--It's hyperbole that misrepresents actual climate science – even the worst case isn’t extinction.
Kerr et al. 19 – Amber, Energy and Resources PhD at the University of California-Berkeley, known agroecologist, former coordinator of the USDA California Climate Hub. Daniel Swain, Climate Science PhD at UCLA, climate scientist, a research fellow at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Andrew King, Earth Sciences PhD, Climate Extremes Research Fellow at the University of Melbourne. Peter Kalmus, Professor and Chair in Climate Impacts at the University of Exeter, a lead author on the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in Working Group. Richard Betts, Paleoclimatology PhD at the Climate Change Research Center, climate scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. William Huiskamp, Postdoctoral research fellow, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. “Claim that human civilization could end in 30 years is speculative, not supported with evidence”, Climate Feedback, https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/iflscience-story-on-speculative-report-provides-little-scientific-context-james-felton/, 06-04-2019
This is hyperbole. The scenario constructed in this report does not have a “high likelihood” of occurring in part because it requires a confluence of circumstances coming together. While it’s certainly true that climate change will be damaging to society and the environment and many of the consequences will be severe this does not equate to a high likelihood of civilisation coming to an end.
Richard Betts, Professor, Met Office Hadley Centre & University of Exeter:
The “report” is not a peer-reviewed scientific paper. It’s from some sort of “think tank” who can basically write what they like. The report itself misunderstands / misrepresents science, and does not provide traceable links to the science it is based on so it cannot easily be checked (although someone familiar with the literature can work it out, and hence see where the report’s conclusions are ramped-up from the original research).
This requires us to work towards avoiding catastrophic possibilities rather than looking at probabilities, as learning from mistakes is not an option when it comes to existential risks.
Andrew King, Research fellow, University of Melbourne:
The report focuses on possible scenarios very much on the extreme end of what could happen but then claims there’s a “high likelihood” of human civilisation ending. These two statements don’t fit together.
With that in mind, they propose a plausible and terrifying “2050 scenario” whereby humanity could face irreversible collapse in just three decades.
Peter Kalmus, Data Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory:
Not to downplay the seriousness of what humanity is facing, but the report in fact doesn’t make this claim. While scientists do expect many of the changes to the Earth system due to global heating to be “irreversible,” and while this should be extremely concerning to any reasonable person, it is different than “irreversible human collapse” which, if you think about it, needs unpacking.
Their analysis calculates the existential climate-related security risk to Earth through a scenario set 30 years into the future.
Richard Betts, Professor, Met Office Hadley Centre & University of Exeter:
No, the report’s authors have merely read (or possibly seen without actually reading) a few of the scariest papers they could find, misunderstood (or not read properly) at least one of them, and presented unjustified statements.
posing permanent large negative consequences to humanity that may never be undone, either annihilating intelligent life or permanently and drastically curtailing its potential.
Daniel Swain, Researcher, UCLA, and Research Fellow, National Center for Atmospheric Research:
As I climate scientist, I am unaware of any scientific research that suggests changes in Earth’s climate capable of “annihilating intelligent life” over the next 30 years.
There is plenty of evidence that climate change will pose increasingly existential threats to the most vulnerable individuals in society; to low-lying coastal cities and island nations; to indigenous cultures and ways of life; and to numerous plant and animal species, and perhaps even entire ecosystems.
Such consequences are well-supported by the existing evidence, are already starting to emerge in certain regions, and should be of paramount concern. But even these very dire outcomes aren’t equivalent to the “end of human civilization,” as is claimed in the report.