Fresh on the heels of my last post on whether 2 °C should be the exclusive threshold in international diplomacy negotiations, a link to a Grist article written yesterday caught my eye: “What you need to know about the next big climate report“. What did I find in the 4th paragraph but this appeal to scientific expertise (emphasis mine):
The panel intends for this assessment report to guide international negotiators as they work, in the run-up to the big Paris climate summit in December 2015, to hammer out an agreement to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. The U.N. hopes nations will find a way to squeeze through the ever-shrinking window of opportunity and cut a deal to keep the planet from exceeding 2 degrees Celsius of warming — the goal scientists have set to avoid the worst impacts of climate change — before we blow right past that target.
It is worth reminding yourself that everything you encounter in any media is biased somehow. We’re all human and we all have our own biases. Nothing is unbiased or objective because the act of putting words to concepts is derived from brains with preferred neural pathways. There is nothing inherently bad with the bolded language above. It comes from Grist, which many in the climate activist community view as a legitimate source of information (unlike say, Fox News). However, the 2 °C threshold was not originally scientific. That was one of the fundamental take home messages of my last post.
Negotiators in the early 1990s for the IPCC asked for some type of threshold that they might use in negotiations because, not being scientists, they didn’t know what threshold might be useful or appropriate. A German scientist offered up the 2 °C threshold as part of the UNFCCC process and because nobody else came up with a different threshold or challenged the temperature threshold, negotiators moved it through their process until politicians from countries around the world agreed to insert the language in a formal report. As is usually the case with these type of things, it has remained as the public threshold ever since. Climate scientists started using the threshold as part of their work in an attempt to maintain legitimacy in the funding process because politicians control research purse strings. Finally, as I wrote in my last post, the status quo is very hard to change. Witness the personalized (not science-based!) attacks on the authors of the Nature Comment that initiated the most recent version of the threshold discussion.
The language Grist uses plays into skeptics hands. “The goal scientists have set.” That implies that scientists have political power and have already exercised it at the expense of every other person. Unsurprisingly, most people aren’t fans of yielding power without a chance at involvement. Hence one very good reason to subvert those scientists. Grist is helping perpetrate the meme that there is a conspiracy against non-scientists – a meme that many climate scientist activists further inflame when they claim exclusive providence over anything climate related. If activists don’t view someone as a perfect example of their tribe, they attack the “other” without hesitation because they’re using the climate issue as a proxy for arguments they should have instead.
Politicians and diplomats set the 2 °C threshold. They were the only ones that had the power to do so. Scientists don’t approve the IPCC’s language. They write their own papers and contribute to the IPCC process, but politicians are responsible for approving every last word in IPCC reports. Grist writers and editors should know this. They’re all too willing to allow zombie myths to keep roaming the discussion space, it appears.