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

On Darwin's Lost World - Part II

-
<< Previous page So what do we (did Darwin) know by now (then) ? That living creatures from the very very ancient past (we're talking in terms of millions of years) were often found preserved in the rock record. That we could make out some things about the past environments from these fossils. Fossils showed specific associations: you saw only certain types and groups of fossils in certain suites of rocks (belonging to different periods of geological time). There came a dead end at the base of the Cambrian. Scientists like to call this the Cambrian Explosion today, but back then, many of them were more inclined to dismiss this either as a figment of the imagination of relatively smaller body of researchers, or simply, incomplete/inaccurate science. That the Creator had made us all, was the popular view. 3 theories emerged to explain why we see the Cambrian Explosion (if it even is a real thing!): Charles Lyell Interestingly, it is said that Lyell was
Read more

On Darwin's Lost World

-
Image
Martin Brasier was a prolific paleontologist. And from what little I know of him, he must have been a pretty cool guy. I recently read his book "Darwin's Lost World" and it was definitely one of the better decisions of my life. On Darwin Thankfully, even the most plebeian of science curricula finds it worthwhile to describe Charles Darwin's scientific accomplishments. To me, all through childhood, Darwin represented my superiority to the apes. When someone said Darwin, I would get a mental picture of an ape gradually turning human. That's an overly simplistic picture, but then again, there is so much to learn about everything  that one doesn't quite know where to start. Source The rock record is the only thing that can give us a picture of the ancient Earth. Most other branches of science can tell you what the Earth is like, and why it is the way it is. But it was Geology that first told us what the Earth was  like, and bits of why it w
Read more

What is ENSO? Page 2 - SSTs and trade winds

-
Image
  This is Page 2 of the sub-series "What is ENSO?". If you haven't already, please read Page 1 first. For convenience, keep that page open in a different tab. = = = What is ENSO? In the previous post , we learnt to identify ENSO phases from the perspective of sea surface temperature anomalies . In this post, I'm going to answer a question that no one really asked ―  What if I wanted to identify ENSO phases from the perspective of sea surface temperatures (SSTs) instead? What if, for no good reason but because I felt like it, I wanted to do away with the "anomalies" bit? Looking at SSTs instead of SST anomalies makes matters unnecessarily complicated, but we're going to do it anyway because it also teaches us a lot. In the image below, I've plotted SSTs from the HadISST dataset. These are mean SSTs for the months of December, January and February (DJF) over all years from 1872-2009. Why did we select the months of DJF? Because ENSO events can be seen
Read more