Climate Scientists are Stuck in the Wrong Story
Climate scientists ignore the most urgent threats and the most obvious solutions, while wasting our time on a half-true narrative that is safe for the ruling elites.
In a May 8 article The Guardian reported polling 380 climate scientists on how they felt about the current status of the climate crisis. Most confessed to feeling scared and “terrified” about the current state of the climate.
The headline reads:
We asked 380 top climate scientists what they felt about the future … They are terrified, but determined to keep fighting. Here’s what they said.
I’m sorry. I wish I could sympathize. I don’t buy their story, the one they are telling about our climate. They are telling a false and misleading story. I will try to make that case in this article.
The article quotes a series of climate scientist. No doubt these are good people. I just think they are misguided. And their status as scientists does not make them immune from criticism or above reproach.
The article begins with Mexican scientist Ruth Cerezo-Mota.
“Sometimes it is almost impossible not to feel hopeless and broken,” says the climate scientist Ruth Cerezo-Mota. “After all the flooding, fires, and droughts of the last three years worldwide, all related to climate change, and after the fury of Hurricane Otis in Mexico, my country, I really thought governments were ready to listen to the science, to act in the people’s best interest.”
Let’s talk about flooding, drought and wildfires. In my experience, the media—including the public-facing scientific media—draws the connection between climate change and flooding, climate change and drought, climate change and wildfires, without making the logical case these climate change is the primary cause of these phenomena. We rarely see a serious discussion of the relative importance of land use and land degradation as a cause of flooding, drought and wildfires. We are asked to assume that climate change is the primary cause of all of these natural disasters.
Flooding
Is flooding “related to climate change”? Perhaps. But is climate change the major cause of flooding? I assert that flooding is the result of degraded land. People have degraded most of the habitable land in the world. Degraded land means degraded soil. Degraded soil means runoff. So when it rains, it floods.
The news currently reports flooding in Tennessee, Brazil, Puerto Rico and Kenya. How much of this flooding is the result of above average rainfall? And how much of it is the result of degraded land, including farmland that no longer holds water because we have not been practicing the principles of soil health?
Drought
It’s the same for drought. Our soil no longer holds water. Therefore, it does not fare well when the weather is dry. If we would take care to build healthy soil and not remove the vegetation from the land, then our soil would hold water, preventing drought and the impacts of drought.
Wildfires
Wildfires also burn longer and hotter as a result of land degradation.
Please see my interview with Dr. Chad Hanson, National Board Member of the Sierra Club, an expert in fire ecology and author of Smokescreen: Debunking Wildfire Myths to Save Our Forests and Our Climate.
One of the main messages from this interview is that the timber industry degrades our forests and makes them susceptible to wildfires. By contrast, intact forests absorb more rainfall and create a damp environment, making large wildfires less likely.
Heatwaves
Climate scientist Ruth Cerezo-Mota now laments record heat in Mexico.
In Mérida on the Yucatán peninsula, where Cerezo-Mota lives, the heat is ramping up. “Last summer, we had around 47C maximum. The worst part is that, even at night, it’s 38C, which is higher than your body temperature. It doesn’t give a minute of the day for your body to try to recover.”
Fair enough. These high temperatures in Mexico are not merely lamentable, but tragic and unjust. But what are the causes and what are the solutions? Are the hot temperatures in Mexico only the result of greenhouse gases? How much of Mexico and the Western United States would be a man-made desert without greenhouse gases? How much of these record temperatures might be the result of vast stretches of hot sand, in areas that used to be grasslands.
To understand how to change some of our desert back into the grasslands that they once were, please see my interview with Mexican rancher Alejandro Carrillo, who has converted much of his 30,000 acres back into a grassland, teeming with wildlife.
She [Cerezo-Mota] says record-breaking heatwaves led to many deaths in Mexico. “It’s very frustrating because many of these things could have been avoided. And it’s just silly to think: ‘Well, I don’t care if Mexico gets destroyed.’ We have seen these extreme events happening everywhere. There is not a safe place for anyone.
Stuck in the wrong story
When Cerezo-Mota says “many of these things could have been avoided,” what does she mean? Well, in this article, these scientists are solely focused on lowering carbon emissions.
That’s why I say they are stuck in the wrong story. Yes, we need to lower carbon emissions. But are carbon emissions the sole cause of climate change? Are carbon emissions the primary cause of climate change? And does anyone have a viable proposal for lowering carbon emissions? And does anyone propose to do anything else to prevent climate change other than lowering carbon emissions.
I can’t prove any of this, but here’s where I am coming from:
Carbon emissions are a problem and are a factor in climate change.
But carbon emissions are not the only cause of climate change.
Carbon emissions may or may not be the primary cause of climate change.
Mainstream climate scientists and journalists have yet to propose a serious solution that would lower carbon emissions. I assert that solar, wind and electric vehicles will not lower carbon emissions, as long as the economy and our energy consumption continue to grow. In this regard, please see Tom Murphy’s excellent article, Death by Hockey Sticks. https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/09/death-by-hockey-sticks/
Ecological degradation is arguably a major cause of climate change, though it is rarely discussed as such in the mainstream media or the climate science literature.
Most ecological degradation is avoidable.
Most ecological degradation benefits only a very few people, and therefore is not a natural, unavoidable aspect of the human condition.
Ecological restoration is a major solution to climate change.
Mainstream climate scientists are not talking about ecological restoration as a solution to climate change, not with any regularity and not with any emphasis.
Ecological restoration on a large scale will occur only if We The People get control of our government. Currently, We The People do not have control of our government. We have an illusion of democracy but not real democracy. We have an illusion of control, but not real control.
So, that’s where I’m coming from, just so you’ll know.
While I cannot prove every single point, here is an article I wrote that explains some of the main benefits of a forest, from a climate perspective. Also, please see the Jimi Eisenstein video at the end of the article.
Now, back to The Guardian article.
Cerezo-Mota is far from alone in her fear. An exclusive Guardian survey of hundreds of the world’s leading climate experts has found that:
77% of respondents believe global temperatures will reach at least 2.5C above preindustrial levels, a devastating degree of heating;
almost half – 42% – think it will be more than 3C;
only 6% think the 1.5C limit will be achieved.
But why do these scientists believe that global average temperatures will rise this high? And what do they propose to do about it?
CO2 and Fossil Fuels are the Only Cause of Climate Change?
Most scientists are stuck in the story where fossil fuel companies are the villain of the plot, and CO2 is the phenomenon that causes all warming, with hardly anything else worthy of mention.
Camille Parmesan, a French scientist says:
what the f**k do we have to do to get through to people how bad this really is?”
But, Mr. Parmesan, what is the call to action? What are people supposed to do? How do we understand the problem? What is the solution? We will explore these questions below.
Parmesan says:
“We did our science, we put this really good report together and – wow – it really didn’t make a difference on the policy. It’s very difficult to see that, every time.”
He says, “We did our science.” But did they?
Did their science include the power of ecosystems to cool their surroundings and regulate the climate?
Did their science include the power of evaporating water to transfer heat the surface, e.g., the surface of a plant, to the cloud layer, via evapotranspiration?
Did their science include the ability of a functioning forest or grassland to prevent flooding by acting as a sponge for rainfall?
Does their science pose any threat whatsoever to the rule of agrochemical companies, whose products and methods consume monumental amounts of fossil fuels while degrading the land, making farmland a carbon source, when it could be a carbon sink?
Does their science acknowledge that humans have removed 50% of the planet’s biomass in the last 5,000 years, according to this article at greenpeace.org? https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/17788/how-much-of-earths-biomass-is-affected-by-humans/
Does their science acknowledge the importance of desertification or the opportunity to use livestock to restore many of the world’s deserts to the grasslands they once were? (See my Alejandro Carrillo interview, above.)
My six years as a climate reporter tells me that the answer to the above questions is NO! Their “science” is not addressing these issues. So, how valid is their science? How relevant is their science? How helpful is their science?
Is climate change “The biggest threat humanity has faced?”
Article:
“It is the biggest threat humanity has faced, with the potential to wreck our social fabric and way of life. It has the potential to kill millions, if not billions, through starvation, war over resources, displacement,” said James Renwick, at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
Does climate change cause starvation? Or is starvation caused by bad agricultural policy, which favors large landholders who sell their goods for export into global markets, while people go hungry?
Does climate change cause war? Or is war caused by a military industrial complex that owns Congress and ensures that weapons sales are a top legislative priority, receiving bipartisan support? Recently, the federal government, currently $31 trillion in debt, found $100 billion for the “defense” of Ukraine and Israel. What they don’t tell you is that the U.S. is largely responsible for the escalation of conflict in both countries. You won’t see a worthy critique of these expenditures on cable news or in the national newspapers, because the likes of Boeing and Raytheon sponsor the cable news and the national newspapers. They are not selling products, they are buying the silence of major media outlets.
Occasionally, scientists calculate the costs of war, but these critiques rarely make it into climate coverage.
Climate Change is a Threat
I don’t doubt that climate change is a substantial threat. I don’t doubt that carbon dioxide is a substantial threat.
What I doubt is that mainstream climate scientists understand the exact nature of the climate crisis or the exact nature of the solutions. They seem to think that the only problem worth talking about is the CO2 that has been emitted by the burning of fossil fuels, and that if we solve that problem, we will have addressed our most serious threat. They don’t look at how hot surfaces (such as desert sands or pavement) could be a substantial source of the problem. And conversely, they don’t look at how vegetation, such as forests, cover crops and functioning grasslands could be a substantial part of the solution.
Do they have a solution to CO2?
But let’s say, for the sake of discussion, that CO2 is the sole or primary cause of the climate problem. Do they have a serious plan for dealing with the problem? Who has the plan? Does the UN have a plan? And then there’s Mark Jacobson, the Stanford engineering professor who purports to have a plan. Jacobson’s plan has been incorporated into nearly every Green New Deal and nearly every one of the “clean and renewable energy” resolutions being adopted by states and cities.
And yet, as reported by Scientific American, “Jacobson’s findings on the cost-effectiveness and feasibility of a full transition to wind, water, and solar “are not supported by adequate and realistic analysis and do not provide a reliable guide to whether and at what cost such a transition might be achieved.” Landmark 100 Percent Renewable Energy Study Flawed, Say 21 Leading Experts
For a comprehensive critique of the “clean and renewable energy” movement, and their claims, I recommend Bright Green Lies by Derrick Jensen, Lierre Keith and Max Wilbert.
“Vested Corporate Interests”
“[Climate change] is an existential threat to humanity and [lack of] political will and vested corporate interests are preventing us addressing it. I do worry about the future my children are inheriting,” said Lorraine Whitmarsh, at the University of Bath in the UK.
Which vested corporate interests are they talking about? Unfortunately, most climate coverage limits itself to a critique of safe targets like fossil fuel companies. They are not talking about companies that profit from empire, such as retail giants and media companies. They are not talking about agribusiness companies that have a strangle hold on agricultural policy worldwide.
“Green Transition”
Lack of money was only a concern for 27% of the scientists, suggesting most believe the finance exists to fund the green transition. Few respondents thought that a lack of green technology or scientific understanding of the issue were a problem.
By “green transition,” they mean a transition to so-called renewable energy. The idea here is that 1) we will be able to transition to solar and wind, while largely continuing with business as usual, and 2) solar and wind will have a substantial impact on carbon emissions, even while the economy and energy consumption are still growing.
As stated above, I have my doubts on both counts. I doubt solar and wind will power this industrial economy. And I doubt solar and wind will reduce carbon emissions.
Protecting People from the Impacts of Climate Change
How do we protect people from the impacts of climate change? First, we must prioritize the needs of the people. But how do we do that?
The first step is to understand the true nature of our predicament, environmentally and politically. We must understand that We The People are not in charge. And most of us, especially the educated classes have bought into a belief systems that says we are in charge. We believe we are in charge because we get our “news” and “information” from outlets that report the news in a way that suits their owners and sponsors.
In the words of historian Henry Adams: “The press are the hired agent of a monied system and exist for no other purpose than to tell lies where their interests are involved. One can trust nobody and nothing.”
You can believe that or not. But that’s how I see it. And I think there is abundant evidence to support the notion that the news is not what is appears to be. The news is created by and for a ruling class. Better to get our information from independent journalists who are not owned or sponsored by the ruling class.
I recommend these independent journalists, whom you can easily find on YouTube:
Max Blumenthal
Abby Martin
Aaron Mate
Katie Halper
Matt Taibbi
I leave you with this 9,000 word article by Max Blumental: ‘Green’ billionaires behind professional activist network that led suppression of ‘Planet of the Humans’ documentary
This is Max Blumental’s expose of the smear campaign following on the heals of Michael Moore’s excellent documentary Planet of the Humans.
And here is my interview with Jeff Gibbs, the writer and director of Planet of the Humans.
Keep in mind that the people behind the smear campaign were self-styled environmentalists, some of them very famous and well respected in the environmental community. I saw their shenanigans at the local level as well as the national level. Truth and objectivity were irrelevant.
CONCLUSION
As always, I urge you to rethink everything, if you have not already done so. Life is short. The least we can do is to stop lying to one another.
Congratulations Hart! Brave to speak the truth!
You are speaking it loudly. Pointing out the elephant in the room.
Time for “politically correct” is over.
Everyone must see the obvious
“The emperador is wearing no clothes”
Great piece, Hart. Mainstream reporting on climate would be comical if it weren't so tragic.