The Incredible True Story Of How Climate Change Became Apocalyptic
In recent years, the issue of climate change has taken a decidedly apocalyptic turn.
Earlier this week United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres warned, “If we don’t urgently change our way of life, we jeopardize life itself.”
A group of scientists writes that we “might already have lost control” over “tipping points” in the Earth’s climate, warning that the “stability and resilience of our planet is in peril.”
It’s true that apocalyptic narratives have always had a place in discussions of climate. In 1989, the United Nations warned that the world had “a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.”
But the escalation of apocalyptic climate rhetoric in recent years is unprecedented. The drumbeat of doom has led some prominent figures to turn on the mainstream climate community, complaining that “climate scientists have been underestimating the rate of climate change and the severity of its effects.”
In reality, climate science has not just accurately anticipated unfolding climate change but has done so consistently for the past 50 years.
There is thus an inconsistency here. Discussions of climate change have become more apocalyptic, but climate science has not.
I have been working hard to understand this inconsistency, and while I don’t yet have all the answers, I have identified a big part of the puzzle, which I can report here for the first time.
Discussions of climate change are directly and indirectly shaped by the work of experts who work under the umbrella of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC.
The IPCC was established in the 1980s to assess and summarize climate science to inform policymakers, and since then has produced five major assessment reports, along with periodic topical assessments.
I have testified before the U.S. Congress on multiple occasions on the critical importance of the IPCC. The IPCC plays such an important role that if it didn’t exist, we’d have to invent it.
Research on climate change results in a large and varied literature that would be impossible to comprehend without expert assessments like those of the IPCC. The IPCC thus serves a crucial role at the intersection of science and policy.
Human-caused climate change is, of course, a real and significant concern. I have argued for decades about the importance of policies to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions and the need to better adapt to climate variability and change.
But effective policymaking is presently threatened by the apocalyptic turn in the climate debate.
Decisions made within the IPCC have contributed to the apocalyptic turn in discussions of climate, moving us away from constructive discussions, scaring children and contributing to overheated rhetoric.
To understand the role of the IPCC in the recent rise of climate doom requires understanding how the body performs its assessments.
Underpinning everything that the IPCC does in its scientific assessments are scenarios of the future.
Such scenarios are used to project future climate change, to project the impacts of such change on society and the environment, and to project the costs and benefits of mitigation action intended to reduce those impacts.
In order to produce such projections, in its scenarios, the IPCC has long differentiated between “baseline scenarios” of the future which describe where the world is headed in the absence of climate policies and “mitigation scenarios” that describe a world where climate policies are put into place.
Baseline scenarios are often referred to as “business as usual.”
The rise of the new climate apocalypse can be traced directly to a consequential but little appreciated change in how the IPCC presents its scenarios.
The consequences of this change have reverberated through the scientific community, media reporting, policy discussions, and civic advocacy.
Almost two decades ago the IPCC developed a set of scenarios as the basis for integrating the work of its three working groups on science, impacts, and mitigation.
The scenarios were created to serve as the basis for projecting future climate change, the impacts of climate change and the consequences of mitigation action. Such coordination across the assessment work of the IPCC makes obvious sense.
At the time the IPCC recognized that “the future is inherently unpredictable and so views will differ as to which of the storylines and representative scenarios could be more or less likely.
Therefore, the development of a single “best guess” or “business-as-usual” scenario is neither desirable nor possible.”
Based on this perspective, the IPCC developed a set of scenarios for our collective futures but did not identify any of them as more probable than another, explaining that, “the term “business-as-usual” may be misleading” and “most climate scenarios considered in this report can be regarded as exploratory.”
The result of this approach was that projected futures in the absence of climate policies encompassed a very wide range of possible outcomes.
The fourth assessment report of the IPCC published in 2007 acknowledged this wide range of futures, “There is still a large span of [carbon dioxide] emissions across baseline scenarios in the literature, with emissions in 2100 ranging from 10 GtCO2 [billion tons of carbon dioxide] to around 250 GtCO2.”
In other words, when it came to carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and the associated climate consequences, the long-term future included possibilities that spanned from the highly optimistic (the 10-billion-ton scenario) to the highly pessimistic (the 250-billion-ton scenario) and everything in between.
Climate change was not necessarily apocalyptic, but possibly could be if we made decisions leading to bad outcomes.
An enormously consequential change in approach occurred from the fourth IPCC assessment report in 2007 to its fifth in 2013.
The IPCC abandoned its earlier acknowledgment of fundamental uncertainties and ignorance about the future and instead fully endorsed the notion of choosing a “business as usual” scenario for the future.
The “business as usual” scenario adopted by the fifth IPCC assessment was associated with one of its most extreme scenarios of the future.
The fifth IPCC assessment report states that while future greenhouse gas emissions were uncertain, “between 1970 and 2010, emissions increased 79%, from 27 Gt of [greenhouse gases] to over 49 Gt [billion tons]. Business-as-usual would result in that rate continuing.”
An increase of that rate to 2100 would result in 189 billion tons of greenhouse gases being emitted at the end of the century, which is in the 99th percentile of all scenarios included in the database of reference scenarios of the fifth assessment report.
The fifth assessment report went further and explicitly identified a subset of reference scenarios that characterized where the IPCC believes the world was heading in the absence of climate policies.
The IPCC fifth assessment report’s range of 2100 carbon dioxide emissions for “business as usual” is 50 GtCO2 to 106 GtCO2 (which it describes as the 10% to 90% percentiles of its scenario database).
The report went further and identified a single scenario as “business as usual” with 2100 carbon dioxide emissions of more than 80 billion tons of carbon dioxide (this scenario is called RCP 8.5).
From the IPCC’s fourth to fifth assessment report our collective future, as envisioned by the IPCC, changed dramatically.
The world was no longer heading for a wide range of possible futures, conditioned on enormous uncertainties, but instead was heading with some certainty toward a future characterized by an extreme level of carbon dioxide emissions.
Quantitatively, futures with less than 50 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2100 simply disappeared from the IPCC reference scenarios and the focus was placed on a “business as usual” scenario of more than 80 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2100.
The apocalypse had been scheduled.
The decision by the IPCC to center its fifth assessment report on its most extreme scenario has been incredibly consequential.
Thousands of academic studies of the future impacts of climate change followed the lead of the IPCC and have emphasized the most extreme scenario as “business as usual” which is often interpreted and promoted as where the world is heading.
For instance, so far in 2019 two new academic studies have been published every day that present this most extreme scenario as “business as usual” and predict extreme future impacts.
Journalists promote these sensationalist findings, which are amplified by activists and politicians and as a consequence climate change becomes viewed as being more and more apocalyptic.
The problem with the extreme “business as usual” scenario of the IPCC’s fifth assessment report is that it is already out of date.
For 2020, the scenario wildly overstates emissions and has been critiqued in the academic literature as a highly unlikely if not impossible future.
The International Energy Agency has proposed scenarios for the next several decades that diverge greatly from the favored scenario of the IPCC.
It is, of course, possible that the world will collectively choose to emit massive quantities of carbon dioxide, which would require a massive increase in coal burning. But that scenario is certainly not preordained, and other futures are certainly possible.
Remarkably, the IPCC is set to repeat its reliance on extreme scenarios as “business as usual” in its forthcoming sixth assessment report, even though these scenarios are already out of date.
I will have much more to say on this subject in coming columns, as this topic is an active focus of my research.
The bottom line for today is to understand that a fateful decision by the IPCC to selectively anoint an extreme scenario from among a huge range of possible futures has helped to create the climate apocalypse, a scary but imaginary future.
Read more at Forbes
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Oneshotorgan
| #
You don’t belong here. There is no greenhouse effect, and climate change is not man made. You are a liar and a cheater. Get off this website: no frauds allowed here!
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Roger,
The reason for the panic is because we are now in a grand solar minimum and the fantasy CO2 (violates the laws of physics) will soon be exposed to all and the gravy train of public funds paying idiots and con men will come to an end.
Herb
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
Interesting and useful account of how alarmism came about. The only thing I disagree with is about the effect of CO2. The evidence is that temperature changes first, then after (at least) 800 years, CO2 changes in response. With that in mind, it’s difficult to see how CO2 can have any effect on temperature at all.
Reply
geran
| #
Pielke, “political science” is NOT science. You don’t know the difference between a photon, a proton, and a protein. “Political science” is about propaganda. All you know is how to spread your propaganda.
Learn to spread truth, not lies. Then you won’t feel like such a low-life.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Fellows and other PSI readers,
I ask you: Why did Galileo insist that his book (Two New Sciences) be published in Italian and not Latin the language of the ‘intellectual’ community?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
JaKo
| #
Jerry,
Being published in Italian and in the form of four-day narrative may demonstrate the following intent:
To have an impact before it “comes on the radar” of the inquisition.
You too have a good day,
JaKo
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi jaKo,
I cannot resist asking: Have you read this, a phrase from the first paragraph of Two New Science as translated to English by Crew and de Salvio (1914)?
“there must be some who, partly by inherited experiences and partly by their own observations, have become highly expert and clever in explanation.”
Who are these ‘who’?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
JaKo
| #
OK Jerry,
There have been many who challenged the ‘status quo’ and often proved it wrong, yet there have been just very few who could replace the wrong with a ‘new truth.’ Being “clever in explanation” is not enough (IMHO); it takes a genius, such as Galileo, to deduce new “propositions to which, as time goes on, able thinkers will add many more;”
So why did you posit this follow-up question?
Galileo insisted on Italian print also to talk to ‘his people’ (as himself –Simplicio) to point them where he felt (or knew) he could “connect the dots” for them, the artisans he knew or he anticipated for the future.
I thank you for instigating this Link for us.
If I updated the answer correctly, then you’re a good teacher; if, OTOH, I was wrong, then only I could be blamed, a hopeless ‘student…’
Cheers,
JaKo
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Jako,
Salviati’s (Galileo’s) opening statement was: “The constant activity which you Venetians display in your famous arsenal suggests to the studious mind for investigation, especially that part of the work which involves mechanics; for in this department all types of instruments and machines are constantly being constructed by many artisans, among whom there must be some who, partly by inherited experiences and partly by their own observations, have become highly expert and clever in explanation.”
JaKo, because you finally mentioned the word–artisans–it seems we agree that these mechanical artisans were the intended audience for his book. So, I ask another question: How could he have “connect the dots” for them by writing to them in the academic language of Latin of which he knew artisans were not familiar. You are correct when you suggest that he knew that his wisdom that bigger is weaker maybe had not been noticed by the artisans, who were not ship builders and therefore did not have any inherited experiences and observations that the shipbuilders had.
JaKo, maybe I should not be critical, but I see no evidence that Galileo was a genius; nor can I believe he considered any artisan (like himself) to be a genius. But he did know that artisans of all types had the PRACTICAL ability to make ‘all types of instruments and machines.’
As a scientist you must learn that there are no correct ideas while there are absolutely wrong scientific ideas which the right observations can prove to be wrong. But you must also recognize there are always perturbations in the ‘actual’ world that can hide the principal cause (tides). Hence, some artisan invented the pendumum clock powered by gravity by a mechanical mechanism.
I stop here because I really do not know what had been already done by the artisans before Galileo. After all there was Archimedes about 1600 years earlier who considered circles and right lines more important than the machines that the King requested him to design (invent)..
Have a good day, Jerry
.
Matt Holl
| #
Hi Jerry Krause.
The following in reference to an oblate spheroid and “your” centrifugal force.
Highest and lowest points
Mount Everest is the highest place on Earth above sea level, at 29,028 feet (8,848 meters), but it is not the highest point on Earth — that is, the place most distant from the center of the Earth. That distinction belongs to Mount Chimaborazo in the Andes Mountains in Ecuador, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Although Chimaborazo is about 10,000 feet shorter (relative to sea level) than Everest, this mountain is about 6,800 feet (2,073 m) farther into space because of the equatorial bulge.
The lowest point on Earth is Challenger Deep in the Mariana Trench in the western Pacific Ocean, according to the NOAA. It reaches down about 36,200 feet (11,034 meters) below sea level. (copy and paste from Space,com)
In answer if a person tips the scales at the equator more than the poles is that there is equilibrium between centrifugal force and gravity caused by greater equatorial mass so the scales read the same at the poles and equator according to my pondering.
Observation should not be overlooked and pondering not underestimated.
Kind Regards Matt
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Matt and PSI Readers,
Matt’s comment is in reference to his and my comments made at a different posting. Which, because of my memory problems, I cannot at this time, give the link.
So I will review the fact that I called attention to two words–mass and weight. And I wrote something to the effect that Matt should describe (identify) the two instruments used to measure one or the other.
The two instruments are termed a scale and a balance.
Here Matt wrote: “In answer if a person tips the scales at the equator more than the poles is that there is equilibrium between centrifugal force and gravity caused by greater equatorial mass so the scales read the same at the poles and equator according to my pondering.”
Previously, he had asked the question (maybe paraphrased a bit): Would I weigh more at the poles than at the equator? He asked this because he knew there was no centrifugal effect at the poles due to the earth’s rotation about the polar axis.
Matt, my answer to your present question, is NO. Your mass does not change but your weight does because your weight is measured by a scale as you stated and not by a balance. A balance would be comparing your mass with a body of a standard mass. Hence, wherever you use a balance, the gravity and centrifugal effect would be influencing the two masses equally.
“Intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.” (Elzevirs, publishers of Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences as translated by Crew and de Salvio)
Matt, thank you very, very much for providing me a reason to review this very, very important quote again.
Have a good day, Jerry
Have a good day,
Matt
| #
Hi Jerry.
Thank you for your generosity of time and vast knowledge of giants from whom to reference.
Matt
James McGinn
| #
Yes, Jerry, I know the answer to this question: direct marketing. He realized that academia has a huge marketing advantage when it comes to controlling the message. He also realized that technology was beginning to change that:
https://newmedia.fandom.com/wiki/The_Gutenberg_Revolution
“The Gutenberg Revolution is a term used to express the democratizing effects of the invention of the printing press among society. The invention of the printing press allowed for world wide changes to take place. Democracy was born through the invention of the printing press and the effects it had on society. It allowed people to have a voice who weren’t able to spread their messages before. It allowed people to read the Bible in their own language (Reformation), leaving it free to their interpretation. “
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi James,
I do not consider your answer is even close to correct. For Galileo was a member of the academia who knew and used Latin at that time.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
tom0mason
| #
António Guterres is profoundly wrong, if the planet warms and CO2 levels rise the life will proliferate, life will flourish! Just look at the history of this planet, that is the way it is!
If CO2 levels rise and due to solar effect the climate gets colder then we have a disaster looming, and by most account of those that study the sun we will cool and many will die.
We need contingency planning for the probable cooling that might be coming not the stupidity of hyping up the effect of CO2!
If the UN firmly believes that they are for the good of mankind then they will relinquish on this CO2 nonsense. If as many suspect they are out for their own elitist good then they will carry on and ensure that many will see then (the UN) as the enemy.
Reply
ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
| #
The only way warmist bed-wetters continue to explain how man’s contribution of 0.0012% atmospheric CO2 (0.04% x 3%) can do anything at all to the climate is with the same tired rhetoric and factoids, always worse something, always more storms, less storms, more snow, less snow etc. The facts prove completely opposite which they ignore completely in order to simply destroy Capitalism.
But they must be complete imbeciles, because Capitalism is why they have such wonderful lifestyles and technology. Let them go to Venezuela and see where they can plug in their i-Phone or get any useful internet to continue pushing their lies..
Reply
julian
| #
The warmistas never give me an answer when I ask this. CO2 is currently four parts in 10,000 in our atmosphere =1/2500. Human sourced CO2 is 3% of the annual CO2 production. So assuming it is proportional to the entire amount (it isnt but simplifying the calculation we’ll say it is, which increases the number over reality) then the annual human addition is 3% of 1/2500 which is one part in 85,000 per year. Now explain how so little can cause the heat-furnace extinction disasters being claimed for it. This is a ratio mathematically proportional to 6 minutes per year. How much will six minutes of extra sunshine a year change our climate?
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi jaKo,
I cannot resist asking: Have you read this, a phrase from the first paragraph of Two New Science as translated to English by Crew and de Salvio (1914)?
“there must be some who, partly by inherited experiences and partly by their own observations, have become highly expert and clever in explanation.”
Who are these ‘who’?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi Jerry,
This must be a result of the ongoing glitch on this web-site, that your Q appears again. As I have done my attempt to answer this at the appropriate line of comments. I wish this was just a minor irregularity of this web-site. Otherwise, we should worry not just about this, but of our retirement support integrity — };-O
Cheers,
JaKo
Reply