By Andy Williams
Below is an image from Rhodes on 24th July 2023, from Sky News. According to the World Weather Attribution Group, “maximum heat like in July 2023 would have been virtually impossible to occur in the US/Mexico region and Southern Europe if humans had not warmed the planet by burning fossil fuels”.
So when Issue 35 of “The Light” says on its front page that the climate crisis is “non-existent”, one has to wonder which planet they are living on?
“The Light” says, “CO2 output keeps rising, but temperatures have stayed consistent for years”. That is simply not the case. As the graph below shows, the global average temperature has shot up since the late twentieth century, after being fairly stable for the previous 2,000 years.
On page 2 “The Light” says, “tens of thousands of scientists and researchers … have proven there is no climate emergency” but there is no reference to a single proof. A while ago I asked a climate-change denier friend to point me to a paper that showed that the world is not heating up. After much research he couldn’t do so, and he now accepts that we do indeed have a climate emergency.
On page 4 of Issue 35 of “The Light” we have more about the climate, and yet, again, not a single technical paper is cited. The author claims, “In the past 50 years, the predictions of climate computer models about global warming and its dire effects have been wrong – demonstrating their predictive unreliability” (though without mentioning any examples). That’s just not true. Carbon Brief examined the accuracy of climate models dating back to the 1970’s. None of them was far wrong. The projection below, for example, was made 33 years ago. The chart shows how the central black line of predicted increase in global temperatures from 1990 to 2020 has broadly matched a range of measures of actual global temperatures (different coloured lines). The chart shows that even when global temperatures were lower than the average prediction, they were almost always within the lowest range predicted – and that the broad trend is as predicted.
Climate modelling is still inexact, as the climate is such a chaotic system and has many feedback loops, but since the 1970s models have all pointed in one direction.
Almost all climate scientists (estimated to be between 95% and 99%) agree with the view that potentially catastrophic global warming, caused by man-made CO2, is happening right now. But “The Light” insists there is no consensus, and instead falsely claims “there is a global network of eminent, experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields, and many others who challenge the settled science”. Helpfully, there is a reference to the 500 “experts” in question. Looking through the list of signatories, it’s immediately apparent that hardly any of them are climate scientists. Certainly none of the 22 UK “experts” were expert in climate science (compare that with the 234 actual climate scientists who wrote the last IPCC report).
Analysis of the 500 “experts” referenced by “The Light” showed that only ten identified themselves as climate scientists. If, as “The Light” claims, there is “no consensus” on climate change, it is strange that they can only point to ten who disagree with the mainstream view. In fact there is an overwhelming consensus that there is a climate emergency.
There is also a reference to The Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL). “The climate view of CLINTEL can be easily summarised as: there is no climate emergency” says “The Light”. CLINTEL is led by Guus Berkhout, a physicist who used to work for the oil giant Shell as an engineer. Then, while working at Delft University, he founded the Delphi Consortium which carries out seismic research for oil and gas companies. So it’s pretty clear why he wants to show that there is no climate emergency.
The ”World Climate Declaration” written by CLINTEL, demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the climate science it attempts to criticise. There is not even a basic understanding of the science of the greenhouse effect, which was described more than a century ago.
The tragedy of climate-change denial literature, such as “The Light”, is that it sows doubt about the science. Without any evidence to back up its claims (because there really isn’t any) it divides society between those who believe the science and those who think that scientists are censored and controlled by certain dark forces, and so cannot be trusted. When publications like “The Light” attempt to sow doubt about climate change, they undermine the social movements that are protesting and demanding action from governments and corporations. They divide our communities as we try to reduce our contributions to global warming, and try to build resilience to the crises to come. If the electorate are not sure that climate change is happening they are unlikely to demand that the government takes action to address it. In today’s world, when some random person on the internet can reach more ears than an expert in their field, it’s not always easy to tell fact from fiction. “The Light” pushes the anti-science view very hard. They want enough electors to doubt the science, to make sure the issue is not addressed. No prizes for guessing who benefits from this, and who funds most of the disinformation.
Issue 34 of “The Light” also included blatant misrepresentation of the evidence around global warming – read our previous piece: “Fact-checking the June 2023 front page of “The Light”“.
Read more about the consistent denial of climate change in “The Light” in our July 2022 piece.
Community Solidarity Stroud District 