Suppose the sky were to turn bright purple due to man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Suppose we could no longer even gaze at the stars from the highest peaks in Austria. If that were the case, the problem might have been noticed much earlier. And there would hardly be any people who would deny climate change. But it remains as it is: greenhouse gases are transparent and we (more easily) believe what we see. But is global warming really a question of faith?
From a scientific point of view, the answer is clearly no. Over 97% of scientists agree that global warming is mainly due to human activity [1]. This consensus is exactly the same as the consensus that smoking causes lung cancer [2]. Nobody publicly doubts this connection, but they do doubt whether humans are really to blame for climate change. Why is that?
We all have a personal connection to smoking. Perhaps there is even a loved one who has fallen seriously ill or died as a result of smoking. We have less of a personal connection to climate change. Most of us don't have relatives or friends who have been personally affected by major climate disasters, such as in Australia, where people had to be evacuated due to the devastating forest fires.
The climate crisis is still an overwhelming problem for many people. The idea of having to get by without fossil fuels is still causing large sections of society to gasp.
It is easier to doubt the causes as well as the possible consequences or the usefulness of climate protection measures.
So if you get into a heated discussion among friends or at the regulars' table, where climate myths and false claims are unpacked, we would like to arm you with easy-to-understand facts for the debate.
Clear arguments against the climate myth mess
1. is the earth really getting warmer?
Clear arguments against the climate myth mess
Definitely yes. Especially since the 1980s, global warming has increased at an alarming rate as a result of human greenhouse gas emissions [3],[4]. In Austria, the average temperature over the year has already warmed by well over 2° C (the global average is more than +1°). We have experienced the 14 warmest years since 2000. The last 4 years have been the warmest years globally since records began [5].
2. are humans really to blame for the climate crisis? Isn't it perhaps the solar cycles or other natural factors?
Unfortunately, it is clearly mankind. The rapid rise in temperature is almost entirely due to greenhouse gas emissions caused by our economy and lifestyle. The sun, like the influence of other natural factors, is extremely minor[6]. If we were to imagine the causes of global warming as an orchestra, the natural sources would be the triangle. The remaining instruments would be played by humans.
3. is that really a problem? Or would that not perhaps even be advantageous for us?
The fact that climate change means that lilacs bloom earlier, we have to take off our winter jackets later and we can cultivate our fields for a few weeks longer each year may seem advantageous at first glance. At second glance, we in Austria are already struggling with millions in climate damage caused by floods, mudslides, droughts and other extreme weather events. If we carry on as before, this would cost us dearly by 2050: we would have to take up to 8.8 billion euros a year from our tax coffers [7]. An immense sum that corresponds exactly to our annual budget for education.
4. have there not been such climate changes in the past?
At least not since time immemorial. If we want to know what the Earth looked like the last time there was such a highconcentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, we have to go back a long way in the Earth's history book , over 3 million years to the Pliocene - when sea levels were up to 25 meters higher and forests grew in the Arctic.
How can we be so sure? Past geological eras have left us revealing 'climate diaries': for example, marine sediments, ice cores or fossilized leaves, which provide information about the climate (andCO2 content) in past geological periods.
5. animals and plants have always adapted to change
Never before have temperatures changed so rapidly. Never has there been so little time to adapt. Think for a moment of the marathon record attempt by Eliud Kipchoge, who managed to break the 2-hour mark: we all agree that not just any passer-by could achieve such a feat in record time from a standing start. According to legend, the athlete who is said to have made this attempt in ancient Greece died as a result. Unfortunately, we must also expect to lose many other animal and plant species.
6 Is the sea level really rising?
Today, the global sea level is already over 20 cm higher than before the industrial revolution due to climate change. According to a special report on the state of the oceans published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in September, sea levels could rise by more than one meter by the end of the century. However, if the ice in the Antarctic were to rebel, more than 2 meters would also be possible. A NASA map impressively shows how far-reaching these changes would be.
7. do these tipping points exist or is it climate hysteria?
Every system in nature, no matter how stable, theoretically has a point at which it ceases to be what it is. And this does not always happen gradually and predictably. Some processes in the climate system can turn out to be hidden catapults as global warming progresses. Tipping points are the chamber of horrors of climate science.
What horrors does this chamber of horrors have to offer? We walk past the burnt down giant trees of the Amazon rainforest, which has collapsed due to dehydration. We pass depopulated villages and towns in India, China and Africa (due to the absence of the monsoon or as a result of drought and devastation). Sadly, we trudge on through the slush of thawed permafrost, then hike for what feels like an eternity through the dead forests of the north. Ice melts all around us. Corals bleach into white skeletons. In some places, the sea looks like an oversized bubbling pool in which methane bubbles are constantly rising to the surface.
A large sign in the chamber of horrors of the tipping points reads: "Undesirable side effects: please bear in mind that many tipping points can influence and trigger each other." And then, fortunately, we finally find the exit.
How much time do we have left to stop climate change?
The good news is that if we really go the extra mile, we might still be able to turn the tide. The bad news is that something really needs to happen right now.
In order to keep the consequences of climate change reasonably in check and maintain a certain respectful distance from tipping points, we must shift into top gear and limit global warming to +1.5°C. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emphasizes the importance of the next 10 years[8]: the decisive decade in terms of climate protection has already begun
And where is the emergency exit now?
At this point, I would like to come back to the image of the marathon race that lies ahead of us. We are all registered for this race. There will be de facto no spectators. But the field of participants is extremely colorful. You might get to talk to company bosses who have been part of the energy transition for a long time, perhaps with farmers who are successfully growing humus. Or with teachers and pupils who have developed great climate protection projects. You might also meet craft businesses that have converted their fleets to electric vehicles.
It is clear that such a mass event needs to be well coordinated. Politicians have an important role to play in this. This would mean clearly signposting the route, for example through solid climate legislation and a socially equitableCO2 tax. It would mean blocking off misleading forks in the road so that it is not possible to stray from the route, e.g. through climate-damaging subsidies that are still being paid out in the billions.
But it would also mean strengthening the stamina of the participants by offering a wide range of climate-friendly food (e.g. organic and authentic regional products). And we should all support each other in keeping motivation high throughout the race.
About the author
Dr. Sybille Chiari is part of the editorial team of "Nachhaltigkeit. Neu denken" and has been working on the topics of sustainability and climate communication for many years - both as a researcher and writer. She is part of the Scientists for Future movement and chairwoman of the Bele Co-Housing association (community housing project with organic, regenerative agriculture www.belehof.at).
Read more articles in the climate crisis focus and find out how you can drive climate protection forward.
Of course everyone wants a clean environment and to keep the biosphere viable. But the model of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has uncertainties that are greater than the trend. The isotopes of C in CO2 would have to be composed differently than they really are if the model were correct. The field hockey stick curve that brought about the Paris climate agreement was an "invention" by M.C. Mann, which lacks a scientifically verifiable basis. You know the "glacier tree" on Franz-Josef-Höhe. The climate is currently at the median value of the last 10,000 years and changes fastest when it goes through this range - in 20 to 50 years as ice cores show. CO2 decreased very slowly to 500 ppm before the ice age cycle began. The tipping points calculated in Potsdam are therefore not correct, because non-linear differential equations are extremely sensitive if the model is wrong. The founder of PIK should have questioned the IPCC model - and thus questioned PIK's raison d'être. The leading Scientologist Maurice Strong dreamed of a de-industrialized world in Rio. Ask Prof. Heinrich Wohlmayer, I believe he was there. He took the IPCC to the UN, because then there is no liability.
The EU's € 1,000 climate billions are 40% of what the world has spent on "green energy" so far (2018). Global energy consumption has increased by almost an order of magnitude more than the contribution of wind and solar energy. If Europe wants to make a difference, it must develop an energy technology for the world that costs less than burning fossil fuels. Because these are the treasures of future generations! By the early 2030s, the first small 100 MW fusion power plants will be on the grid and ITER will be buried. The world is not waiting for "green" Europe to fall behind.
We must adapt to climate change and bring the models up to a scientifically accurate level. A year ago, Kauppinen, ex-manager at the IPCC, published a paper that points out a fundamental flaw in the model and whose elimination leads to consistent results. Even the figures of 97% or 95% of scientists agreeing on this are a fraud and the basis for "Gretaism". I have met scientists who once served on the IPCC and were assigned to the 97%, but who in fact believe exactly that to be false. Scientists who refused to sign and quit the IPCC.
I think that the sun, the Earth's wobbly orbit and axis and biology have a decisive influence on climate history. It is no coincidence that the ground-level CO2 concentration above the primeval forests of Africa and South America is so high - much higher than in Europe and North America.
How about a scientific discourse to bring the truth to light?