The Crisis Report - 109

Who do you believe?

There are basically five ways to respond to the Climate Crisis that's steadily engulfing our civilization.

• Ignore the crisis and pretend it's not happening. The BAU or FOX News scenario.

• Acknowledge the seriousness of the Climate Crisis but insist that the situation is still solvable/manageable. Plea with people to “not give up” because renewables are now cheaper than fossil fuels and “net zero” is now inevitable. The MSN, NYT, and WAPO “techo optimist” scenario.

• Come together globally as a species to coordinate resources and responsibilities so that the Climate Crisis is “managed” in an intelligent and humane way. What the UN Secretary General has been pleading for since 2022. The “Best Case” or “Descent Realist” scenario.

• Engage in a global “free for all” struggle at the nation state, regional, and local levels for available resources. Hoarding of vital resources and endemic warfare. Mass starvation episodes as resources are funneled into warfare while social infrastructure collapses. The MAGA “America First” policy as a global scenario or “Worst Case” scenario.

• Argue that “we screwed up” and almost ALL LIFE on planet earth is about to go extinct. In this “extreme doomer” interpretation of events we are basically now in the “End Times”. With human extinction being inevitable and something we are going to live through in the coming years. This is the hardest scenario to characterize because it's difficult to understand how proponents of this viewpoint think people should react to it. Consider this the “If everything is doomed what's the point of anything?” scenario.

By FAR, the Majority of people believe in scenario two.

That's WHY it's the “mainstream” view of the unfolding Climate Crisis.

“A large majority of people globally and in the U.S. believe in climate change and its human-caused nature. Specifically, surveys indicate that around 70% — 80% of Americans believe global warming is happening, and a majority (59%) understand it is mostly caused by human activities. Globally, a survey shows that 86% of people across 63 countries believe in climate change according to Our World in Data.” — Google Search AI answer.

Important point - 41% of Americans DO NOT believe that global warming is “mostly caused” by human activities. That’s 4 out of 5 MAGA voters.

The BIG MAJORITY of people are “aware of” and “concerned” about Global Warming and the Climate Crisis. However, while 86% globally may be “concerned” about Global Warming.

Only 45% believe Climate Change will pose a serious threat to them personally.

At the same time, 51% of U.S. adults say they’ve felt suspicious of the groups pushing for action on climate change (a view expressed by 75% of Republicans).

Here's the MOST Important number of all. How many people are WILLING to DO anything real in terms of dealing with the crisis?

75% of U.S. adults expect they’ll have to make only minor sacrifices in their everyday life during their lifetime because of global climate change.

The share who expect to make major sacrifices remains modest, at around 23%.

The Majority don't “really” believe climate change is going to impact them “too greatly” on the personal level.

The MAJORITY expect/HOPE to only have to make “minor” sacrifices in order to “beat” climate change.

It's the viewpoint in this “hard hitting” opinion piece recently in the Guardian.

'This is a fight for life': climate expert on tipping points, doomerism and using wealth as a…

Economic assumptions about risks of the climate crisis are no longer relevant, says the communications expert Genevieve…www.theguardian.com

This opinion piece is an interview by Jonathan Watts Global environment editor at the Guardian with Dr. Genevieve Guenther. The reader is informed of Dr. Guenther's bona-fides and “expertise” as follows.

“Dr. Genevieve Guenther, an American climate communications specialist, is the founding director of End Climate Silence, which studies the representation of global heating in the media and public discourse.”

“Last year, she published The Language of Climate Politics: Fossil Fuel Propaganda and How to Fight It, which was described by Bill McKibben as “a gift to the world”.”

Dr. Guenther is someone you should listen to, she’s a “gift to the world”.

The interview is characterized as follows.

In the run-up to the Global Tipping Points conference in July, Guenther talks to the Guardian about the need to discuss catastrophic risks when communicating about the climate crisis.

Why is it important to talk about tipping points?
“We need to correct a false narrative that the climate threat is under control. These enormous risks are potentially catastrophic.”

How have attitudes changed towards these dangers?
“There was a constructive wave of global climate alarm in the wake of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on +1.5°C in 2018.”

“That was the first time (2018) scientists made it clear that the difference between +1.5°C and +2°C would be catastrophic for millions of people and that in order to halt global heating at a relatively safe level, we would need to start zeroing out our emissions almost immediately.”

“Until then (2018), I don’t think policymakers realized the timeline was that short.”

“This prompted a flurry of activism — Greta Thunberg and Indigenous and youth activists — and a surge of media attention. All of this converged to make almost everybody feel that climate change was a terrifying and pressing problem.”

OMG this state of affairs could NOT be allowed to stand. Something HAD to be done!

“This led to a backlash by those in the climate movement who prefer to cultivate optimism.”

“The preferred solution (to climate change) is to drive capitalist investment into renewable technologies so fossil fuels can be beaten out of the marketplace.”

“This group believed climate fear might drive away investors, so they started to argue it was counterproductive to talk about worst-case scenarios. Some commentators even argued we had averted the direst predictions and were now on a more reassuring trajectory of global warming of a little under +3°C by 2100.”

It's AMAZING how quickly this became the “mainstream” viewpoint and the “doomists” have been thrown under the bus.

Dr. Guenther disagrees, she states.

“It is bananas to feel reassured by that, because +3°C would be a totally catastrophic outcome for humanity. Even at the current level of about +1.5°C, the impacts of warming are emerging on the worst side of the range of possible outcomes.”

“I think part of the problem is that people feel distant from the dangers and don’t realize the children we have in our homes today are threatened with a chaotic, disastrous, unliveable future. Talking about the risks of catastrophe is a very useful way to overcome this kind of false distance.”

ALL of this is true and it sounds like Dr. Guenther is trying to be a “neutral” but “hard hitting” commentator. Someone you can trust to give you the “straight story”.

In your book, you write that it’s appropriate to be scared and the more you know, the more likely you are to be worried, why?

“Some people at the centre of the media, policymaking and even research claim that climate change isn’t going to be that bad for those who live in the wealthy developed world — the UK, Europe and the United States. When you hear these messages, you are lulled into a kind of complacency and it seems reasonable to think that we can continue to live as we do now without putting ourselves, our families, our communities under threat within decades.”

That would be the 42% who believe only what they hear on FOX News, OAN, News Max, and Breitbart.

“What my book is designed to do is wake people up and raise the salience and support for phasing out fossil fuels. [It] is written for people who are already concerned about the climate crisis and are willing to entertain a level of anxiety. But the discourse of catastrophe would not be something I would recommend for people who are disengaged from the climate problem.”

Ummm….what?

“I think that talking about catastrophe with those people can actually backfire because it’ll just either overwhelm them or make them entrench their positions. It can be too threatening.”

SO, basically her book is for the 52% MAJORITY who expect/HOPE to only have to make “minor” sacrifices in order to “beat” climate change. The people who already have some degree of “climate anxiety”. She isn't even trying to reach the MAGA 41% who have doubts that climate change is caused by human activities.

A recent Yale study found that a degree of climate anxiety was not necessarily bad because it could stir people to collective action. Do you agree?
“It depends. I talk about three different kinds of doomerism.”

Here's where it “get’s real”. For all of her “tough talk” Dr. Guenther hasn’t said what she actually thinks about the Climate Crisis herself. This is where she makes her position clear.

“One (form of doomerism) is the despair that arises from misunderstanding the science and thinking we’re absolutely on the path to collapse within 20 or 30 years, no matter what we do. That is not true.”

And, there you have it. The EXPERT has spoken, “collapse in 20 or 30 years, no matter what we do now” is NOT going to happen. That’s a “false belief” that causes “despair”.

“Second, there’s a kind of nihilistic position taken by people who suggest they are the only ones who can look at the harsh truth. I have disdain for that position.”

I am a person that she feels “disdain” for. According to her, I am contributing to an atmosphere of “nihilism” by trying to get attention with “doomism”. Spreading misinformation as “harsh truths” and presenting myself as a “truth teller” in order to get noticed by people. She finds that “disdainful”.

“Finally, there’s the doomerism that comes from political frustration, from believing that people who have power are just happy to burn the world down. To me, this is the most reasonable kind of doomerism.

BECAUSE,

“To address this kind of doomerism, you only need to say:”

“Yes, climate change is scary as hell. But we must have courage and turn our fear into action by talking about climate change with others, by calling our elected officials on a regular basis, by demanding our workplaces put their money where their mouth is. You need to acknowledge people’s feelings, meet them where they are and show how they can assuage their fear by cultivating their bravery and collective action.”

That's how she wants people to “get over” their feelings of “climate anxiety” and “doomism”. By,

• Calling our elected officials on a regular basis.

• Demanding our employers “put their money where their mouth is”.

• Acknowledging people's feelings and showing them that they can “cultivate bravery” through everyday “collective actions” like purchase choices and boycotts.

If this seems woefully inadequate as a “plan of action” to avert a Climate Apocalypse, well, you must be a “doomer”. One of those delusional, sad, “end of the world” people who think that our civilization could collapse over the next 20–30 years.

Dr. Guenther has a message of HOPE for you.

The difference between gradual warming and tipping points is similar to the difference between chronic, manageable ailments and acute, life-threatening diseases, isn’t it?
“Yes. When people downplay the effects of climate change, they often represent the problem as a case of planetary diabetes — as if it were a kind of illness that you can bumble along with, but still have a relatively good quality of life as long as you use your technologies, your insulin, whatever, to sustain your health. But this is not how climate scientists represent climate change.”

“Climate scientists think of climate change as a cancer.”

“Dr. Joelle Gergis, one of the lead authors on the latest IPCC report, prefers to represent climate change as a cancer — a disease that takes hold and grows and metastasizes until the day when it is no longer curable and becomes terminal. You can think of that as a “tipping point”. We are approaching a number of these and our situation has become urgent.”

“So this is a fight for life.”

“Like all fights, you need a tremendous amount of bravery to take it on. Before I started working on climate change, I didn’t think of myself as a fighter, but I became one because I felt I have a responsibility to preserve the world for my son and children everywhere.”

“We have a responsibility as parents to fight for our kids futures”.

“That kind of fierce protectiveness is part of the way that I love. We can draw on that to have more strength than our enemies because I don’t think they’re motivated by love”.

According to her, we will win because love, unlike oil, is an “infinite resource”.

“I believe love is an infinite resource and the power of it is greater than that of greed or hate. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t be here”.

THIS IS THE MAINSTREAM POSITION.

If you think the sacrifices she is calling for, and the bravery she is asking people to find, are laughably inadequate to address the magnitude of the CLIMATE CRISIS. Well, you might be a “doomer” like me.

The Mainstream is getting increasingly concerned about “doomism”.

Which is kinda weird given that, at best, doomism is the 23% who expect to have to make major sacrifices during their lifetime because of global climate change.

Doomism is actually split into two broad factions.

Descent Realists: Basically the “Left Wing” of Doomism.

These are people who believe the the Climate Crisis is an existential crisis that is going to cause the COLLAPSE of our civilization. They would support coming together globally as a species to coordinate resources and responsibilities so that the Climate Crisis is “managed” in an intelligent and humane way. What the UN Secretary General has been pleading for since 2022.

Me First Realists: Basically the 1% and Elites.

These are the people who basically “own everything”. Lately, like in the last 2 or 3 years, they have started acting like they think the Climate Crisis is about to become a Climate Apocalypse. Their actions make it clear that they see the climate crisis as a global “free for all” struggle at the nation state, regional, and local levels for available resources.

What this translates into in terms of an agenda is clear. Hoarding of vital resources and endemic warfare. Mass starvation episodes as resources are funneled into warfare while social infrastructure collapses. The MAGA “America First” policy as a global scenario.

Doomism is threatening to the majority that accepts the reality of global warming and climate change, but desperately HOPES the climate crisis can be solved almost painlessly through market forces and consumer choices.

What the majority fears is a widespread belief that the next 20 to 30 years are the “End Times” for our civilization. Something like the “Terror of the Year 1000” when churches were crammed with penitents, soldiers walked away from battlefields, peasants abandoned their farms, and a belief that it was the “End of Days” swept over Europe.

If enough people stop living their lives as if the “future” means something, our economic order collapses. Just like medieval society NEEDED the peasants to stay on their farms and keep working the land in order to pay their taxes. Modern society NEEDS the majority of the population to stay at their jobs, keep paying their mortgages, keep putting money in banks, keep buying stocks, and keep buying “stuff”.

If you honestly believe that civilization is going to collapse in a Climate Apocalypse over the next 25 years, will you “save for retirement” or “invest in the future”? Or, will you put your time and money elsewhere.

How can we “drive capitalist investment into renewable technologies so fossil fuels can be beaten out of the marketplace”, if “disinvestment” from the financial system becomes widespread as belief in “the future” fades?

Or.

How do you keep the “wage slaves” from panicking and refusing to work?

Telling people that THERE IS NO “CLIMATE CRISIS” and that COLLAPSE isn’t going to happen is a start.

Telling people that strategic government policies, investment incentives, consumer education, and market forces will get us to “net zero” by 2050 is another piece the narrative.

How do you keep the “wage slaves” from panicking and refusing to work?

IF YOU TELL THEM WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR, ABOUT 80% OF THEM WILL BELIEVE YOU.

75% of U.S. adults expect they’ll have to make only minor sacrifices in their everyday life during their lifetime because of global climate change. — PEW Poll

Unfortunately for the “mainstream majority” the difference between mainstream climate science and “doomism” is only about 15 years. Mainstream Climate Science is now forecasting +2°C of warming BY 2050. Doomers like myself are saying we will hit +2°C of warming as early as 2035.

The mainstream opinion is that we will probably be able to keep our civilization going if +3°C of warming isn’t reached until 2080 or later. Even if the global population significantly declines, the analysis is that “the center will hold” if this warming happens slowly enough over the next 50 to 60 years.

The doomist position is that our civilization will probably collapse if +3°C of warming happens between 2050 and 2060.

The next 5 to 10 years of warming will tell us conclusively who's right. No matter what Dr. Guenther FEELS.

This is my analysis.

This is what I see.

This is my “Crisis Report”.

• rc 062625

Addendum: Signals

Heat Domes Are Hotter and Lingering Longer-Because of the Arctic

A rapidly warming Arctic is driving long-lasting summer extremes, such as this month's sweltering temperatures, new…www.scientificamerican.com

Unprecedented fires fueled by climate change threaten iconic World Heritage forests

In an update to the joint UNESCO-WRI-IUCN report "World Heritage forests: carbon sinks under pressure", new data…whc.unesco.org

It's not just the cities. Extreme heat is a growing threat to rural America.

The urban heat island sits in a rural heat ocean….www.vox.com

US heat wave exposes infrastructure, health vulnerabilities - and it's not quite over yet | CNN

As previous disasters have laid bare the US' vulnerabilities to other types of extreme weather, this week is revealing…www.cnn.com

Earth is more sensitive to greenhouse gases than we thought

Our climate seems to be more sensitive to greenhouse gas emissions than some researchers had hoped, meaning the world…www.newscientist.com

Climate change increases global farmland area and agricultural emissions, study finds

Farmers require 88 million hectares more land to grow current levels of food than they would have absent global warming…..drawdown.org

When Will Greenland's Ice Disappear? Scientists Are Racing to Find Out

The collapse of the world's second-largest ice sheet would drown cities worldwide. Is that ice more vulnerable than we…www.scientificamerican.com

Global 'precipitation whiplashes' between droughts and floods could intensify by 2028, study warns

A recent study by The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST) reveals a looming climate crisis: the…phys.org

Brazil records 62% jump in area burned by forest fires: monitor

Historic forest fires in Brazil last year scorched through an area larger than the size of Italy, recording a burned…phys.org

War, Inflation and Now Drought Are Hitting Global Food Supplies

Staples including wheat, beef and coffee are all being affected by the lack of rainfall. In some cases, prices are climbing to record highs. -NYT

Observed trend in Earth energy imbalance may provide a constraint for low climate sensitivity models

Editor’s summary

Climate warms or cools depending on whether the net energy flux from incoming solar radiation is respectively greater or less than that of outgoing long-wave radiation at the top of Earth’s atmosphere. Satellite data have shown that an energy imbalance producing warming has strengthened between 2001 and 2023. Myhre et al. show that climate models with low climate sensitivity do not reproduce that trend in Earth energy imbalance.

These findings mean that increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases likely will cause even more warming than most current models predict

Large Cloud Feedback Confirms High Climate Sensitivity.

— James Hansen 05/28/25

Earth’s albedo (or reflectivity) is the portion (percent) of incoming solar radiation that is reflected back to space. As shown in Fig. 1, in the period of precise satellite data (since early 2000), Earth’s albedo has decreased about 0.5%.

We described this change as a BFD (Big Fucking Deal) because it has staggering implications. Solar radiation reaching Earth is about 340 W/m2, averaged over Earth’s surface, so the 0.5% albedo decrease is a 1.7 W/m increase of absorbed solar energy.

A +1.7 W/m2 increase of absorbed solar energy is huge. If it were a climate forcing, it would be equivalent to a CO2 increase of +138 ppm.

THAT’S LIKE ADDING +138ppm OF CO2e SINCE 2014!

Most of this albedo change must be climate feedback.

Fig. 2. Inferred contributions to reduced Earth albedo

“Direct” aerosol forcing — i.e., change of the reflection and absorption of sunlight by aerosol change per se — is also small, at most ~0.1 W/m2. The only substantial climate forcing affecting Earth’s albedo is the “indirect” aerosol forcing that occurs via the effect of aerosols on cloud formation and cloud brightness.

IPCC estimates this indirect aerosol forcing change in the past 25 years as only about +0.1 W/m2, while we — based on the geographical and temporal change of absorbed solar radiation — estimate a larger aerosol forcing, +0.5 W/m2, due to reduced aerosol emissions from ships and thus reduced cloud cover.

— — -

Hansen thinks that about +0.5W/m2 of the albedo dimming is due to the change in marine diesel fuel since 2020. However, that’s NOT ENOUGH to account for what we are seeing happen since 2014.

— — -

The upshot is that most of the +1.7 W/m2 increase of energy absorbed by Earth must be due to climate feedbacks.

The huge increase of absorbed energy must be provided by some combination of the two climate feedbacks that significantly alter Earth’s albedo:

(1) change of the surface albedo, which is due mainly to change of sea ice area.

(2) change of clouds.

— — -

We KNOW very accurately how much “ice loss” has changed the albedo. Despite all the hype about it, it’s a fairly small number.

— — -

The sea ice change is readily identified in satellite data and the resulting regional change of Earth’s albedo is accurately measured, amounting to 0.15 W/m2 in the period 2000–2024, averaged over Earth’s surface.

Thus, the one remaining feedback that affects Earth’s albedo — the cloud feedback — is very large. Rounding off, if our estimate of the aerosol forcing is right, the cloud feedback is increasing the flux of energy into the Earth system by an amount that has increased ~1 W/m2 in the past 25 years.

— — -

That’s the GREY part of the graph.

— —

The cloud feedback is so large that it rules out a climate sensitivity so low as IPCC’s best estimate of 3°C for doubled CO2.

I’m telling you, the mainstream paradigm is built on a 45 year old guesstimate about climate sensitivity that is WRONG and COLLAPSE has started unfolding.

Dr. Guenther is telling you that 45yo guesstimate was RIGHT and that Climate Change, while concerning, is manageable. According to her, there isn't going to be a collapse.

Who do you BELIEVE?