Challenging ALL climate change misinformation

Prologue

In January 2022, I proposed the text in this blog to EnviroSociety, the blog for the Environment and Society: Advances in Research journal. The initial reaction was highly positive with a clear indication that the blog would be published soon.

Then, it seems that they suddenly realized that the blog was about their own journal, a point which I had never hid. In fact, much of the blog’s text comes from email messages in response to the journal’s original call for papers and I had included one of these emails when pitching the blog. I had therefore assumed that they already knew about my points, even though I had deliberately not mentioned the people or the journal in the blog to avoid naming-and-shaming.

In response, I was told that the blog would not be published. The blog editor called me “duplicitous” and “malicious” while accusing me of abusing my power. I was unclear exactly what “power”--perhaps the power to write a blog? The blog editor also:

(i) Seemed to indicate that the only reason my blog was not being published was because it raised concerns about the journal Environment and Society. Had the blog dealt with any other journal, it appears as if the blog would have been published.

(ii) Gave me permission to publish this blog elsewhere and raised no problems with the journal being named. I have still elected specifically to not name individuals.

Thus, this blog’s text is provided here without changes to the original, apart from removing the figures and captions. This prologue specifically names the journal, as per their apparent preference.

Climate change misinformation

What should we do when colleagues spread misinformation and disinformation about human-caused climate change?

Typically, this question applies to those who deny that the climate is changing rapidly and substantively or who deny that human actions are causing much of the observed change. Sadly, some do take these stances when both natural and human-caused climate change have been accepted for so long and with such a wealth of evidence that they are, effectively, as factual as gravity’s existence.

Others, though, make scientifically unsupportable statements about the consequences and implications of climate change. The prevalence of promoting and prioritizing climate change as a cause of detrimental impacts, irrespective of the evidence, is now joked about in many scientific fields. It even appeared in the comic strip Frazz by Jef Mallett on January 22, 2022 with the truism punchline “Not every unprecedented thing is a result of climate change”.

Hurricanes and Climate Change

Yet last year, one journal issued a call for papers with a statement indicating that global warming is now leading to “increased hurricane activity”. The topic of climate change and tropical cyclone frequency has a long history (Walsh and Pittock, 1998) with debates in the mid-2000s leading to a foundational paper (Knutson et al., 2010) concluding projected “decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones”.

The science since then concurs. A recent overview paper (Knutson et al., 2020) affirmed “a decrease of global [tropical cyclone] frequency”. Regional studies offer similar statements of declining frequency due to climate change (e.g. Cha et al., 2020).

As always, nuances are present. Knutson et al. (2020) explain “the vast majority of individual studies (22 out of 27 studies) project a decrease in global [tropical cyclone] frequency with greenhouse warming. (Some studies provide multiple estimates of projections by using different climate models, by using different model resolution versions or convection schemes, or by downscaling different global models or [sea surface temperature] change patterns).” Consequently, even the statement about declining frequencies requires cautions and certainly could change with new science.

Further caution is needed that tropical cyclone studies typically include tropical storms, whereas the strict definitions of “hurricane”, “cyclone”, and “typhoon” do not include tropical storms. The most robust scientific statements cover tropical cyclones.

Additionally, frequency is not the only aspect of climate change impacting tropical cyclones. It is fairly certain that tropical cyclone intensity alongside tropical cyclone frequency of the most intense storms will increase (Knutson et al., 2020). USA-impacting tropical cyclones, in particular, are likely to move more slowly along their tracks, form closer to coasts, and display shorter times between landfalls. An expanded latitudinal range is feasible. Meanwhile, other factors affect tropical cyclone frequency leading to some regional increases (Emanuel, 2021).

Discussing overall effects of climate change on tropical cyclones, and especially on disasters involving tropical cyclones, must account for all these parameters--and many more.

Beyond Hurricanes

In this regard, the journal’s call made further scientific mis-statements. It began with the statement “The increased warming of the planet over the past several decades is one of the main forces driving flood and fire and its impacts on living systems”. From the beginning of contemporary science on such topics, two key points have been evident, evidenced, accepted, and continually confirmed.

First, flood and fire must (obviously) have inputs from weather, and hence from climate, yet many other factors influence their presence and characteristics. For flood, land surface types and biota, whether influenced by humans or not, affect how much water goes where. Then, add human beings! Our channels, levees, dams, walls, dikes, and other forms of water (mis)management influence flood traits more than precipitation and snow/ice melt.

Fire must have an ignition source. Nature provides lightning, with complicated and poorly understood influences from climate change (Finney et al., 2018). Otherwise, cigarettes, camp fires, backfiring vehicles, and arson are all implicated in starting vegetation fires with no connection to “The increased warming of the planet over the past several decades”. Once a fire begins, decades of ecosystem (mis)management can influence fire characteristics more than the weather.

The second key point pertains to “its impacts on living systems”. For disasters, science has continually explained for decades, including by anthropologists (e.g. Hoffman and Oliver-Smith, 2002), that weather and climate rarely cause disasters. Instead, weather and climate measurements are poorly correlated with disaster impact metrics. A proven and re-proven tenet in disaster research is that almost all disasters result from vulnerabilities: Societal processes giving some people choices and others lack of choices regarding power relations, resource distribution, and opportunities regarding living and livelihoods.

Generations of science give little reason to blame global warming for fires, floods, or their impacts.

Non-Responses

Being a scientist seeking correct science, I ensured that the journal editors and the publisher were aware of the call for proposal’s mistakes, hoping they might update the text. Easy, specific, minor alterations, such as removing the phrase “increased hurricane activity”, would quickly render the science correct. I received no response. The publisher and journal editors updated the call to extend the deadline for submissions, but not the incorrect wording.

We all make mistakes. One joy and excitement of research is always learning, exchanging, updating, and improving. Ignorance cannot be scientific crime, because it is not possible to follow all scientific publications in all fields or to know everything about every topic. If we choose not to correct our errors, then we are guilty of ignore-ance (Streets and Glantz, 2000). Willfully ignoring scientific evidence might indeed be a felony in science!

We are meant to form our perspectives on an evidence basis and to change our statements when the evidence changes. We are not meant to accept only evidence supporting our pre-conceived ideologies. When we actively ignore available science, we harm science.

What could justify misrepresenting the known science on climate change, hazards, and disasters? We rightly criticize scientifically, as is our duty, those who refuse to accept that human activity is changing the climate rapidly and substantively with immense impacts. Should we apply similar standards to all colleagues who spread misinformation and disinformation about climate change, do not respond to requests to change the material, and promote this incorrect science?

If we excuse some mistakes while lambasting others, can we defend the scientific process? Especially when scientists have taken so much flak simply for doing correct climate change science. We have a duty to challenge anyone who refuses to accept what climate change science says.

Epilogue

In trying to understand why those involved were so upset at this blog presenting science, I offered to more than half a dozen people to chat for working through any of their concerns. I did not receive a single response to these offers.

I did receive a bizarre email from the journal editors with the subject line “Please Cease and Desist” making non-sensical demands and statements. I replied by changing the subject line to “Moving Forward and Improving Through Respectful Dialogue and Exchange” in order to outline specific questions which I would suggest we address together. Despite follow-ups, I never received a reply.

Then in March 2022, the journal Conflict and Society from the same publisher issued a call for abstracts on the topic "Climate and Conflict". It used one outdated peer-reviewed paper and a UN website to make significant scientific errors, including direct contradictions of the latest IPCC report. My emails to the four editors proved to be fruitless in getting them to engage with the science. They showed no interest in the latest peer-reviewed papers on this topic or in the IPCC report. Amazingly, they posed no objection to me publicizing their disinterest in the science.

Their final words to me were “I advise you to go ahead and take your fight elsewhere”. My reply included “I regret that I was not aware there was a ‘fight’ and I can assure you that it would not be one I particularly own. There was simply an attempt at a collegial and professional discussion on matters of science, which I am sorry has upset you so much.” No response. Thus, I do take my concerns elsewhere, namely here.

The public messages I sent in response to the original calls are available:

(i) https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa-jisc.exe?A2=ind2111&L=CLIMATE-CHANGE-IMPACTS&P=R38432

(ii) https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa-jisc.exe?A2=ind2203&L=CLIMATE-CHANGE-IMPACTS&O=D&P=10836

References

Cha, E.J., T.R. Knutson, T.-C. Lee, M. Ying, and T. Nakaegawa. 2020. Third assessment on impacts of climate change on tropical cyclones in the Typhoon Committee Region – Part II: Future projections. Tropical Cyclone Research and Review, 9, 2, 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcrr.2020.04.005

Emanuel, K. 2021. Atlantic tropical cyclones downscaled from climate reanalyses show increasing activity over past 150 years. Nature Communications, 12, article 7027. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27364-8

Finney, D.L., R.M. Doherty, O. Wild, D.S. Stevenson, I.A. MacKenzie, and A.M. Blyth. 2018. A projected decrease in lightning under climate change. Nature Climate Change, 8, 210-213. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0072-6

Hoffman, S.M. and A. Oliver-Smith (eds.). 2002. Catastrophe & Culture. The Anthropology of Disaster. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Knutson, T., S.J. Camargo, J.C.L. Chan, K. Emanuel, C.-H. Ho, J. Kossin, M. Mohapatra, M. Satoh, M. Sugi, K. Walsh, and L. Wu. 2020. Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change Assessment: Part II: Projected Response to Anthropogenic Warming. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 101, 3, E303-E322. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-18-0194.1

Knutson, T.R., J.L. McBride, J. Chan, K. Emanuel, G. Holland, C. Landsea, I. Held, J.P. Kossin, A.K. Srivastava, and M. Sugi. 2010. Tropical cyclones and climate change.

Nature Geoscience, 3, 157-163. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo779

Streets, D.G. and M.H. Glantz. 2000. Exploring the concept of climate surprise. Global Environmental Change, 10, 2, 97-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(00)00015-7

Walsh, K. and A.B. Pittock. 1998. Potential Changes in Tropical Storms, Hurricanes, and Extreme Rainfall Events as a Result of Climate Change. Climatic Change, 39, 199-213. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005387120972