intelligence foundation (Clintel)

Climate Intelligence (Clintel) is an independent foundation informing people about climate change and climate policies. Clintel was founded in 2019 by emeritus professor of geophysics Guus Berkhout and science journalist Marcel Crok.

From About Us on the Clintel website home page.

Clintel’s website banner says “There is no climate emergency”.

The main theme of the foundation is that climate models are relied on too much by scientists:

“To believe the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in. This is precisely the problem of today’s climate discussion to which climate models are central. Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science. We should free ourselves from the naïve belief in immature climate models. In the future, climate research must give significantly more emphasis to empirical science.”

An example of the climate orthodoxy Clintel opposes:…

”global warming predictions indicate that if current trends continue, we could see an increase in global temperatures of 1.5°C to 2°C above pre-industrial levels by the mid-21st century. This warming is expected to lead to more frequent and severe weather events, rising sea levels, and significant impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity.”

I am not in a position to agree or disagree with these points, being completely ignorant in this area, but I am not entirely happy with their slightly “gung ho” approach to the consequences of slow global warming (if such a thing exists).

From their website:

“Gradual global warming is not a serious problem, whether it is caused by CO2 or not. Not mitigation but adaptation is the solution. So, for all of those who would like to think that the present global warming is fully caused by CO2, our conclusion stays unchanged

If we continue to invest in innovation, mankind can easily cope with any effect of further warming. Hence, we must stop the demoralizing back-to-the-past mitigation solutions. We observe that it only leads to decline and poverty.

Instead, we must focus on the power of adaptation, based on science, technology, and education. It will lead us into an era of prosperity for nature and mankind. Please, join our journey!”

I’d make four points. Feel free to disagree:

• Their point is that the IPCC’s claim that global warming ““impacts on biodiversity … and of key relevance” but those claims are simply not supported by scientific research”. I suspect there is some research on this subject but that is not my point. Even slow global warming will have an impact on where plants grow. This may not please some farmers, particularly in poorer countries that lack the “ power of adaptation, based on science, technology, and education”. The forests of the world, on which we still depend for some oxygen, not to mention personal enjoyment, may not survive in their current form. And their inhabitants – the fauna – may not be able to move to more congenial habitats, particularly those creatures confined to islands. (With the exception of some birds, perhaps.) Ocean-dwelling fish may be able to move to a better environment, but this may impact those whose livelihoods depend on fishing, particularly subsistence fishermen. The bleaching of the Great Barrier reef in Australia may be a “canary in a coal mine” warning of the effects of sea warming on some living systems.

• The ports of the world, by definition, are low-lying, and their immediate neighbourhood may be populated with expensive buildings. Moving the inhabitants and businesses (and port facilities) to a higher location would be a very expensive exercise, even if it were done at the pace permitted by slow sea-level rise. This is more the mythical “frog in boiling water approach” given the human propensity to put off costly mitigation measures until “tomorrow”. The “do nothing” approach to leisurely global warming is not without its costs. Unless we want our cities to become Venice-like, with commuting by gondola.

• The “do nothing and hope” approach, in our capitalist society, really does not take the changes of slow global warming to poorer countries (and low lying islands) into account. Poorer countries, particularly those which rely on exports, might have great difficulty moving their ports inland. Wealthy countries will likely be so concerned with dealing with the effects of global warming on their societies they might be reluctant to aid their poorer neighbours. The “We’ll be all right, Jack” approach does smack somewhat of Eurocentrism.

• One of the claims of climate skeptics, as I understand them, is that climate change is possibly caused by changes to the sun’s radiance as we move out of the Little Ice Age, which refers to a period of cooler temperatures that lasted roughly from the 14th to the mid-19th century. So our attempts to mitigate global warming by reducing CO2 emissions etc. are doomed to have little effect on global temperatures while committing the world to a backward step in progress. But Global Warming may continue as the sun’s radiance increases. So preparations for this should continue.

Clintel is not to be confused with the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC).

The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), a child of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC). ICSC was launched in 2007 by the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition when the group “received such positive feedback from around the world … that they decided they needed an international group”. Their aim is “moving the debate away from implementation of costly and ineffectual ‘climate control’ measures”.

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition was created in April 2006 by a group of New Zealanders. Their mission statement reads:

“To represent accurately, and without prejudice, facts regarding climate change; to provide considered opinion on matters related to both natural and human-caused climate effects; and to comment on the economic and socio-political consequences of climate change.”

It should be noted, however, that an entity named NSCES, somehow related to NZCSC, brought a legal challenge against National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) involving the reliability of NIWA’s temperature data and climate change science. NZCES claimed that NIWA’s methodology for calculating New Zealand’s historical temperature record was flawed and sought to have NIWA’s data re-evaluated and declared invalid.

The court upheld NIWA’s temperature record, concluding that:

• NIWA’s methods were scientifically sound and widely accepted within the climate science community.
• The processes used to compile and analyse the data were rigorous and based on established scientific principles.
• The judgement reinforced the credibility of NIWA’s climate data and supported the consensus on climate change science in New Zealand, countering the claims made by NZCES.

The court ordered NZCES to pay costs, reflecting the judgement’s clear support for NIWA’s position and the lack of merit in the claims presented by NZCES, but – alas – while NZCES could afford expensive lawyers to argue their case, when it came time to pay the court-imposed costs, NZCES’s kitty was bare.