Those who question climate alarmism and its anthropogenic basis find themselves labelled as denialists, however nuanced their remarks may be. This terminology is problematic because it draws an implicit comparison with historical denialism, which stifles any yet necessary debate.
Rigorous scrutiny of the scientific aspects is, though, called for. While the first IPCC [1] working group endeavours to present the state of climate knowledge in a comprehensive manner, the other two groups [2] produce prospective analyses that serve to guide public policy. These latter analyses necessarily involve a degree of conjecture and speculation, particularly when they favour mitigation measures (net zero carbon objective) over the unavoidable strategies of adaptation to climate change.
Climate models are valuable but limited tools. Their use raises important methodological questions: simulations with a high sensitivity to greenhouse gas emissions are sometimes associated with unlikely development scenarios [3], which leads to excessively pessimistic projections. A scientific approach would require these limitations to be clearly explained.
Similarly, attributing particular meteorological events – episodes of drought, flooding, forest fires, hurricanes, etc. – to climate change presents significant methodological difficulties. The climate is the result of complex interactions between multiple factors, and its chaotic nature makes it impossible to establish direct causal links between one of these events and one of the many perturbations [4] that influence the climate system, including human action. This scientific reality is too often ignored or minimised in communications on the climate and in political positions.
The question then arises as to who denies the limits of scientific knowledge and its abuse to advance their cause. For a healthy debate on the climate to be held, which is not the case today, it is necessary that this denialism be avoided. The issues at stake demand it.
[1]: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) responsible for assessing the extent, causes and consequences of ongoing climate change.
[2]: WG II dedicated to impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, and WG III to mitigation measures.
[3]: The SSP5-8.5 scenario, which is often presented as the ‘business as usual’ scenario if nothing is done. This scenario predicts a tripling of emissions by 2075, which may be considered highly improbable but generates alarmist projections of average warming of 3.3 to 5.7°C towards the end of the century.
[4]: On this subject, see a recent article in Nature which shows that rainfall in the Mediterranean basin has a high temporal and spatial variability, and that episodes of drought or flooding do not follow a long-term trend. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08576-6
This article was published on the site of IREF –Institut de Recherches Économiques et Fiscales and its German translation on the Carnot-Cournot-Netzwerk site.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Comment *
Name *
Email *
Website
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Oui, ajoutez-moi à votre liste de diffusion.
Post Comment
Δ
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
