This commentary is by Dan Delurey, a senior fellow for energy and climate at Vermont Law School.
I had hoped that John McClaughry would stop talking about climate change and being skeptical about climate science or even begin to adapt to the reality of the situation. Apparently not.
In his latest writing, he continues to challenge climate change science and how climate scientists conduct their work. Worse yet, he downplays the threat of climate change impacts.
McClaughry’s commentary is formatted as a list, which is a bit confusing and includes some duplicative entries. Thus, I have tried to consolidate his charges into what I believe are the major ones.
Before commenting on them, however, it is best to talk about the IPCC — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — which, as he has in the past, McClaughry takes particular aim at.
The IPCC is an arm of the United Nations that currently comprises 195 member governments and 134 observer organizations. Its job is to conduct monitoring and research related to climate change and to produce reports whose primary audience is the 195 nations that belong to it, as well as everyone else. Its reports are produced through the work of hundreds of experts in different fields who volunteer their time and expertise to produce them. Thousands more contribute to the review process and to the literature and other knowledge that are assessed in IPCC reports. They are not paid by the IPCC.
IPCC reports are created through multiple rounds of review and input and revision. All 195 member governments must endorse a report before it is released. (The latest IPCC Report, as well as past reports, is available at ipcc.ch.)
On to McClaughry’s charges …
- He claims that “Climate change is not a thing” and “There is no metric for climate change” and “Science depends on skeptical inquiry.”
This is a strange thing for anyone who purports to write about climate to say. Of course, there are metrics. They include the measured concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. The last time it was as high as present measurements was before humans existed. Other metrics with real measured data (not estimates) include changes in sea level, changes in average global temperature and changes in ocean acidity.
As for skepticism being the basis for science, he is correct in a general sense — but some science does get settled (think gravity). The fact that higher levels of CO2 contribute to higher temperatures was proven by scientists in the 1800s. The only question has been who or what is making CO2 levels rise. The latest report by the IPCC settles that, finding that it is unequivocal that human activity is increasing greenhouse gases, causing temperatures to rise, and creating climate change.
Climate science not settled? That is a silly thing to say.
- Next, McClaughry claims that “Earth is a dynamic system that cannot be modeled” and that “The models are politicized.”
Earth is indeed a tremendously complex and dynamic system. But that is exactly when models are important. To not use models is equivalent to stepping outside one day and assuming the weather you experience will be the same every other day. But more importantly, the predictions for temperature increases, extreme rainfall events, etc., that we witnessed in 2021 are exactly what past modeling predicted would happen. No model is perfect, but not using models is like flying blindfolded.
Avoid models? That is a silly thing to say.
- Next, McClaughry states that “The planet is warming, but only 1 degree C so far, and preventing another 1 degree C is not worth spending a lot of money.”
I wish this statement was only a silly one. Instead, it rises to the point of being dangerously misleading for Vermonters. The impacts on those of us in Vermont if the global average temperature rises 2 degrees C will be significant, and not the kind we will enjoy bearing.
Why do you think all the talk at the recent U.N. meeting was about staying below 1.5 degrees? The impacts are already being felt in the Northeast, as we can all see for ourselves. To say that it is not a big deal to go to 2 degrees C shows either ignorance of current or future climate impacts or a desire to spread climate misinformation.
A good source to see the future of Vermont’s climate is the recently released Vermont Climate Assessment that VTDigger’s own Emma Cotton reported on last month.
In summary, it is clear McClaughry does not want climate change to be true. But his statements reveal that he is part of an ever-decreasing minority who believe that.
If he wants to be of service to Vermonters, he could start talking about how to prevent further climate change, or how to adapt to the change that is already “baked in” or how we can become more resilient to the extreme weather events that will continue to increase. Otherwise, he should stop talking about climate change.
