A recent assertion from a political news outlet alleged that scientific experts had been remiss in conveying the critical nature of the climate emergency.
However, the body of research forming the basis of their coverage falls significantly short of substantiating such allegations. Moreover, this type of reporting serves to misdirect accountability from its rightful locus. Therefore, what is the actual state of affairs?
In its examination of a pertinent study that critically assessed the portrayal of uncertainties within historical Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, The Hill opted to publish the following on their social media and as the article’s opening:
To provide a balanced perspective, it must be noted that the narrative presented by The Hill does, in time, clarify that the research paper in question does not, in fact, advance the claim that scientists “failed for decades to communicate the coming risks of rapid sea-level rise.”
The investigation meticulously dissects the complexities inherent in communicating uncertainty, with a particular focus on how the reports have addressed aspects of sea-level rise for which our comprehension was incomplete.
“The quandary arises because, for certain processes, our understanding of the underlying physics is quite robust,” explains Rutgers climate scientist Robert Kopp.
“For instance, the mechanisms by which the ocean absorbs heat and subsequently expands due to that thermal increase – these are phenomena we can quantify and communicate the associated risks for. Conversely, other processes, especially those impacting ice sheets, involve factors that are less well understood and prove challenging to express in quantitative terms, yet they possess the potential to precipitate rapid sea-level rise.”
It was precisely these areas of ambiguity that presented difficulties in articulation. Nevertheless, Kopp and his associates discovered that as experience accumulated, subsequent reports demonstrated enhanced proficiency in navigating these unknowns.
ScienceAlert has also featured critiques from other researchers concerning the IPCC reports; some express concern that the reports have been excessively conservative. This may imply that the magnitude of certain more extreme, albeit less probable, risks has been understated.
However, an oversimplification of specific details within an exceedingly complex system, undertaken with the intention of progressive refinement (which was precisely the objective of Kopp and his team’s investigation), while simultaneously maintaining a coherent overarching message about our trajectory, is vastly different from a failure to communicate the risks.
The IPCC maintained a firm conviction, evident even in their inaugural report in 1990, that “immediate reductions in emissions from human activities would be necessary” for long-lived greenhouse gases, irrespective of the numerous outstanding uncertainties.
Since that time, global sea levels have risen by approximately 10 cm, a figure that was precisely within their projected range. Furthermore, the acceleration of sea-level rise is occurring in accordance with predictions.
Yet, despite the current ability to discern the accuracy of the report’s central tenets, fossil fuel emissions persist in their upward trend.
Characterizing this situation as a failing on the part of climate scientists serves to deflect attention from those who bear infinitely greater responsibility for our present predicament. This includes leaders who, despite a litany of pledges, have neglected to implement substantial measures. Furthermore, one cannot overlook the influence of major industrial entities and the media landscape.
ExxonMobil’s own internal researchers were demonstrably aware of the perilous implications of their operations as early as 1977.
Subsequently, these corporations, along with the world’s other most influential companies – those overwhelmingly accountable for the inflicted damage – actively fostered numerous strategies, including disinformation campaigns, designed to impede any meaningful action while they continued to extract maximum profit for an extended duration.
The media has also played a complicit role in undermining climate communication efforts. For a significant portion of recent history, mainstream media outlets failed to even mention the term “climate change” in contexts where it was unequivocally pertinent.
When these outlets eventually did address the issue, they paradoxically amplified the voices of climate deniers over those of climate researchers, under the pretext of journalistic ‘balance.’
Regrettably, the media environment is poised for further degradation as social media platforms and major technology corporations erode specialized and independent journalism. This leaves us profoundly dependent on them for our well-being. Concurrently, these platforms permit their digital spaces to be inundated with organized efforts by deniers, trolls, and bots, and further exacerbate audience polarization through their algorithmic designs.
Throughout these challenges, researchers globally, spanning numerous fields of study, have consistently sounded the alarm, with escalating urgency. This has been their ongoing practice since their initial appeals for action at the 1988 Toronto Conference on the Changing Atmosphere.
This persistence exists despite the fact that, as early as 1995, researchers who ventured to speak publicly about the climate crisis have endured unrelenting harassment and even menacing death threats. Scientists now bravely face the possibility of arrest during climate demonstrations in their increasingly desperate endeavors to convey the gravity of the situation we collectively confront.
Directing accusations at the very individuals who have exerted the most significant efforts to mitigate the climate crisis represents a profound dereliction of our collective responsibility.
