WRITTEN TESTIMONY TO THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND
TECHNOLOGY. MAY 29, 2014
DANIEL B. BOTKIN, Botkin dismantles the IPCC 2014 report
“Daniel B. Botkin, a world-renowned ecologist, is Professor (Emeritus), Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, UC Santa
Barbara, and President of The Center for The Study of The Environment, which provides independent, science-based analyses of complex
environmental issues. The New York Times said his book, Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the 21st Century is considered by many
ecologists to be the classic text of the movement.” His Environmental Science, now in its Sixth Edition, was named 2004′s best
textbook by the Textbook and Academic Authors Association.”
Since 1968 I have published research on theoretical global warming, its potential ecological effects,
and the implications for people and biodiversity. I have spent my career trying to help conserve our
environment and its great diversity of species. In doing so I have always attempted to maintain an
objective, intellectually honest, scientific approach in the best tradition of scientific endeavor. I have,
accordingly, been dismayed and disappointed in recent years that this subject has been converted
into a political and ideological debate. I have colleagues on both sides of the debate and believe we
should work together as scientists instead of arguing divisively about preconceived, emotionally based “positions.” I hope my testifying here will
help lead to a calmer, more rational approach to dealing with not only climate change but also other major environmental problems. The IPCC
2014 report does not have this kind of rational discussion we should be having. I would like to tell you why.
The IPCC 2014 report is actually a series of reports, each long, complex in organization, and
extensive in scope. Since it’s not possible to discuss the Summary Reports for Policymakers in detail
today, I will highlight some of my thoughts for you here as they relate to the reports, hoping to bring a saner, more sober approach to this highly
charged issue.
1. I want to state up front that we have been living through a warming trend driven by a variety of influences. However, it is my view that this is
not unusual, and contrary to the characterizations by the IPCC and the National Climate Assessment, these environmental changes are not
apocalyptic nor irreversible.
2. My biggest concern is that both the reports present a number of speculative, and sometimes incomplete, conclusions embedded in
language that gives them more scientific heft than they deserve. The reports are “scientific-sounding” rather than based on clearly settled facts
or admitting their lack. Established facts about the global environment exist less often in science than laymen usually think.
3. HAS IT BEEN WARMING? Yes, we have been living through a warming trend, no doubt about that. The rate of change we are
experiencing is also not unprecedented, and the “mystery” of the warming “plateau” simply indicates the inherent complexity of our global
biosphere. Change is normal, life on Earth is inherently risky; it always has been. The two reports, however, makes it seem that environmental
change is apocalyptic and irreversible. It is not.
4. IS CLIMATE CHANGE VERY UNUSUAL? No, it has always undergone changes.
5. ARE GREENHOUSE GASES INCREASING? Yes, CO2 rapidly.
9. What I sought to learn was the overall take-away that the reports leave with a reader. I regret to say that I was left with the impression that
the reports overestimate the danger from human-induced climate change and do not contribute to our ability to solve major environmental
problems. I am afraid that an “agenda” permeates the reports, an implication that humans and our activity are necessarily bad and ought to be
curtailed.
10. ARE THERE MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THE REPORTS? Yes, in assumptions, use of data, and conclusions.
11. My biggest concern about the reports is that they present a number of speculative, and sometimes incomplete, conclusions embedded in
language that gives them more scientific heft than they deserve. The reports, in other words, are “scientific- sounding,” rather than clearly
settled and based on indisputable facts. Established facts about the global environment exist less often in science than laymen usually think.
12. The two reports assume and/or argue that the climate warming forecast by the global climate models is happening and will continue to
happen and grow worse. Currently these predictions are way off the reality (Figure 1). Models, like all scientific theory, have to be tested against
real-world observations. Experts in model validation say that the climate models frequently cited in the IPCC report are little if any validated. This
means that as theory they are fundamentally scientifically
15. Some conclusions contradict and are ignorant of the best statistically valid observations.
16. The report for policy makers on Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability repeats the assertion of previous IPCC reports that “large fraction of
species” face “increase extinction risks” (p15). Overwhelming evidence contradicts this assertion. And it has been clearly shown that models
used to make these forecasts, such as climate envelope models and species-area curve models, make incorrect assumptions that lead to
erroneous conclusions, over-estimating extinction risks.
17. THE REPORT GIVES THE IMPRESSION THAT LIVING THINGS ARE FRAGILE AND RIGID, unable to deal with change. The opposite is to
case. Life is persistent, adaptable, adjustable.
18. STEADY-STATE ASSUMPTION: There is an overall assumption in the IPCC 2014 report and the Climate Change Assessment that all
change is negative and undesirable; that it is ecologically and evolutionarily unnatural, bad for populations, species, ecosystems, for all life on
planet Earth, including people. This is the opposite of the reality: The environment has always changed and is always changing, and living things
have had to adapt to these changes. Interestingly, many, if not most, species that I have worked on or otherwise know about require
environmental change.
19. The summary for policy makers on Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability makes repeated use of the term “irreversible” changes. A species
going extinct is irreversible, but little else about the environment is irreversible.
lots more here http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-113-SY-WState-DBotkin-20140529.pdf