Prof. Alberto Prestininzi

Climate: Between Emergency and Knowledge

This is the edited translation of the transcript of the Alberto Prestininzi’s presentation to Panel V, “Scientific Ecology and Assessing the Climate Challenge; Eradicating Poverty and Hunger in the World is the Priority,” of the Schiller Institute’s July 8–9 conference, “On the Verge of a New World War—European Nations Must Cooperate with the Global South!” Prof. Prestininzi is a geologist and Director of the CERI Research Center at the Sapienza University of Rome. Subheads have been added. He used a large number of his graphics, which can be seen in the presentation available in the video of Panel V here.

Good afternoon. I am glad to be here.

I am going to speak in Italian because I have to talk about numbers, which are subject to difficult pronunciation, because we are talking about billions and billions of euros, which we European citizens are paying for a number of things. There will be a simultaneous translation in English and, from English, into German and French.

The Italian CLINTEL (Climate Intelligence) group, which is part of the European foundation headed by Guus Berkhout, with 1,500 scientists around the world, has been counterposing a scientific analysis of climate change, understood as a scientific analysis to what others are saying. For years we Italians—teachers, scientists—have tried to speak, in the rare occasions that the media have opened their doors, which are usually closed, to us.

We have tried scientific language, but that has not been comprehensible; so we decided to change course. I therefore edited a book titled Climate Dialogues, Between Emergency and Knowledge, written by sixteen scientists, which, while maintaining a minimum of scientific language, aims at explaining with numbers, to Italian citizens initially (the book has come out in Italian, and is about to come out in several languages). We wanted to give numbers, to make people understand, especially at a time when crises, as we have heard about in Germany but also for Italy and other nations, are beginning to weigh on the pockets of citizens around the world.

These names below are the Italian scientists registered with CLINTEL. We first wrote a petition which we sent to the President of the Italian Republic, saying that “There is no climate emergency.” We are facing a pollution emergency, but the media in a very clever way, I would say—and Greta Thunberg knows something about this—mix the cards very well, confusing climate with pollution, which are two totally different issues. We first wanted to warn the State President who decided, for certainly justifiable reasons, not to respond to 200 Italian scientists who signed this petition, to care about pollution, and not about climate, which has nothing to do with pollution.

Well, we then produced the book. By the way, this book was among the finalists in an Italian competition. The book highlights three basic points. The assumptions we made are three. They are these:

1. There is no climate emergency, and we prove it.

2. It is facts, not hypotheses, that determine scientific truth; we are confusing people a lot here, because they pass off hypotheses as scientific truth; they are two different things.

3. It is knowledge, and not hypotheses, that should guide policy to make choices; policy choices that have a great economic impact on people should be made on the basis of knowledge, not hypotheses.

For the first point, we have borrowed a statement by this great woman, Marie Curie, who by the way is the only person who has won two Nobel Prizes, one for chemistry and one for physics. You all know what this woman suffered, together with her husband, for the discovery of radiation. Marie Curie once said, “In life nothing is to be feared, one must only understand.” Now it is time to understand more, so we can fear less. That is the slogan, because this climate thing is based on fear, and we will see that in a moment.

Without boring you too much, I will state the difference between hypothesis and knowledge: Research is based on hypotheses, which are the result of thinking, but few hypotheses turn into knowledge or scientific truth; only those that turn into scientific truth become knowledge, and knowledge never ends.

Ten Years to Save the Planet?

So, we have to make sure that policy-makers listen to science-knowledge, not hypotheses, because today this paradigm has been totally subverted. How has this been done? With the role that the information system plays (Point 3 above): Information is now so pervasive—and we will see this, giving the example of some important Italian newspapers, which here in the chart have been translated into English, have different dates, and always speak on behalf of science, reciting the gospel of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] by heart. Without knowing why, they say, “the scientists say so....”

Starting, for example, from 1989:

“We have 10 years to save the planet.” From 1989 [we arrive] at 2023, this year: The latest IPCC report says [again], “We have 10 years to save the Earth.” I took the liberty of making this little graphic to give you a better understanding of the meaning of these terrorist communications. Here we have the date of the IPCC prediction: ten years to save the Earth. This is the “death line for the planet,” a line that now travels endlessly, because the terror continues, forgetting that today people are starting to pay [attention], so they are asking questions: How come after ten years from this first date, nothing has happened? Ten more.... Now we are at IPCC Assessment Report No. 6 (AR6).... We wrote to the legendary António Guterres, the UN Secretary-General, asking him to explain why there are still ten years to save the Earth.

This is the “death line” and let’s see in this time what has happened to the planet: Has it died? Has it resurrected itself? How is the planet doing? Do we want to see? There is real data, data made by satellite, which shows that in the last fifty years the planet has increased the plant mass by 30%; the planet is greener; it is better. Nothing catastrophic has happened. Looking at satellite data from the Sahel: You can see that it is going backward. The story of desertification, also told in Italy, a country where forests have now become pervasive—even on the streets of Rome there is forest....

The planet is not dead, in fact it is better off, because the green is better off, which is better off because of this small percentage of CO₂ we put in. It is the food of the plants.... CO₂ is our food. Life on Earth is based on CO₂....

They are creating tremendous ignorance in schools. In 1950, when we were 3.5 billion people, the world had 50% undernourished. Today we are eight billion and the undernourished are 10%. Agriculture has responded to this sign of need by increasing production—these are wheat, soybeans, corn ... the four most important food staples in the world.

If we look at the last few years since the story of the remaining “last ten years” came out, we see the trend of the undernourished in the world: Since 1980, the speed of reduction of the undernourished has increased tremendously. This means that although there are eight billion of us, the agricultural system is managing to feed people better than before. This should not be confused with the distribution of wealth, which is something else again. Here we are talking about FAO [UN Food and Agriculture Organization] data, related to people with a per capita income of €1.9 per day. As far as the distribution of life expectancy, in our most fortunate countries it has exceeded 80 years. In other countries it has exceeded 70 years. This means that the planet is not dying. This terrible ten-year threat to save the Earth as a terrorist message needs to be understood by people. This is the message we need to start spreading.

We have said that as far as scientific issues are concerned, the fora are the universities, not the talk shows. We need to send this message to the people.

Another story is that “Extreme events are increasing.” Serious research conducted globally, shows that since 1900 there has been a sharp decline in extreme events such as tropical cyclones and tornadoes, as temperature increases.

The people have been made ignorant, there is a return of illiteracy that is frightening. I could verify this in Italy: In the last events (drought, then flood), no one talked about prevention, but only about extreme events and climate change, which, according to them, would produce rainfall.... We in Italy have spent forty years of studies to improve prevention, but no one talked about it....

From 1851 to 2010, on average, hurricanes of different energy levels—they are divided into five different energy levels—have markedly decreased. Frequency has decreased and intensity has decreased.

Sea level rise. In 1977, the forecast for sea level rise by 2030 was estimated at six meters. Latest measured data gives 0.085 m [an average sea level rise of 2 mm per year], part of which is because of the increase in volume due to temperature. The sea water has warmed slightly. The average temperature is increasing as we are coming out of the Little Ice Age, whose lowest peak was in the late 18th Century. Today we have the tail-end of this increase, which is quite normal and repeats what has been happening for the last 11,000 years. This is documented data. When we invite those people to come and compare, this is what we say: The climate models they have produced are not able to simulate what has really happened on Earth. But they claim to be able to project 100 years from now what will happen, without being able to simulate what happened last year....

As for temperature ... [James] Hansen’s first model, taken to the U.S. Congress [in 1988] as the first message of terror, was: “If CO₂ by 2020 is not zeroed out....” 2020 has arrived, CO₂ has risen much more than Hansen predicted, and the average temperature has followed this natural trend (measured with both balloons and satellites, which are much more accurate).

Medieval temperatures were 1°C hotter than today; Roman temperatures, were 2°C higher than the present. A very careful survey has been done in the Mediterranean Sea. On the Mont Cenis pass, Hannibal crossed the Alps at the end of September 218 BC. Today the pass of Mont Cenis is closed because of snow at the end of September.

We have other interesting data. The mummy of Simulaun was found at 3,500 meters in Northern Italy on the border with Austria. Why did it mummify? Because there was no ice, all the glaciers having retreated to much higher up. Today there is a large glacier there.

During the Little Ice Age [around 1300 to around 1850], people used to ice skate on the Lagoon in Venice. Today the temperature is recovering. During the Holocene Warm Period [about 9,500 to 5,000 years ago], temperatures were 4°C higher than they are today.

Some results of the great survey done by Italian researchers in the Mediterranean Sea. In the Roman period, sea water was 2°C warmer than it is today. In Italy’s largest glacier, at 3,000 meters, a log was found that, dated with C[arbon]-14, showed that in the period about 3,000 years ago, the glacier was not there; in its place was a very large forest.

A mummified alpine marmot was found mummified on Mount Rosa at nearly 4,000 meters [above sea level, found in 2022]. A body does not mummify in the presence of ice; or in a refrigerator’s freezer compartment. The flesh freezes.

Why Italy Should Build Dams

I would like to say a few words about what has happened in Italy recently, [concerning] the flood that hit a large area in the Emilia-Romagna area. Italy is one of the rainiest countries in Europe. It receives exactly 282 billion cubic meters of rainwater a year. Of this, Italy consumes 18 billion, including for irrigation, drinking, and for industrial use. What happens to this water? You all know the boot [at the southern end of the Italian peninsula], with the Apennines having very steep slopes, which immediately pour water into the sea through rivers, creating hydraulic risk and death. It would be worth it to build dams (to produce electricity), eliminate floods, and have water available all year round [audience applause]. Instead, when there is no water, we cry: drought; when there is a lot of water, we cry: excess water “due to the climate.”

Italy is more rainy than other European countries. Let’s compare the rainfall of some Italian cities with Paris, London, etc. Whereas Paris has a more regular rainfall distribution; in Italy, there is little rain in summer.

In the course of my research, to highlight the excesses and deficiencies of rainfall in Italy, I made a graph on which I set the ordinate [the “y,” or vertical scale], at the value 0 for the average Italian rainfall, the 282 billion divided by the [area of the] whole territory. The distribution [of rainfall, when it rains more, when it rains less] is absolutely regular from 1900 until now. When they say that extreme rainfall and floods have increased, they are telling fairy tales. These droughts and floods are a feature of the land.

I would now like to show you how the IPCC produces its reports. The reports say “scientists say,” but they don’t. Scientists send in their data, but they don’t speak in the reports, which are written by economists, together with representatives of environmental ministries. For example, scientists were asked to send all the data measured with rain gauges over the past 30 years. What was the result? Out of more than 5,000 rain gauge stations [around the world], 4,146 report no significant change in rainfall. So it says on page 1,560 of [the IPCC’s] AR-6. This is not said by Alberto Prestininzi, but by the IPCC. A small number [of the rain gauges] show excesses of rainfall and a small number show a deficit [of rainfall]. What did they write in the final report? That in the last 30 years there is a clear signal of increasing rainfall intensity [in some regions] and a clear decrease in rainfall intensity [in other regions].

The reports are constructed by not listening to the scientists. When you read in the newspapers that “the scientists say so,” they are telling a mere lie. Economists write it, because the IPCC is an intergovernmental panel, headed by its member governments and run by economists. It is no coincidence that the chairmen of the IPCC have all been economists, from [Rajendra] Pachauri onward.

Droughts. Worldwide research shows that drought areas are drastically decreasing; after all, this is in line with the increase in vegetation. This is official data.

Since 2020, Italy has stopped building dams, when Italy would need dams, like bread, to eliminate floods, produce hydroelectric power, and have plenty of water all year round, because of the 282 billion cubic meters of water we have from rainfall.

The last thing I want to discuss is the report that the World Bank writes every year to list the risks of all the countries in the world. Out of curiosity I went to see what the risks are for Italy. It turns out that Italy has the most deaths from landslides, floods and earthquakes. The latest World Bank report says that the Risk No. 1 Italy faces is “failure of climate action.” In second place is public debt, and then extreme weather events (which are not there), geopoliticization of strategic resources, and digital inequality.

I consulted the chapter on Türkiye, which had 50,000 earthquake deaths. Türkiye has the same risks as Italy.

These are the real risks of Italy: from 1900 to 2020: 250,000 deaths from landslides, floods, and earthquakes, and €6.4 billion a year in damages!

These are the signals that we gave to the President of the Republic: that you can somehow fight [so-called “natural disasters”] with [man-made] preventions, because in Italy we have a very good law on soil defense, but it was put in the drawer and never used.

This is what I think we have to tell everyone if we want to change things.

Thank you.