Open letter to Sean Rush about AGW March 2024

Sean Rush (Energy lawyer and IPCC climate expert, Wellington New Zealand)


This post shows the key discussion points in a recent exchange of views.

The science is quite clear about climate change.
As the IPCC says in AR6 WG1 (2021):
"It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred."

I notice that Wellington City Council takes AGW seriously. See:
https://wellington.govt.nz/climate-change-sustainability-environment/climate-change/climate-change-in-wellington

especially:
https://wellington.govt.nz/climate-change-sustainability-environment/climate-change/climate-change-in-wellington/what-is-climate-change

You said, in contrast:
"People are told ... Climate change is happening and we are the problem! Until politicians stand up to this nonsense and start making decisions based on evidence and not ideologically driven narratives that are Trojan horses for their communist agenda, we will continue to go backwards."

For you to describe AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) as "nonsense" is a tall claim. I’ve asked you to, please, provide evidence to back up what you claim about climate change.


 
You asked:
"'Widespread and rapid’ what?"

There is further detail in IPCC AR6 WG1 (2021), eg:

"Human influence has warmed the climate at a rate that is unprecedented in at least the last 2000 years... The scale of recent changes across the climate system as a whole – and the present state of many aspects of the climate system – are unprecedented over many centuries to many thousands of years ... "

The impacts are also shown, eg in likelihood of extreme weather events, as reported in IPCC reports and other sources.  The following diagram is from IPCC AR6 WG1 (2021).

​

You claimed "the weather outside hasn’t changed."
 
Apart from the fact you are conflating weather and climate, which makes you sound like an AGW dismissive, changes in climate trends globally are well evidenced in IPCC reports.  In addition, the field of extreme weather attribution is rapidly making strides in assessing the increased likelihood of extreme weather events as a result of AGW.

I don't know about the weather outside in the specific location you might be referring to, but your statement is a misleading steer, if taken in a global context and timespans relevant to a discussion about AGW. For more info, see:
https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/
 

You seem to have a very poor opinion of the IPCC. You claimed:
"The ipcc is a self selected policy body that advocates for the lifestyle changes that it’s political funders want to impose on us"

While the IPCC receives a lot of criticism for being a body that was created to provide an interface between scientists and the political / policy making community, the many deep lines of evidence are properly supported by good, peer-reviewed science.

As for your allegations of the IPCC having a narrative of "‘global boiling’ and that we are all going to die unless we make dramatic lifestyle changes and redistribute wealth",

I asked you to, please, provide specific references and quotations to support that.
 
 
You said:

"We’ve seen a warming of around a degree since 1850 and all in all the human race has thrived. "

That's an example of a true but misleading statement, ie misinformation in this context, and also indicates an attitude of burying one's head in the sand, or some level of dismissiveness about the problems caused by AGW and likely to get worse in future until at least peak GHG concentrations.

The main issue with AGW is not the absolute amount of change (although that is also a problem), but the pace of change, which, as the IPCC points out, is unprecedented. It's one of the indicators of past mass extinction events. Humanity evolved to be well adapted to the climate of the last few thousand years. We are currently pushing the planet out of that climate so fast that many species of plants and animals, some of which we rely on for food etc, will not be able to adapt to survive, let alone thrive.
 
When you say in a discussion about AGW:
"the weather outside hasn’t changed",

that's an example of conflating weather and climate. See:

https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/difference-between-climate-and-weather#:~:text=Conflating%20weather%20and%20climate%20is,and%20our%20climate%20is%20changing.
 

from which:

"Conflating weather and climate is a favorite climate denier talking point. While the weather might be cold or snowy on any given day, the science is clear: On average, our world is getting warmer and warmer over time – and our climate is changing... As comedian Stephen Colbert once quipped, 'Global warming isn’t real because I was cold today. Also great news, world hunger is over because I just ate.' "
 
 
I’m really surprised you conflate weather and climate, because you make it very clear in your profile that you were involved in the production of previous IPCC reports (prior to, but not including, the most recent one, AR6, in 2021). 
 
Even in IPCC AR4 in 2007, there was a clear distinction made between weather and climate.  For example, see:
IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press
From which:
 
“… climate is often defined as ‘average weather’.  Climate is usually described in terms of the mean and variability of temperature, precipitation and wind over a period of time, ranging from months to millions of years (the classical period is 30 years)”


Note that, on a separate strand of AGW work, weather attribution is about assessing the chances of particular types of extreme weather events occurring with and without AGW and comparing them. This work shows that some extreme weather events are becoming much more likely because of AGW.


 
You seem to have a problem with an element of calls for some wealth redistribution.

The 2020 UN report "World Social Report 2020 Inequality in a Rapidly Changing World”:
https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2020/02/World-Social-Report2020-FullReport.pdf

explains some of the problems caused by the currently gross inequalities in income and wealth.


It also points out the inter-relationships with other world problems such as AGW:

"The inequality challenge is global, and intimately connected to other pressing issues of our times: not only rapid technological change, but also the climate crisis, urbanization and migration. In many places, the growing tide of inequality could further swell under the force of these megatrends."
 

I said:
We are currently pushing the planet out of that climate so fast that many species of plants and animals, some of which we rely on for food etc, will not be able to adapt to survive, let alone thrive.

Your response was:

1) "no we aren’t. Far more rapid changes have happened in the quartenary alone with no mass extinctions." (I assume you are claiming something about past global climate changes there?)
I asked you to, please, provide evidence to support that claim.

2) "Every day we have far faster changes in temperature without mass extinctions”.
Irrelevant diversion. Climate change and its most significant impacts are not about daily cycles but longer-term trends globally. Extinction events are not about daily temperature swings.

3) "Every change of seasons brings far more changes in temperatures then anything humanity may have caused."
Irrelevant diversion. Climate change is not about seasonal cycles but longer-term trends than that.

4) "Meanwhile mortality from extreme weather has plummeted."
Human deaths from extreme weather events are moderated by several factors, including storm warnings and evacuations.    Unless you can isolate these various influences, your comment has little relevance for a discussion about AGW and its impacts.
​

​Here is evidence that we are currently in a new mass extinction event of our own making:

Strona, Giovanni; Bradshaw, Corey J. A. (16 December 2022). "Coextinctions dominate future vertebrate losses from climate and land use change". Science Advances.

which is described in lay terms in:
Greenfield, Patrick (16 December 2022). "More than 1 in 10 species could be lost by end of century, study warns". The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/16/more-than-1-in-10-species-could-be-lost-by-end-of-century-study-warns-aoe#:~:text=The%20researchers%20say%206%25%20of,animals%20could%20disappear%20by%202100.
from which:

"The researchers say 6% of plants and animals will disappear by 2050 in a middle of the road emissions scenario, which the world appears to be heading for, rising to 13% by the end of the century. In the worst case scenario of global heating, they estimate 27% of plants and animals could disappear by 2100."


More evidence of the new (sixth) mass extinction event of our own making in:

Ceballos (2015) "Accelerated modern human–induced species losses - Entering the sixth mass extinction"

from which the attached shows current rate of extinctions running well above the background rate.

You said:
"so we solve this by (1) giving the un more money and (2) making disciplined democratic and successful economies poor. No thanks"

The UN is already offering solutions and has made lots of progress - hence the UNFCCC CoP international agreements such as Paris 1.5 and Global Net Zero commitments around the world.
Those are only part of the means to solve impacts of human activities on climate change and biodiversity loss.

Does the UN need more funding? Yes, probably, but I'm not sure why you raise the matter of UN funding. Please clarify.

As for your strawman of "making disciplined democratic and successful economies poor",
Tackling AGW, biodiversity loss and other unsustainability challenges might well be GDP-positive, as per:
Ekins and Zenghelis (2021) "The costs and benefits of environmental sustainability"
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11625-021-00910-5


You suggested:
"... the likelihood of a prediction that weather will change has increased in step with funding from govts asking how weather is likely to change".

What a cynical view. I asked if you have any actual evidence to support it.

Please also note you are again conflating weather and climate.

I see that, rather than engaging in discussing this counter to your conflation of weather and climate, you have instead chosen to double down on your weather/climate conflation.