Some climate change deniers are convinced that global warming is a massive conspiracy. Ironically, there is a sort of conspiracy 鈥� but one that downplays how serious the consequences could be and exaggerates the impact of action to limit them. It involves everyone from scientists and politicians to activists and journalists.
At the research level, there is what renowned climate scientist James Hansen calls the John Mercer effect. In the 1970s, Mercer published the first that suggested the West Antarctic ice sheet could collapse in response to warming. Afterwards, he struggled to get funding, and those who were regarded as more authoritative than those who praised it. Others, including Hansen, had similar problems.
Advertisement
This is still an issue. Many climate scientists are censoring their own work to please their political paymasters, according to of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in the UK. In particular, he says, they are not being honest about our prospects of limiting warming to 2 掳C above pre-industrial temperatures.
It is hard to prove such claims, but there is evidence that climate scientists are generally too conservative, rather than alarmist as deniers assert. A 2013 that compared past predictions with outcomes found that the majority underestimated changes. And Mercer was right 鈥� the collapse he predicted has begun.
Playing along
It should surprise no one that some politicians and corporations at best exaggerate what they are doing to tackle climate change, and at worst lie: the UK鈥檚 鈥済reenest government ever鈥� claim is a prime example. What is surprising is how many journalists and activists are playing along.
Just take a look at coverage ahead of the Paris climate meeting that starts next week. You will find many articles that talk about limiting warming to 2 掳C 鈥� or even 1.5 掳C 鈥� as if it were still feasible.
Discover the latest news and analysis from the Paris climate conference
Here鈥檚 an from Alok Jha, a science correspondent at UK broadcaster ITV, who is by no means alone: 鈥淚s there still a chance of reaching 2C by 2100, given that the current pledges for Paris only reach 2.7C? Absolutely鈥� even if countries don鈥檛 get to a 2C agreement in Paris, they could still put in place a mechanism to achieve it in the years to come.鈥�
Yet the numbers show that we鈥檙e already committed to more than 1.6 掳C of warming. And limiting it to 2 掳C would require far more drastic action than any politician would dare to contemplate, even if we began now 鈥� with measures needed such as reducing the . Keeping to this limit is possible only in the same sense that world peace can be achieved if people would just stop fighting.
So why are so many journalists following the official UN line that 2 掳C is still achievable with just a little more effort?
Mainly because this is what they are being told by climate scientists and activists, who point to scenarios for hitting 2 掳C without always making it clear what these scenarios entail. Some assume emissions peaked in 2010 鈥� even though . The scenarios that do not depend on an early peak assume we will be able to suck vast quantities of CO2 out of the atmosphere in the future (a prospect that some involved in carbon capture projects regard as laughable).
Censoring doom
But there is more to it than this. There is a view that readers are not just fed up with stories on climate doom, but that such stories are counterproductive.
Cognitive psychologist Stephan Lewandowsky of the University of Bristol, UK, in July: 鈥淚f you scare people without offering a solution then they manage their fear by denying the problem. So, the most important thing is to reinforce that there are solutions and that little steps do add up to something in the end.鈥�
This kind of argument seems to have convinced many activists. Even as they push for more to be done, they keep insisting that 2 掳C is still politically possible despite the mounting evidence to the contrary.
Some go further. Those of us who point out that 2 掳C is no longer realistic will be to blame if we fail to meet this target, apparently.
鈥淚nsisting that the goal is no longer possible is dangerous insofar as it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, providing an excuse for politicians unwilling to support the dramatic actions needed,鈥� climatologist Michael Mann in a book review in October. Mann, famed for his long battle with climate deniers, went on to describe this perspective as a 鈥渟ofter, gentler form of denialism 鈥� the denial of hope鈥�.
Really? My view is we should tell it like it is, even if the message is not one that people like. Anderson thinks that scientists have the same duty. 鈥淚t is not our job to be politically expedient with our analysis or to curry favour with our funders,鈥� he wrote recently.
Facing reality
This is not about idealism, but practicality. Wishful thinking does not solve problems. Pigs in straw houses might prefer to believe there are no wolves, but that does not make it so. The brutal reality is that we have already set in motion processes that will lead to profound changes to our planet, including massive sea-level rises.
The rational response to being told that it is unrealistic for us to avoid a 2 掳C rise is not to despair and give up, but to redouble our efforts to cut emissions. The more we do to limit warming, the better off we will be.
At the same time, we must accept the need to prepare for a future more than 2掳C warmer and the changes that will bring. It makes no sense to that is likely to be under water in 2100, for instance.
Sorry the message is not more palatable. That鈥檚 just how it is.
Image credit: Xu Jinquan/Xinhua News Agency/eyevine
Read more: Do UN climate change treaties ever work?
