[MCN] Climate scientist to other climate scientists: We MUST change the way we approach the climate crisis

[Lance Olsen]

Climate scientist: We must change the way we approach the climate crisis <https://news.google.com/articles/CBMiRGh0dHBzOi8vcGh5cy5vcmcvbmV3cy8yMDE5LTEwLWNsaW1hdGUtc2NpZW50aXN0LWFwcHJvYWNoLWNyaXNpcy5odG1s0gFDaHR0cHM6Ly9waHlzLm9yZy9uZXdzLzIwMTktMTAtY2xpbWF0ZS1zY2llbnRpc3QtYXBwcm9hY2gtY3Jpc2lzLmFtcA?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen>

https://phys.org/news/2019-10-climate-scientist-approach-crisis.html <https://phys.org/news/2019-10-climate-scientist-approach-crisis.html>

Excerpt

Scientists are by nature conservative. This tendency is intimately linked to the way science operates: before a new theory is accepted it needs to be repeatedly scrutinized to make sure we are absolutely sure it holds up.
Usually, this is good practice. But it has caused climate scientists to consistently underestimate <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959378012001215?via%3Dihub> both the speed at which the climate is destabilizing, and the severity of the threat <https://www.sciencealert.com/international-climate-change-reports-tend-toward-caution-and-are-dangerously-misleading-says-new-report> it poses.

The IPCC is a chief culprit for this <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/08/world-leaders-climate-change-ipcc-report>. It has the added difficulty of having to seek ratification from the world's governments for its summary reports, and has been consistently singled out for underselling the impending crisis <https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190320102010.htm>.

The scientists across the world that contribute to the body's reports must heed its track record of mistaken conservatism, and adjust their approach going forward. Uncertainties are of course inherent in modeling how and when the climate will destabilize, but when the stakes are as high as they are, we must operate on the precautionary principle—the normal burden of proof on scientists should be reversed.

Acceptable risk
At the current level of 1.1℃ of global heating, climate change <https://phys.org/tags/climate+change/> and ecological breakdown are already displacing and killing hundreds of thousands of humans, and sending other species towards extinction. Above 1.5℃ though, risks to humanity and ecosystems amplify greatly.

Yet the UN's target for global carbon emissions to reach net zero by 2050 only gives us about a one-in-two chance <https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/> of limiting global heating to below this level. This target is based on one of multiple potential pathways laid out by IPCC scientists in a special report in 2018.

Professions such as doctors wouldn't take such a punt <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21550085.2018.1509483> on preserving life if better odds were available. Why is the same not true of climate scientists? We need to shift both our own and society's ideas about what is an acceptable level of risk to offer government leaders, and therefore the living planet's inhabitants.

**************************************

"The global shipping industry is continuing to release more and more greenhouse gas emissions by the year, 
according to a new study released by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT).

"The findings are the result of an analysis utilizing 'state of the art' global ship operations (AIS) data, along 
with detailed vessel characteristics relating to over half a million ships — collectively used to estimate 
greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution released by shipping “at high resolution (1° x 1°) on an hourly 
basis for the years 2013 to 2015.”

CleanTechnica Oct 24 2017
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/10/24/icct-shipping-industrys-greenhouse-gas-emissions-rise/
****************************************

"We linked 25,000 Animalia species threat records from the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List to more than 15,000 commodities ….   
we found that 30% of global species threats are due to international trade. In many developed countries, the consumption of imported coffee, tea, sugar, 
textiles, fish and ... manufactured items causes a biodiversity footprint that is larger abroad than at home."

M. Lenzen, D. Moran, K. Kanemoto, B. Foran, L. Lobefaro & A. Geschke.
International trade drives biodiversity threats in developing nations. 
Nature  7 June 2012 doi:10.1038/nature11145

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bigskynet.org/pipermail/missoula-community-news_bigskynet.org/attachments/20191023/b61b6575/attachment.html>