An open letter to Sandipan Deb

-

Mr. Deb,

 I recently read two of your articles on LiveMint (sources below), and forgive me for being blunt, but please stop spreading lies.

I am not concerned with your opinion of Greta or your faux concern over the child. While you write catchy headlines supposably fixated on Greta Thunberg, your actual attacks are on climate scientists and the IPCC.

 I'm not the first person to point out your ignorance and prejudice in this matter. I laud Bibek Bhattacharya and Krishna AchutaRao for taking the initiative with their pieces.

This is my contribution to cleaning the mess you're making by being a reckless and irresponsible voice in the climate conversation. Here are my replies to 5 of your most vitriolic statements:

(1) "IPCC has just released another doomsday scenario. Since bad news sells, it's made headlines."

The IPCC does not release doomsday scenarios. IPCC predictions provide estimates of what could happen under specific future scenarios. All IPCC reports provide clear indications of probabilities and uncertainties. For example, the IPCC said5 "For limiting global warming to below 2oC with at least 66% probability CO2 emissions are projected to decline by about 25% by 2030 in most pathways (10 - 30% interquartile range) and reach net zero around 2070 (2065 - 2080 interquartile range)" but it was you who translated it to "...the planet is going to die if it is not fixed in 12 years". Of course "apocalyptic predictions are hardly new". People like you have been misunderstanding science and mis-communicating news for decades.


(2) "No one bothers to check that IPCC is wrong all the time."

The IPCC compiles the work of thousands of science and non-science experts from all over the world. IPCC reports are approved only after a line-by-line verification not just by the experts but by the participating governments. To say that the IPCC is wrong all the time means that all of those experts as well as the participating governments are wrong. That is a serious accusation and should be substantiated with serious evidence.


(3) "Even if global temperatures rise by 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, nothing cataclysmic will happen."

There is an entire IPCC report which shows exactly how disastrous a 1.5 oC warming could be. But it is evident that you do not "believe" the IPCC. Do you believe in the people of Bihar, Kerala, UP and Maharashtra who faced disastrous floods this year? I'm aware that climate-tagging of disasters is currently not possible. But what a curious coincidence that the IPCC keeps warning that extreme events will become more frequent, and they are indeed becoming more frequent.

 The UN estimates that India has lost 79.5 billion US$ between 1998-2017 due to floods6. The 1995 IPCC report had already warned that floods will become more frequent due to climate change. This begs the question - how much of the current suffering and damage was preventable, since it was clearly foreseeable?


(4) "These doubts are tucked away at the ends of the report's lengthy chapters. How many people read that much? And how much of the SROCC could be alarmist guesswork?"

Yes, each IPCC report has a section on the limitations and directions for future research. It is not a secret, and it is quite logical, actually. But to answer your specific query - surely it doesn't take a genius to realise that whether or not we know everything about cryospheric variables, ice will continue to melt because of global warming? Picking out a few lines from the end of a chapter -- especially from the section on "Key Gaps in Knowledge and Prospects", especially when you don't understand the context -- does not help anyone except a climate denier. Would you like the world to keep waiting till the damage has been estimated upto the twentieth decimal place?
That the IPCC clearly admits to its own limitations is something everyone should learn from.
As for how many people read that much? - the SROCC received 31000+ comments from expert reviewers and governments.

(5) "Even the IPCC's basic methodology may be doubtful."

 You refer to Veronika Eyring's paper to cast doubt on the IPCC. Surely you must be aware that she was the lead author in IPCC's 5th Assessment Report and a contributing author in the 4th Assessment Report? If there are problems in the IPCC's basic methodology, as she herself has pointed out, I am sure she and Krishna AchutaRao are better equipped to understand and solve them than you. They're both lead authors on the next report.

 The climate conversation has seen many voices that like to cast doubts on work that they cannot understand.

Lastly, I will not answer your political provocations. I do not care whether you are left-wing or right-wing, and whether you think I am left-wing or right-wing. When disaster strikes, you do not ask the political position of a person before helping them or before taking their help. I know countless individuals, both from the left-wing and the right-wing, who are engaged in solving this problem without making it a political issue. You should try that sometime.

To use your own words, "We didn't move out of the Stone Age because we ran out of stones, but because we discovered how to mine and forge metals." Either join the people who are discovering how to mine and forge metals, or stop throwing stones at them.

 If you were a private individual who had misplaced views about the climate crisis, it would have been another thing. You are a prominent figure in Indian media and you are an active voice in the climate conversation. The degree of research you put in to malign the IPCC and distort the facts suggests a vile motive. You should remember that the public is waking up to corrupt voices in the media.

 This Dussehra, you may have received messages about the triumph of good over evil or of killing the Ravana within you. This Diwali, I ask you to help get India out of its darkness and stop being an enemy of its well-being and prosperity.

 Happy Diwali.

 ---

 Sources:
  1. Sandipan Deb's opinion piece on 29 Sep:"Greta Thunberg is the face of an outlandish ultra-left dream". Link
  2. Bibek Bhattacharya's opinion piece on 06 Oct: "Greta Thunberg's clarity of thought has shaken us up". Link
  3. Sandipan Deb's opinion piece on 13 Oct: "Greta-fication is not going to help us fight climate change." Link
  4. Krishna AchutaRao's opinion piece on 21 Oct: "Let's not ruin the planet with an intergenerational ponzi scheme". Link
  5. IPCC's Special Report on 1.5 oC warming: Link
  6. UN's report on Economic losses, poverty & disasters: Link

 ---
For email subscription to such posts:


Comments

  1. SOctober 25, 2019 at 10:15 PM

    Sandipan Deb has made mistakes about representing what the IPCC says, and this post does a good job of tackling many of them. On the other hand, he is hardly alone in doing so: many others, including climate activists, have been known to do the same. Thus, accusing him of "vile motives" is (I quote) "a serious accusation and should be substantiated with serious evidence."


    Also, the quote "..the planet is going to die if it is not fixed in 12 years" does not appear in Sandipan Deb's article linked at the bottom. He cites a similar claim (the number of years is 10, not 12, though), and Al Gore has indeed made such claims.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

हिमाचल की आपदा और नागरिकों से आग्रह

-
Image
हिमाचल प्रदेश से एक के बाद एक भयावह विडीओ और तस्वीरें सामने आ रही हैं। भारी बारिश के कारण कई क्षेत्रों में बाढ़ जैसे हालात हैं। इस संदर्भ में हिमाचल प्रदेश और पूरे देश के नागरिकों से आग्रह है कि वे इन चार ज़रूरी बातों पर गौर करें :   (१) बाढ़ क्षेत्रीकरण में ढील देना आपदाओं को निमंत्रण देने जैसे है अलग अलग विशेषज्ञों द्वारा ये बात बार-बार उठायी जा चुकी है, पर फिर भी नज़र-अन्दाज़ करी जाती है। हर नदी का एक बाढ़-क्षेत्र होता है और उस क्षेत्र में निर्माण करना जोखिम की बात है। प्रशासन के द्वारा बाढ़ क्षेत्र में निर्माण करने की अनुमति देना उचित नहीं है। ये नागरिकों का दायित्व नहीं होना चाहिए, बल्कि ये प्रशासन का दायित्व होना चाहिए की नदियों के बाढ़ क्षेत्र में कोई निर्माण ना हो, ख़ास कर कोई भी सार्वजनिक निर्माण तो क़तई ना हो। बाढ़ क्षेत्रीकरण से कई लोग पहले से वाक़िफ़ होंगे। ये सिर्फ़ पहाड़ी इलाक़ों में ही नहीं, पूरे देश में ज़रूरी ही। इसके बारे में और जानने के लिए ये लेख पढ़ें (अंग्रेज़ी में)। ये ट्वीट भी ज़रूर देखें: भूविज्ञान विशेषज्ञ ने मनाली के एक विडीओ में ढेर होती हुई रोड को &qu
Read more

What is a monsoon?

-
Image
Note: This post is written primarily for an Indian audience. - - - What leads to a strong or a weak monsoon? What will happen to the monsoon as the world warms? What happens to the monsoon in an El Niño year? -- These are popular and practical questions that the reader has probably heard, read or thought about. This post has no answers for any of these questions, but instead focuses on a more foundational and theoretical question -- What is a monsoon? Easy! Monsoon means the rainy season, right? This first order approximation is generally accepted as universal truth, since it works for a large part of the country. People equate monsoon with rains, especially summer rains. But what about winter rains? They are usually labelled as "post monsoon", and anything else can be put under "pre-monsoon". If you're a bit more nuanced, you may even label some non-summer rains as "non-monsoon". But the general discussion around rains in India tends to revolve around
Read more

Albedo, and why you should care about it

-
Image
I'm a big fan of albedo . I think this concept is very relevant to the climate system, especially to modern climate change. So this is my attempt to familiarize the reader with this concept and show its practical applicability. What is albedo? In simple terms, it is the ability of a surface to reflect sunlight. A surface with high albedo reflects more sunlight, a surface with low albedo reflects less sunlight. Source There are more general terms, such as reflectance, which are used in other sciences. For the sake of climate, we are primarily interested in sunlight. Albedo values lie between 0-1. The overall, average albedo of the Earth is 0.30. This means that 30% of sunlight is reflected back. The rest is absorbed and radiated as heat. Greenhouse gases tend to trap the radiated heat. In the context of a warming planet, it might have been more comfortable if the Earth's albedo was higher. A higher albedo would mean lesser sunlight would be absorbed, lesser heat would be radiate
Read more