I personally know several climate scientists, including ones who have been part of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That’s the official arm of the UN which monitors climate change and produces the widely anticipated Reports that serve as both status checks and forecasts for overall global warming, as well “check-up” measurements on nations are doing in reducing emissions and meeting their agreed-to targets. The IPCC is staffed by climate scientists from around the world.

I think many people think of scientists in general as often being unable to step out of their world of facts and data and unable to step back and see the forest for the trees. But while being a scientist may be a calling or simply a job, it does not seem to me climate scientists are people incapable of seeing the big picture.

And that is what a recent survey by the Guardian New Organization has looked at.

The Guardian approached every contactable lead author or review editor of IPCC reports since 2018. Almost half replied, 380 of 843. These scientists were not asked about data and science in the survey. They were asked what they believed was really going to happen. They were asked how they felt and what their thoughts were.

So, what did they say?

According to the Guardian the results show that many of the most climate-knowledgeable people on the planet expect climate-fueled havoc to unfold in the not-too-distant future.

Hundreds (77% of respondents) expect global temperatures to rise to at least 2.5C (4.5F) above preindustrial levels this century, going significantly beyond internationally agreed targets and causing catastrophic consequences for the planet.

Almost half (42%) see a rise of at least 3C (5.4F). Only 6% thought the 1.5C (2.7F) limit would be met.

The age of a scientist correlated to different expectations, with 52% of respondents under 50 expecting a rise of at least 3C, compared with 38% of those over 50. There was little difference between scientists from different continents.

Some of the scientists said they envisage a “semi-dystopian” future, with famines, conflicts and mass migration, driven by heatwaves, wildfires, floods and storms of an intensity and frequency far beyond those that have already struck.

Some used words like “hopeless”, “infuriated” and “scared” relative to the failure of governments to act despite the evidence that they should. Almost three-quarters of respondents in the survey cited a lack of political will as the reason the targets will be missed.

One scientist said, “What the f___ do we have to do to tell people how serious this is?”

One said, “1.5C is a political game – we were never going to reach this target.”

One scientist said, “I think we are headed for major societal disruption within the next five years,” and authorities “will be overwhelmed by extreme event after extreme event, (and) food production will be disrupted. I could not feel greater despair over the future.”

In the face of such dire thinking, the scientists nevertheless pointed to the fact that every fraction of a degree must be avoided. They stressed the fact that losing the fight to stay below 1.5 does not mean the game is over, and that we then we must fight to stay below even slightly higher temps, where every degree counts in terms of what the extra warming will lead to.

Scientists have for some time attempted to convey that the difference between 1.5 and 2.0 is very, very significant, and much worse than the difference between 1.0 and 1.5. They cite a higher rate at which impacts get worse per degree of warming and talk about a tenth of a degree of warming as a serious matter. They talk in terms of our ecosystems and economies being largely adapted to the climate of the late 19^th and early 20^th century period, which they explain is the climate that that was consistent for thousands of years prior to that. Thus, it is the impacts that scale up in nonlinear fashion with linear temperature increase.

So, what should the rest of us make of the survey?

If we consider scientists to be people that speak only based on facts and not engage in conjecture (forget for a moment the pay-me-to-say-what-you-want variety), I think we need to set that view aside as we look at the survey results. The scientists who responded are not putting any spin on anything, and I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are speaking from a position of political neutrality.

That means the results of this survey may be among the straightest of straight talk that we can get on our situation. And that means our situation is not good.

Straight talk on climate is hard to give. That’s because those of us who act as messengers on climate change are often torn between not scaring people with straight talk versus giving them the bad news that is already built in, with more to come. There is communications research to support each view, and as far as I know there is no consensus yet.

On my most recent appearance on the NPR listener call-in program I do, I had a caller who basically said that he thought it was too late for any meaningful action on climate change, and that essentially the game was over.

In answering, I found myself immediately playing devil’s advocate and arguing that it was not too late, and that we are still early “in the game” and used the idea of a “game of inches” as equivalent to fighting for every fraction of a degree that we can avoid.

Later, after the show, on my drive home, I could not stop wondering whether I had sounded too optimistic, and whether that was the best message I could have sent. I wondered if my talk had been “straight” enough?

I think that our situation is such that people need straight talk accompanied by big helping of encouragement.  They need more than just the latter.

I for one want to thank the climate scientists who participated in the survey for giving us not just the science and the data, but for telling us how all that information makes them think and feel.

It certainly is hitting home with me. How about you?

• SEO Powered Content & PR Distribution. Get Amplified Today.
• PlatoData.Network Vertical Generative Ai. Empower Yourself. Access Here.
• PlatoAiStream. Web3 Intelligence. Knowledge Amplified. Access Here.
• PlatoESG. Carbon, CleanTech, Energy, Environment, Solar, Waste Management. Access Here.
• PlatoHealth. Biotech and Clinical Trials Intelligence. Access Here.
• Source: https://energycentral.com/c/ec/different-kind-message-climate-scientists