It would be nice is there is no climate emergency. I will in this article, analyze their letter and share my personal conclusions.
I am a biologist and make my conclusion out of my knowledges in sceintific method, biology and chemistry. My knowledges in climatology are acrtualy limited so I will update my conclusions when I will be able to read a climatologists answers.
Ruggiero Rollini is a Italian student in chemistry dedicated to inform about scientific research and knowledge. he says that the 500 scientists are not climatologists. The climatologists around the world agree according to him, that the climate is changing rapidly The reason of this is the carbon dioxide rising levels in the atmosphere.
Searching for the word climatologist in the letter I found only Gerrit J. van der Lingen, that is a Paleoclimatologist from New Zealand. The others are experts in other areas like Chemistry, Civil engineering, Law, Philosophy, Pysics and mathematics.
Ruggiero Rollini talks about this letter in this Youtube:
“Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming. Only very few peer-reviewed papers even go so far as to say that recent warming is chiefly anthropogenic (ed. originating in human activity).”
It is not strange that the 500 mention this as a some of them are geologists. No professional climatologist would deny this fact.
But the issue is not the warming but the velocity of its increase and the raise of the carbon dioxide atmospheric content as can be read in the Italian article in www.repubblica.it and in www.nature.com
The average Carbon dioxide content during 2018 was 207.4 ppm (part per million)
Image Source: www.climate.gov
Earth had that levels during the Triassic period. So we are moving Earth toward CO2 levels when the Dinosaurs enjoyed life. the 500 scientists ignore this of course.
Image Source: www.nature.com
“Only very few peer-reviewed papers even go so far as to say that recent warming is chiefly anthropogenic”
“Only a very few…” ansd “go so far” are not scientific statements and can therefore be ignored.
“Warming is far slower than predicted
The world has warmed at less than half the originally-predicted rate, and at less than half the rate to be expected on the basis of net anthropogenic forcing and radiative imbalance. It tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.”
First of all, warming velocity is not the same all over the world. It depends on the biotopes. As a article in www.nature.com writes “the velocity of temperature change is lowest in mountainous biomes such as tropical and subtropical coniferous forests (0.08 km yr-1), temperate coniferous forest, and montane grasslands. Velocities are highest in flooded grasslands”
If the average “Warming is far slower” then his is good news. But they conclude this paragraph with the statement that we are “far from understanding climate change”.
Professional “scientists” conclusion could in effect be something else: “Some countries already emit less than half as much carbon dioxide as the global average.”. E.g. India has discovered that producing electricity with carbon and other fossile fuels is far more expensive than by using photovoltaic panels. So they are doing huge investement in solar energy.
“Climate policy relies on inadequate models
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. Moreover, they most likely exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO 2 . In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.”
The scientists do not explain why “Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools.”
Then the scientists say that “they most likely exagerate”. What is “they” referring to? The models or the creator of the models? The 500 do not clearly write “they exagerate” adding names. There are probably no climatologists exagerating its conclusions.
CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO 2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
Yes, CO2 is needed in photosynthesis but not to “all life on Earth”. They ignore the secondary effects of CO2. Look at the carbon dioxide levels from the time of the dinosaurs. and look at what happens with CO2 in the rain, rivers, lakes and seas.
“CO2 is not a pollutant” is another not scientific generic statement. What happens if you breath high levels of CO2? Try to be several people in a small space like a elevator without windows for a longer period. CO2 is not a pollutant for leaves thaty live with it. But it is a pollutant for plant roots and animals who suffer for the increased water and blood acidity.
Scientists should not be aprtial, generalizing and ignoring facts.
Global warming has not increased natural disasters
There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more fre – quent. However, CO-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly. For instance, wind turbines kill birds and insects, and palm-oil plantations destroy the biodiversity of the rainforests.
“has not increased natural disasters” is another statement without proof. How do you know that?
“There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods…”
If their statement would be scientific they should show evidence of the opposite, that :
“There is statistical evidence that global warming is not intensifying hurricanes, floods….”
“wind turbines kill birds and insects.”
yes some birds are killed. But how many are killed by increased CO2 levels. A scientist should compare.
Who is talking about producing more palm-oil to decrease CO2 levels ? For sure not scientists. Another not scientific misleading and irrelevant stateent.
Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches emerge, we will have ample time to reflect and adapt. The aim of international policy should be to provide reliable and affordable energy at all times, and throughout the world.
Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities”
off course but not pseudo scientists like these 500 that do not follow scientific rules of conduct.
“there is no cause for panic and alarm”
the 500 have not shared any proof we should not panic. But I can add one. Panicking is never good for psychological reasons. our frontal reasoning love does not work well in states of panic.
“to provide reliable and affordable energy at all times”
Are only fossile fues reliable and affordable energy. The 500 ignore the development of batteries and energy conservation methods.
And of course we may need fossile fules somewhere, now and then. like e.g. in mining but this need is very restricted.
But there are more reasons to start investing in solar energy and avoid fossil fuel consumtion: price and health are scientific and economic realities we should look at:
- Solar panels are becoming cheaper and cheaper
- Driving with solar energy you do not spend money in fuels.
- by walking and cycling you gain physical and psychological health.
- we save money and time by taking train or buss. How much time We we spend taking care of our car and motorbyke?
- By taking e.g. the train, we get more time for relax and learning by being able to read and talking with copassengers.
- By walking and taking the train or bus we are able socialize if we want to. Wed get to know new people and cultures.
- The risc of accidents is not to be ignored for the different transport methods.
- Fuel cosuming airplane traveling can be avoided in many cases.
There is something called scientific method, rules of conduct, ethics and etiquette.
These 500 scientists have with this letter, breached several of the rules of conduct by doing “Deceptive reporting of research results” presenting partia,l scientific prooven knowledge while ignoring other basic scientific results. They do not share any climatologic proof nor climatologic source.
No scientific journal of dignity, would publish this letter with its lack of sources and plentiness of generic, not scientifically based statements and subjective language (with words like “very few “, “far from”, “unlikely”, “far”, “remotely”, “inadequate” and generic personal pronoun like “they”).
That Gerrit J. van der Lingen, a Paleoclimatologist, signs such a unprofessional and unscientific document, is remarkable.
- The 500 “scientists”, do not give any proof that carbon dioxide can be excluded as a cause of climate change.
- they do not give any explanation why temperature on Earth fluctuates and in what extent. e.g telling about he distance of Earth to the Sun)
- They do not explain why the rate of temperature change we see this century, is so fast.
- They presume that the melting of glaciers and ices at the north pole only depend on natural phenomena and they do not explain why.
- they never mention the speed of climate change as has been written about in e.g. a article July 25. See the Italian article in www.repubblica.it
Greta is a young girl that uses a young girls enthusiastic language. She correctly repeated the we should listen to the Scientists. She should instead now instead say
“Listen to the climatologists
and avoid pseudoscientists!
As Ruggero mentions, 97% of the climatologist agrees about the conclusion regarding climate change. Ruggeros Rollini shares several sources in the comment of his youtube. one of these mentioning the number 97% and the no of articles about the issue, is
“Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters 8(2), 024024.
It will however be interesting to read the climatologists answer to this letter.