There is no climate emergency. Word of 1500 scientists. Conversation with Prof. Prestinzi
Climate emergency? Conversation with Prof. Alberto Prestininzi, professor of Applied Geology and Geological Risks at the La Sapienza University of Rome, on the manifesto "There is no climate emergency"
There is no climate emergency. This is the title of the manifesto signed by more than 1500 scientists from different nations who try to contrast, with scientific studies, the theory of human responsibility for climate change. Scientists do not deny that the climate experiences changes, it has always been like this, but they exclude the relationship between human activities and the onset of extreme climatic events. Instead they argue that “climate science should be less political, while climate policy should be more scientific”.
We talked about it with one of the signatories, prof. Alberto Prestininzi , professor of Applied Geology and Geological Risks at the La Sapienza University of Rome, former founder of the CERI Research Center "Prediction, Prevention and Control of Geological Risks" of the Sapienza University".
Why did you feel the need to sign an appeal stating that there is no climate emergency?
Because the data analyzed show that "there is no climate emergency", of course. Those who believe that there is this emergency bring us data and projections based on predictive models that are in a position to simulate past phenomena, in this case the phenomenon of global warming due to the emission of greenhouse gases and, in particular, of CO2. These models state that if we continue to emit CO2 at the current rate, we will end up with an unsustainable and dangerous situation for the planet. All of this is not supported by any scientific evidence.
Why?
Because a model tries to reconstruct a phenomenon on the basis of real data drawn from the past. We have at our disposal all the history of the earth which tells us how the climate has evolved in the past. For all past variations we have the values of the CO2 present in the atmosphere, in addition to the temperature values. Once you build a model it must be able to simulate what happened in the past, if it can do this, then we can use that model to try to make future predictions. But the various models presented are absolutely not in a position to simulate what happened in the past. So how can we think about using them for the future? The serious thing is that Europe, and many Western countries, are taking important decisions of a social and economic nature which are at risk of causing very serious crises. If all this were limited to the world of research, which is legitimate, trying to study and understand what really happens following the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, no one could object. But the scientific challenge has now been taken away from the Academy, it is only discussed on talk shows, people who are not aware of the scientific question talk about it; therefore, it has become a topic managed exclusively by the communication system and by politics.
Indeed, the number one slogan of your statement on the non-existence of the climate emergency calls for less politics and more science. What are you referring to with the call for the depoliticisation of science?
Our concern derives from the behavior of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), an intergovernmental organization entrusted to the UN, therefore financed by all the governments that have joined this initiative. The IPCC issues periodic reports which support the need to take economic decisions of great importance to save the planet. They have been doing it since 1989 by providing precise deadlines that terrify the populations " we have ten years to save the planet" . After ten the carousel starts again with new threats and new deadlines. Everything they predicted did not happen. In fact, all the data we have tells us that the planet has never been as good as it is now. The plant mass of the planet, in the last 20 years, has increased by 30%. It seems to me that there is a desire to muddy the waters even using fraudulent arguments, such as confusing the climate with pollution.
In the statement you write that climate has nothing to do with pollution.
Of course, if we continue to pour plastic into the oceans, or pollute the soil or water sources, we are doing the wrong thing and undermining human health, but we do not produce any effects on the climate. Pollution concerns substances introduced by man and which harm man himself. In fact, we measure the level of pollution by detecting the levels of tolerance of certain substances on humans, not worrying about the effects on other living beings: pollution is anthropocentric. Obviously we have to worry about our health and, for this, we have the knowledge and technologies capable of combating pollution. But this does not appear to be the IPCC's primary concern. Their obsession is the climate. The climate is another thing.
Many people, especially the younger ones, take to the streets to demonstrate for the protection of the environment, the climate and to raise public awareness of the climate emergency.
I know, and this is why this misunderstanding needs to be clarified, because the kids who demonstrate for the climate also demonstrate for the excess use of plastic, for the waste that we are unable to manage correctly. All issues that have nothing to do with the climate. The climate depends on other planetary and astrophysical factors, the sun, etc. From things that have nothing to do with the presence of toxic substances. I believe that the vast majority of these young people do not have sufficient levels of knowledge to deal with this issue, but certainly they are in good faith
In the manifesto you also write that the increase in CO2 is a beneficial factor.
Of course, CO2 is the food of plants, it is the gas of life. Life on earth was born 3.5 billion years ago when the Stromatolites, the first life forms to appear on the planet formed by bio-reconstructed structures that have the ability to activate fortosynthesis processes. Every human being emits one kilogram of CO2 per day when they breathe. With this breathing process we are able to carry out the main sugar synthesis processes. So CO2 is essential for life on earth. Instead, in schools we risk transferring false news, instilling terror due to the presence of CO2.
Yet, the Paris Agreement commits to reducing EU countries' greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels.
Here, even if boring let's do four simple arithmetic calculations in favor of those who feel the need to understand. The 27 European countries in 1990 contributed 8% of global emissions (Italy 0.8%). Indeed, in 2021 Europe produced 2.73 Gt of the total ( 2.73/33.9 = 8% ). That is 0.09% of the content in the atmosphere which is equal to 3000 Gt ( 2.73/3000=0.09% ). It is accepted by all that of the atmospheric concentration of 420 ppm (parts per million) of CO2, man is responsible for the 120 ppm quota.
Reduce by 40% of 2.73 Gt as indicated by Europe (2.73 0.4)=1.09 Gt. This reduction would account for 0.036% (1.09/3000) globally (also if calculated with 40% of 0.09% = 0.036%). If we wanted to express the incidence on the quantities contributed by man, 0.036% of 120 ppm is 0.043 ppm = 43 ppb. (parts per billion) ( 43 ppb over 15 years is 3 ppb per year ). This part is not measurable. The most sophisticated instruments have a sensitivity of about 1 ppm . Against this useless operation, Europe makes the citizens of the Community pay, in various forms, one thousand billion a year.
From these considerations derives the need for the manifesto "There is no climate emergency"?
Exact. That's why 1500 scientists, people who have studied the climate have signed the declaration There is No Climate Emergency saying that there is no climate emergency. Do you think there are some scientists, like R. Lindzen who were initially part of the IPCC, ran away when they verified how the IPCC works, which is run by economists. Scientists are called upon to provide the data, but the final reports are summarized by economists and political representatives of the various countries, who certainly do not belong to the world of science. There are so many great environmentalists who have gone down this path, like Patrick Moore of Greenpeace and walked away from this organization or Michael Shellenberger, award-winning environmentalist, who said: “On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for climate alarmism.
What was the response to the appeal-manifesto that you too signed?
Very good, the number of participating scientists is increasing incredibly, now we are almost over 1600 members. The attention is high, I see it when I participate in the many events or seminars, there are always many people who, in good faith believed that the future of the planet is at risk, are able to understand the mechanism produced by the widespread narrative.
Who is in bad faith instead?
Those who are the promoters. Especially the world of finance. If we look at the world stock market, trading on the futures market mirrors these policies. The overall result is the increase of the poor and the other the large accumulation of resources by global financial groups. In the book edited by me “ Dialogues on climate. Between emergency and knowledge ” (Rubbettino editore), in which 16 Italian scientists collaborated. Among these is the contribution of Mario Giaccio, former Dean of the Faculty of Economics of Pescara, where the financial aspects that govern this phenomenon are reported in detail.
What role has information played on climate emergency issues?
All of this has been conveyed with and through information. Today if I put myself on the megaphone to expose my ideas, whether they are right or wrong, I can reach a thousand people a day, if I get busy. Do you think that all the news always open with this news. And there isn't a day that everything that happens isn't blamed on climate change. Droughts, excess water, floods are always attributed to climate change. The climate has always changed and the increase in temperature that we record today, of about one degree over the last one hundred and fifty years, is natural and is connected to the "tail" of the last little ice age 1500-1700, during which there is It was a drop in temperature that made the Thames and the Venice lagoon freeze in winter. From that moment on the temperature started to rise. We are in this queue, with small fluctuations, because in 1970 the temperature decreased, between 2000 and 2015 it remained constant. These small oscillations characterize this queue. But they have nothing to do with floods. Here we enter the field that I have studied, I have taught geological risks throughout my life and I have done specific research on the subject of Risks, aimed at prevention. With hundreds of publications I have demonstrated that emergencies due to landslides or floods, as well as earthquakes , they happen because there is no prevention in our country.
Does the flooding in Emilia-Romagna also derive from a lack of prevention?
Certain. The truth is that the excess water that characterizes the meteorological conditions of our country we cannot regulate it, because floods are part of the hydraulic risk and we have the knowledge to keep it under control. And how should it be done? Through known procedures, which science makes available, for example, when we have floods we have to make sure that there is the possibility of capturing the excess water with sealing basins (dams) and laminate the floods, make sure that the water does not exceed certain flow rates in watercourses rivers overflow. And among other things they overflow because we have stolen part of their natural bed due to the necessary urban expansion. The images of the flooded Emilia-Romagna speak for themselves: it was a swamp now man-made. I would add that if we collected water in dams, we could avoid floods, create hydroelectric energy and, above all, in the summer, when there is little rain here, have infinite quantities of water. Italy is the rainiest country in Europe, to live with it we just have to implement these precautions that knowledge has provided in a very precise way. Our country has experienced thirty virtuous years, in which these things have been done since the De Marche Commission. In a recent article, I called this modern neglect "returning illiteracy." On talk shows, when these things happen, they talk about everything except prevention. And if someone uses this term, they use it improperly.
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Start Magazine at the URL https://www.startmag.it/energia/lemergenza-climatica-non-esiste-parola-di-1500-scienziati-conversazione-con-il-prof-prestininzi/ on Sun, 04 Jun 2023 15:37:20 +0000.