How Billionaires Corrupted Climate Science
How Billionaires Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg Corrupted Climate Science
At the center of the corruption of climate science discussed here a highly technical scenario of the future (called Representation Concentration Pathway 8.5 or RCP8.5). Over the past decade this particular scenario has moved from an extreme outlier to the center of climate policy discussions.
According to the New York Times, in November 2012, one month after stepping down from the hedge fund he led, Steyer gathered environmental leaders and Democratic party leaders around the kitchen table at his ranch in Pescadero, California. Among those in attendance were Bill McKibben, the founder of 350.org, and John Podesta, who had founded the Center for American Progress (CAP) in 2003 to promote progressive causes.
Following the meeting, Steyer invited two collaborators and co-funders to join him, to give the appearance of being non-partisan. One was Michael Bloomberg, then a political independent who was completing 12 years as the mayor of New York. The other was Hank Paulson, a Republican who was a former CEO of Goldman Sachs and who had also served as Secretary of the Treasury under George W. Bush.
Each of Steyer, Bloomberg and Paulson contributed $500,000 to the initial project, which was focused on “making the climate threat feel real, immediate and potentially devastating to the business world.” The initial aim was to produce a series of reports, drawing on several young academics and the expertise of external consultants at the Rhodium Group and Risk Management Solutions.
The first report was published in June, 2014 and was titled “Risky Business: The Economic Risks of Climate Change in the United States.” The Risky Business approach was a smart if flawed way to place economics at the center of climate policy. The approach focused on characterizing the extreme RCP8.5 scenario as “the closest to a business-as-usual trajectory” and centered its economic analysis on that scenario: “we focus on RCP 8.5 as the pathway closest to a future without concerted action to reduce future warming.” In this way they guaranteed that the economic impacts would be eye-poppingly large.
But in generating large economic impacts, the approach of the Risky Business report made two significant methodological mistakes. First, they improperly characterized the extreme RCP 8.5 scenario as “business as usual” reflecting a world without future climate policy. Second, they improperly presented the scenarios of the IPCC as representing different policy outcomes, suggesting that we could “move” from one scenario to another: “Moving from RCP 8.5 to RCP 2.6 (as well as RCP 4.5 and RCP 6.0) will come at a cost.”
Both of these methodological choices were contrary to the appropriate use of the scenarios, according the modeling experts who created them: “RCP8.5 cannot be used as a no-climate-policy reference scenario [”business as usual”] for the other RCPs because RCP8.5’s socioeconomic, technology and biophysical assumptions differ from those of the other RCPs.” The scenarios are completely independent from each other, and policy cannot “move” us from one to another. Consider that RCP2.6 represents a world with 3 billion less people than RCP8.5. The Risky Business methodology ignored such critical details.
Dodgy science published by climate advocacy groups is certainly not uncommon and it is usually not that interesting. But the genius of the Risky Business project was that it did not stop with a flashy report aimed at the daily news cycle. It undertook a far more sophisticated campaign focused on introducing its methods into the mainstream scientific literature, where they could take on a life of their own.
For instance, a 2016 paper published in the prestigious journal Science from the Risky Business project introduced the erroneous notion of moving from one RCP scenario to another via policy, comparing “business as usual” (RCP 8.5) and “strongent emissions mitigation” (RCP 2.6). That paper has subsequently been cited 294 times in other academic studies, according to Google Scholar. Despite the obvious methodological flaw, the paper passed peer review and has received little or no criticism.
In another example, a more comprehensive study from the Risky Business project was published in Science magazine in 2017, where the abstract brazenly announces its methodological error: “By the late 21st century, the poorest third of counties are projected to experience damages between 2 and 20% of county income (90% chance) under business-as-usual emissions (Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5).” The most extreme conclusion of this analysis was that the United States would see a 10% hit to its economy under the most extreme version of RCP8.5 (specifically its 99th percentile), projecting an incredible 8 degree Celsius temperature change from 2080 to 2099. This paper has been cited 285 times in other studies, according to Google Scholar. The 10% GDP loss figure would become the top line conclusion of the U.S. National Climate Assessment the next year.
Publishing papers in the academic literature based on the flawed methods was a formula that would be repeated time and time again. Like the introduction of a virus, the misleading reinterpretation of climate scenarios has subsequently expanded throughout the climate science literature and into leading assessments. Many experts well know that such methods are fatally flawed, but only a few have raised concerns.
The 2018 U.S. National Climate Assessment offers a particularly notable example. The work initiated by the Risky Business project was cited almost 200 times in that report.
More recently, the work begun with Steyer-Bloomberg-Paulson initial investment has been taken up by a group called the Climate Impact Lab. The Climate Impact Lab has thrived on exploiting RCP8.5 to generate a steady series of media-friendly studies focused on projecting extreme climate impacts. All of these reports are based on the misuse of scenarios, and especially RCP8.5.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2020/01/02/how-billionaires-tom-steyer-and-michael-bloomberg-corrupted-climate-science/#5ebb278a702c
At the center of the corruption of climate science discussed here a highly technical scenario of the future (called Representation Concentration Pathway 8.5 or RCP8.5). Over the past decade this particular scenario has moved from an extreme outlier to the center of climate policy discussions.
According to the New York Times, in November 2012, one month after stepping down from the hedge fund he led, Steyer gathered environmental leaders and Democratic party leaders around the kitchen table at his ranch in Pescadero, California. Among those in attendance were Bill McKibben, the founder of 350.org, and John Podesta, who had founded the Center for American Progress (CAP) in 2003 to promote progressive causes.
Following the meeting, Steyer invited two collaborators and co-funders to join him, to give the appearance of being non-partisan. One was Michael Bloomberg, then a political independent who was completing 12 years as the mayor of New York. The other was Hank Paulson, a Republican who was a former CEO of Goldman Sachs and who had also served as Secretary of the Treasury under George W. Bush.
Each of Steyer, Bloomberg and Paulson contributed $500,000 to the initial project, which was focused on “making the climate threat feel real, immediate and potentially devastating to the business world.” The initial aim was to produce a series of reports, drawing on several young academics and the expertise of external consultants at the Rhodium Group and Risk Management Solutions.
The first report was published in June, 2014 and was titled “Risky Business: The Economic Risks of Climate Change in the United States.” The Risky Business approach was a smart if flawed way to place economics at the center of climate policy. The approach focused on characterizing the extreme RCP8.5 scenario as “the closest to a business-as-usual trajectory” and centered its economic analysis on that scenario: “we focus on RCP 8.5 as the pathway closest to a future without concerted action to reduce future warming.” In this way they guaranteed that the economic impacts would be eye-poppingly large.
But in generating large economic impacts, the approach of the Risky Business report made two significant methodological mistakes. First, they improperly characterized the extreme RCP 8.5 scenario as “business as usual” reflecting a world without future climate policy. Second, they improperly presented the scenarios of the IPCC as representing different policy outcomes, suggesting that we could “move” from one scenario to another: “Moving from RCP 8.5 to RCP 2.6 (as well as RCP 4.5 and RCP 6.0) will come at a cost.”
Both of these methodological choices were contrary to the appropriate use of the scenarios, according the modeling experts who created them: “RCP8.5 cannot be used as a no-climate-policy reference scenario [”business as usual”] for the other RCPs because RCP8.5’s socioeconomic, technology and biophysical assumptions differ from those of the other RCPs.” The scenarios are completely independent from each other, and policy cannot “move” us from one to another. Consider that RCP2.6 represents a world with 3 billion less people than RCP8.5. The Risky Business methodology ignored such critical details.
Dodgy science published by climate advocacy groups is certainly not uncommon and it is usually not that interesting. But the genius of the Risky Business project was that it did not stop with a flashy report aimed at the daily news cycle. It undertook a far more sophisticated campaign focused on introducing its methods into the mainstream scientific literature, where they could take on a life of their own.
For instance, a 2016 paper published in the prestigious journal Science from the Risky Business project introduced the erroneous notion of moving from one RCP scenario to another via policy, comparing “business as usual” (RCP 8.5) and “strongent emissions mitigation” (RCP 2.6). That paper has subsequently been cited 294 times in other academic studies, according to Google Scholar. Despite the obvious methodological flaw, the paper passed peer review and has received little or no criticism.
In another example, a more comprehensive study from the Risky Business project was published in Science magazine in 2017, where the abstract brazenly announces its methodological error: “By the late 21st century, the poorest third of counties are projected to experience damages between 2 and 20% of county income (90% chance) under business-as-usual emissions (Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5).” The most extreme conclusion of this analysis was that the United States would see a 10% hit to its economy under the most extreme version of RCP8.5 (specifically its 99th percentile), projecting an incredible 8 degree Celsius temperature change from 2080 to 2099. This paper has been cited 285 times in other studies, according to Google Scholar. The 10% GDP loss figure would become the top line conclusion of the U.S. National Climate Assessment the next year.
Publishing papers in the academic literature based on the flawed methods was a formula that would be repeated time and time again. Like the introduction of a virus, the misleading reinterpretation of climate scenarios has subsequently expanded throughout the climate science literature and into leading assessments. Many experts well know that such methods are fatally flawed, but only a few have raised concerns.
The 2018 U.S. National Climate Assessment offers a particularly notable example. The work initiated by the Risky Business project was cited almost 200 times in that report.
More recently, the work begun with Steyer-Bloomberg-Paulson initial investment has been taken up by a group called the Climate Impact Lab. The Climate Impact Lab has thrived on exploiting RCP8.5 to generate a steady series of media-friendly studies focused on projecting extreme climate impacts. All of these reports are based on the misuse of scenarios, and especially RCP8.5.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2020/01/02/how-billionaires-tom-steyer-and-michael-bloomberg-corrupted-climate-science/#5ebb278a702c
Selv om jeg ikke tok med hele kronikken, ser jeg det ble så langt at det er forståelig om folk ikke gidder lese det. Jeg er i det hele tatt forbauset over at jeg selv orket det.
Poenget oppsummert:
- Ressurssterke aktivister, deriblant Michael Bloomberg, misbruker klimavitenskapen for å overdrive effektene av klimaendringene.
- De apokalyptiske konklusjonene blir deretter blant annet kringkastet av sensasjonalistiske og late journalister.
Poenget oppsummert:
- Ressurssterke aktivister, deriblant Michael Bloomberg, misbruker klimavitenskapen for å overdrive effektene av klimaendringene.
- De apokalyptiske konklusjonene blir deretter blant annet kringkastet av sensasjonalistiske og late journalister.
Det er sikkert masse å utsette på forfatteren av kronikken, om man ønsker å skyte budbringeren. Hva vet jeg? Men det klimascenariet som han snakker om hviler på urealistiske forutsetninger om fremtidige utslipp hvor bruken av kull må femdoble seg eller noe sånn. Se for eksempel denne tråden https://finansavisen.no/forum/thread/75595/view/1499944/0
Godt sagt. Du kjenner ditt publikum!
Jeg blir inspirert og fører meg opp med kort melding
#BLOOMBERG UTEN STEYER EVNE
#BØFFELMAKERE
Jeg blir inspirert og fører meg opp med kort melding
#BLOOMBERG UTEN STEYER EVNE
#BØFFELMAKERE
Livlig debatt blant klimaforskere på twitter om dette. En del virker urolige for å miste narrativet til klimafornekterne. Andre forsvarer egen forskning og bruk av de ulike scenariene, men virker lite åpne for å erkjenne at det er et problem at resultatene kommuniseres skjevt gjennom hyperbolisk media. Rene aktivister, som kanskje er eller ikke er forskere, ser ut til å være komfortable med dommedagsvinklingen fordi det leder til handling.
Dette handler selvsagt ikke om klimafornekting, men er såvidt jeg kan skjønne ganske sunn vitenskapskritikk.
Her er WaPo litt tidligere i uken:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/01/30/we-may-avoid-very-worst-climate-scenario-next-worst-is-still-pretty-awful/
We may avoid the very worst climate scenario. But the next-worst is still pretty awful.
The year is 2100, and the world’s 12 billion people are still burning fossil fuels with abandon. Compared with preindustrial times, the planet has warmed by 4.5 degrees Celsius, or 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit. The atmosphere is filled with greenhouse gases, and parts of the Earth sometimes experience temperatures too extreme for humans.
This bleak vision of the future has long played a significant role in scientific assessments of global warming. Sometimes called the “business as usual” scenario, it represents a worst case where countries continue to burn oil, gas and coal unabated — in contrast with a world where emissions have been dramatically reduced, and global warming is more moderate.
But now, some climate scientists and energy experts say the worst-case scenario is increasingly unlikely. That’s stirred debate within the research community over whether a rare bit of good news about global warming has emerged or if, instead, the situation is far more complicated and still quite dire.
Dette handler selvsagt ikke om klimafornekting, men er såvidt jeg kan skjønne ganske sunn vitenskapskritikk.
Her er WaPo litt tidligere i uken:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/01/30/we-may-avoid-very-worst-climate-scenario-next-worst-is-still-pretty-awful/
We may avoid the very worst climate scenario. But the next-worst is still pretty awful.
The year is 2100, and the world’s 12 billion people are still burning fossil fuels with abandon. Compared with preindustrial times, the planet has warmed by 4.5 degrees Celsius, or 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit. The atmosphere is filled with greenhouse gases, and parts of the Earth sometimes experience temperatures too extreme for humans.
This bleak vision of the future has long played a significant role in scientific assessments of global warming. Sometimes called the “business as usual” scenario, it represents a worst case where countries continue to burn oil, gas and coal unabated — in contrast with a world where emissions have been dramatically reduced, and global warming is more moderate.
But now, some climate scientists and energy experts say the worst-case scenario is increasingly unlikely. That’s stirred debate within the research community over whether a rare bit of good news about global warming has emerged or if, instead, the situation is far more complicated and still quite dire.
Redigert 01.02.2020 kl 12:14
Du må logge inn for å svare
Det er forstemmende å se at norske medier ikke dekker dette, enda så mange klima-saker de vanligvis publiserer. I kjernen av del hele står til og med en forsker som jobber i norske Cicero.
Redigert 01.02.2020 kl 12:16
Du må logge inn for å svare
God tråd, så jeg stikker.
Vel verdt å lese ts.
En rar følelse.
Vel verdt å lese ts.
En rar følelse.
In a commentary published in the journal Nature on Wednesday, Zeke Hausfather of the Breakthrough Institute, and Glen Peters, an energy expert at the Norwegian science organization CICERO, argue that the scenario ought to be discarded.
“Happily — and that’s a word we climatologists rarely get to use — the world imagined in RCP 8.5 is one that, in our view, becomes increasingly implausible with every passing year,” they write.
Hausfather and Peters argue that a total warming of around 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) is where the world is probably headed. That’s severe — it would be three times the amount of change that the world has seen — but appreciably different from 4 to 5 degrees Celsius (7.2 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit).
One of the most distinctive — and, some critics say, objectionable — aspects of the RCP 8.5 scenario is that it assumes heavy use of coal, the most carbon intensive fossil fuel when burned. Coal use goes up by a factor of five in the scenario, write Hausfather and Peters. But today, coal use is declining in many countries, including the United States, being supplanted by renewable energy and natural gas.
“Happily — and that’s a word we climatologists rarely get to use — the world imagined in RCP 8.5 is one that, in our view, becomes increasingly implausible with every passing year,” they write.
Hausfather and Peters argue that a total warming of around 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) is where the world is probably headed. That’s severe — it would be three times the amount of change that the world has seen — but appreciably different from 4 to 5 degrees Celsius (7.2 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit).
One of the most distinctive — and, some critics say, objectionable — aspects of the RCP 8.5 scenario is that it assumes heavy use of coal, the most carbon intensive fossil fuel when burned. Coal use goes up by a factor of five in the scenario, write Hausfather and Peters. But today, coal use is declining in many countries, including the United States, being supplanted by renewable energy and natural gas.
Noe av berøringsangsten kan kanskje komme av at man må gi noen stemmer litt rett, som man av andre grunner ikke har lyst til.
Ta for eksempel den amerikanske føderale klimarapporten fra 2018 som vurderer effektene av klimaendringer. Det ble stor ståhei da den ble sluppet. Både fordi worst-case scenariene var voldsomme, men også fordi det var en nesetyver til Trump administrasjonen. Mediene og NeverTrumpene kunne liksom enda en gang si gotcha!
Man kan si mye om Trump administrasjonens klimapolitikk, men om kronikken i TS stemmer og at 2018-rapporten bl.a. hviler på forskning som bruker worst case scenariet feil, så må man i ettertid kanskje gi disse uttalelsene litt rett:
"Yet scientists use the high warming scenario regularly in climate change studies, and especially climate model simulations, where one important goal is to push the Earth’s system to an extreme to see what happens. It is commonly referred to as a “baseline” or “business as usual” scenario, since it assumes nothing is done to mitigate climate change. This has given it a major prominence and has often led it to being framed as the default.
In some cases, it has provided ammunition to those critical of assumptions used in climate modeling. For example, the White House dismissed a 2018 climate report produced by 13 federal agencies and outside experts in part because it included the scenario.
“We think this is the most extreme version, and it’s not based on facts,” said then-press secretary Sarah Sanders. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler has already suggested the Trump administration may want to “take a look at the modeling” used in the next such assessment."
Ta for eksempel den amerikanske føderale klimarapporten fra 2018 som vurderer effektene av klimaendringer. Det ble stor ståhei da den ble sluppet. Både fordi worst-case scenariene var voldsomme, men også fordi det var en nesetyver til Trump administrasjonen. Mediene og NeverTrumpene kunne liksom enda en gang si gotcha!
Man kan si mye om Trump administrasjonens klimapolitikk, men om kronikken i TS stemmer og at 2018-rapporten bl.a. hviler på forskning som bruker worst case scenariet feil, så må man i ettertid kanskje gi disse uttalelsene litt rett:
"Yet scientists use the high warming scenario regularly in climate change studies, and especially climate model simulations, where one important goal is to push the Earth’s system to an extreme to see what happens. It is commonly referred to as a “baseline” or “business as usual” scenario, since it assumes nothing is done to mitigate climate change. This has given it a major prominence and has often led it to being framed as the default.
In some cases, it has provided ammunition to those critical of assumptions used in climate modeling. For example, the White House dismissed a 2018 climate report produced by 13 federal agencies and outside experts in part because it included the scenario.
“We think this is the most extreme version, and it’s not based on facts,” said then-press secretary Sarah Sanders. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler has already suggested the Trump administration may want to “take a look at the modeling” used in the next such assessment."
Redigert 01.02.2020 kl 12:27
Du må logge inn for å svare
Relative to 1850–1900, global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century (2081–2100) is projected to likely
exceed 1.5°C for RCP4.5, RCP6.0 and RCP8.5 (high confidence). Warming is likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5
(high confidence), more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5 (medium confidence), but unlikely to exceed 2°C for RCP2.6
(medium confidence). {2.2.1}
The increase of global mean surface temperature by the end of the 21st century (2081–2100) relative to 1986–2005 is likely
to be 0.3°C to 1.7°C under RCP2.6, 1.1°C to 2.6°C under RCP4.5, 1.4°C to 3.1°C under RCP6.0 and 2.6°C to 4.8°C under
RCP8.59
. The Arctic region will continue to warm more rapidly than the global mean
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pd
Synes man som regel snakker om 2 graders målet. Får derfor ikke inntrykk av at det bare er worst case scenario som diskuteres.
exceed 1.5°C for RCP4.5, RCP6.0 and RCP8.5 (high confidence). Warming is likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5
(high confidence), more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5 (medium confidence), but unlikely to exceed 2°C for RCP2.6
(medium confidence). {2.2.1}
The increase of global mean surface temperature by the end of the 21st century (2081–2100) relative to 1986–2005 is likely
to be 0.3°C to 1.7°C under RCP2.6, 1.1°C to 2.6°C under RCP4.5, 1.4°C to 3.1°C under RCP6.0 and 2.6°C to 4.8°C under
RCP8.59
. The Arctic region will continue to warm more rapidly than the global mean
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pd
Synes man som regel snakker om 2 graders målet. Får derfor ikke inntrykk av at det bare er worst case scenario som diskuteres.
"Synes man som regel snakker om 2 graders målet. Får derfor ikke inntrykk av at det bare er worst case scenario som diskuteres."
Det var i grunnen ikke det jeg mente, om det ble oppfattet slik.
Når man diskuterer hvor verden skal og hva som må gjøres for å komme dit, så tar man utgangspunkt i 2 graders målet. Eller "helst ned mot 1.5 grader", som mange gjerne påpeker. Det er greit nok, og ingenting av dette endrer det.
Det jeg mener er problematisk er dommedagsvinklingen som så altfor ofte har fått stor plass i media. Og jeg mistenker det har å gjøre med et mer generelt driv mot sensasjonalisme i dagens journalistikk. Dette er mest relevant i vurderinger av effekter av klimaendringer og historiefortellingen av hvor vi havner om vi ikke skrur skikkelig til.
Det kan være at en del forskere som har gjort slike studier med utgangspunkt i RCP8.5 har gjort alt riktig, tatt alle nødvendige forbehold og skrevet sine konklusjoner nyansert. Men alle har nok ikke det - er du en forsker som har som daglig virke å undersøke effektene av klimaendringer, har du kanskje ikke gått like dypt inn i hvilke forutsetninger som ligger til grunn i de ulike scenariene - som etterhvert har blitt til standarder.
Uansett er i alle fall mitt inntrykk at de forskningsresultatene som drypper ned til vanlige folk gjennom media ofte er uten forbehold og nyanser. Kombinert med en hang til sensasjonalisme, kan det gi et skjevt bilde. Dette blir igjen forverret av et politisk debattklima som overforenkler alt, og hvor alle deltagerne har incentiver til å score billige poenger.
Det var i grunnen ikke det jeg mente, om det ble oppfattet slik.
Når man diskuterer hvor verden skal og hva som må gjøres for å komme dit, så tar man utgangspunkt i 2 graders målet. Eller "helst ned mot 1.5 grader", som mange gjerne påpeker. Det er greit nok, og ingenting av dette endrer det.
Det jeg mener er problematisk er dommedagsvinklingen som så altfor ofte har fått stor plass i media. Og jeg mistenker det har å gjøre med et mer generelt driv mot sensasjonalisme i dagens journalistikk. Dette er mest relevant i vurderinger av effekter av klimaendringer og historiefortellingen av hvor vi havner om vi ikke skrur skikkelig til.
Det kan være at en del forskere som har gjort slike studier med utgangspunkt i RCP8.5 har gjort alt riktig, tatt alle nødvendige forbehold og skrevet sine konklusjoner nyansert. Men alle har nok ikke det - er du en forsker som har som daglig virke å undersøke effektene av klimaendringer, har du kanskje ikke gått like dypt inn i hvilke forutsetninger som ligger til grunn i de ulike scenariene - som etterhvert har blitt til standarder.
Uansett er i alle fall mitt inntrykk at de forskningsresultatene som drypper ned til vanlige folk gjennom media ofte er uten forbehold og nyanser. Kombinert med en hang til sensasjonalisme, kan det gi et skjevt bilde. Dette blir igjen forverret av et politisk debattklima som overforenkler alt, og hvor alle deltagerne har incentiver til å score billige poenger.
Redigert 01.02.2020 kl 13:15
Du må logge inn for å svare
At tabloide medier går for den mest sensasjonspregede varianten er ikke noe nytt.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/03/asia/india-heat-wave-survival-hnk-intl/index.html
https://www.nrk.no/urix/forskere_-india-kan-bli-ubeboelig-i-framtida-1.14614168
Ta denne saken som eksempel, som også ble gjengitt i NRK.
Den følger er ganske vanlig mønster.
India opplevde i fjor en alvorlig hetebølge, som det er naturlig at medier dekker. I dekningen, ønsker man samtidig å si noe om et slikt værfenomen vil påvirkes av klimaendringene, som også er et aktuelt og et viktig tema. Greit nok. Så man finner noen forskere som har gjort slike undersøkelser, i dette tilfellet en studie fra 2017 fra noen fra MiT.
MiT er annerkjente, og journalisten vil ikke ha noen problemer med å gjengi denne forskningen ukritisk. I forskningsartikkel har de brukt to scenarier for å besvare spørsmålet om Sør-Asia kommer til å være beboelig i framtida: RCP8.5 og RCP4.5.
"To examine the question of future survivability of heat waves in South Asia, MIT researchers looked at two scenarios presented by the IPCC: The first is that global average surface temperatures will rise by 4.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. The second is the more optimistic prediction of an average increase of 2.25 degrees Celsius. Both exceed the Paris Agreement target to keep the global average temperature rise by 2100 to below 2 degrees Celsius.
Under the more optimistic prediction, researchers found that no parts of South Asia would exceed the limits of survivability by the year 2100.
However, it was a different story under the hotter scenario, which assumes global emissions continue on their current path.
In that case, researchers found that the limits of survivability would be exceeded in a few locations in India's Chota Nagpur Plateau, in the northeast of the country, and Bangladesh.
And they would come close to being exceeded in most of South Asia, including the fertile Ganges River valley, India's northeast and eastern coast, northern Sri Lanka, and the Indus Valley of Pakistan."
Forskningsartikkelen kan for øvrig leses her: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/3/8/e1603322.full.pdf
Der omtales RCP8.5 som "business-as-usual scenario of future greenhouse gas emissions", noe som altså ikke gir noen mening. I alle fall ikke med en normal forståelse av hva "business as usual" betyr.
Journalisten som skriver saken legger vekten på dommedagssceriet. Selvsagt. Overskriften "India vil nok fortsatt være beboelig i 2100" skaper ikke klikk.
CNN-artikkelen har i dette tilfellet den litt mer forbeholdne overskriften "Are parts of India becoming too hot for humans?"
I neste ledd, når artikkelen er oversatt til norsk, er overskriften: "Forskere: India kan bli ubeboelig i framtida" med en illevarslende ingress om at "Nå frykter ekspertene at varmen kan gjøre deler av landet ubeboelig i framtida."
Og hvis du atpåtil er både lat og utålmodig, slik jeg er, og bare såvidt skumleser artikkelen på mobilen mens du står i kassakøen og hater livet ditt, så får du kanskje med deg underskriftene "Vil bli verre" og "Umulig og bo og leve" i tillegg.
https://www.nrk.no/urix/forskere_-india-kan-bli-ubeboelig-i-framtida-1.14614168
Ta denne saken som eksempel, som også ble gjengitt i NRK.
Den følger er ganske vanlig mønster.
India opplevde i fjor en alvorlig hetebølge, som det er naturlig at medier dekker. I dekningen, ønsker man samtidig å si noe om et slikt værfenomen vil påvirkes av klimaendringene, som også er et aktuelt og et viktig tema. Greit nok. Så man finner noen forskere som har gjort slike undersøkelser, i dette tilfellet en studie fra 2017 fra noen fra MiT.
MiT er annerkjente, og journalisten vil ikke ha noen problemer med å gjengi denne forskningen ukritisk. I forskningsartikkel har de brukt to scenarier for å besvare spørsmålet om Sør-Asia kommer til å være beboelig i framtida: RCP8.5 og RCP4.5.
"To examine the question of future survivability of heat waves in South Asia, MIT researchers looked at two scenarios presented by the IPCC: The first is that global average surface temperatures will rise by 4.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. The second is the more optimistic prediction of an average increase of 2.25 degrees Celsius. Both exceed the Paris Agreement target to keep the global average temperature rise by 2100 to below 2 degrees Celsius.
Under the more optimistic prediction, researchers found that no parts of South Asia would exceed the limits of survivability by the year 2100.
However, it was a different story under the hotter scenario, which assumes global emissions continue on their current path.
In that case, researchers found that the limits of survivability would be exceeded in a few locations in India's Chota Nagpur Plateau, in the northeast of the country, and Bangladesh.
And they would come close to being exceeded in most of South Asia, including the fertile Ganges River valley, India's northeast and eastern coast, northern Sri Lanka, and the Indus Valley of Pakistan."
Forskningsartikkelen kan for øvrig leses her: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/3/8/e1603322.full.pdf
Der omtales RCP8.5 som "business-as-usual scenario of future greenhouse gas emissions", noe som altså ikke gir noen mening. I alle fall ikke med en normal forståelse av hva "business as usual" betyr.
Journalisten som skriver saken legger vekten på dommedagssceriet. Selvsagt. Overskriften "India vil nok fortsatt være beboelig i 2100" skaper ikke klikk.
CNN-artikkelen har i dette tilfellet den litt mer forbeholdne overskriften "Are parts of India becoming too hot for humans?"
I neste ledd, når artikkelen er oversatt til norsk, er overskriften: "Forskere: India kan bli ubeboelig i framtida" med en illevarslende ingress om at "Nå frykter ekspertene at varmen kan gjøre deler av landet ubeboelig i framtida."
Og hvis du atpåtil er både lat og utålmodig, slik jeg er, og bare såvidt skumleser artikkelen på mobilen mens du står i kassakøen og hater livet ditt, så får du kanskje med deg underskriftene "Vil bli verre" og "Umulig og bo og leve" i tillegg.
Redigert 01.02.2020 kl 13:45
Du må logge inn for å svare
Det er jeg selvsagt ikke uenig i.
Men dette handler jo om at den mest sensasjonspregede varianten er helt urealistisk.
Men dette handler jo om at den mest sensasjonspregede varianten er helt urealistisk.