In 1990, scientists from around the world published a report that spelled out that the climate was changing and that we — human beings — were the cause.
If we continued polluting, with business as usual …
"Emissions of greenhouse gases … will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1 degree Celsius above the present value by 2025, and 3C before the end of the next century. The rise will not be steady."
We hit 1 degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels in 2017, and 3C is still on the cards for this century, depending on our emissions pathways.
This was the first of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, with the sixth series of reports coming out this year.
But while the IPCC continues to provide the most comprehensive climate data and forecasts, some scientists are refusing to take part in future assessments.
And they're calling on their colleagues to do the same. Why?
Late last year, Australian and New Zealand-based scientists Tim Smith, Iain White, and Bruce Glavovic published a paper in the journal Climate and Development (after several other journals knocked them back), called "The Tragedy of Climate Change Science".
They argued that the IPCC had done the job it was set up to do 30 years ago, but that it was no longer fit for purpose.
Instead, they presented the case for scientists to adopt a more radical approach to counter the "lack of transformational government action":
"The tragedy of climate change science is that compelling evidence is gathered, fresh warnings issued, new institutions established and novel methodologies developed to redress the problems. Yet, greenhouse gas emissions and other indicators of adverse climate change, and global change more broadly, rise year upon year …."
The "science-society contract has been broken", they wrote, adding that continuing with science as usual was no longer tenable.
While the paper was successful in starting a dialogue, almost nine months on they say there is still a lot more change that needs to be made.
"We need to take a stand that really takes the breath away of political leaders and governments about what the climate change science community is saying and is willing to do," says Professor Glavovic, an economist, environmental scientist and environmental planner at New Zealand's Massey University.
Lessons from apartheid
Professor Glavovic grew up under apartheid South Africa — a brutal and racist regime that lasted, under the gaze of the world, into the 1990s.
The regime conscripted white men to defend against "communism and African nationalism" — a fight he didn't see as legitimate.
"[Was] I going to go and carry a rifle and potentially be given orders to go and shoot black South Africans because they were so-called terrorists, or they were involved in civil disobedience?
"For me, that was abhorrent."
As a conscientious objector, Professor Glavovic's experience in South Africa taught him important lessons about the architecture of power, and how systems can be skewed to protect the powerful.
"I could see the limits of law — you could have a situation in South Africa [where] we essentially had a rule of law, but it propped up an illegitimate regime."
In an ideal world, scientists would provide governments with their research, and governments would act. The ozone hole, CFCs and the Montreal Protocol are a pretty good example of where that has been more or less the case.
But today, again under the world's gaze, the rule of law is helping prop up the very industries that are causing climate change, Professor Glavovic says.
He argues carrying on with IPCC reporting in its present form helps to hold up a façade — creating the illusion things are being done, while polluting and extractive industries carry on, more or less with business as usual.
"Our institutional architecture is organised around short-term profit that privileges the wealthy and the powerful at the expense of the Global South and the majority of the world's population," he says.
"So how do you change that?"
Shared frustrations and hostile responses
The researchers haven't called carte blanche for a strike against the IPCC — each author has their own perspectives on how science should proceed — but broadly, they're asking for the international science community to step back and reassess how best to do climate science in the context of that "broken contract".
Responses to their paper have been mixed.
Report co-author Tim Smith, a human geographer and professor of sustainability at the University of the Sunshine Coast, says they have been contacted privately by researchers who share their frustrations and are looking for a better way forward.
"We've had more people coming on board saying, 'I share this frustration and it is something we need to have a discussion about,'" Professor Smith says.
But they've also had their critics. When the paper was first published, it blew up on Twitter.
"There [have been] some very hostile, negative responses. A lot of those were from the science community," Professor Smith says.
"But as I said, this [paper] wasn't an attack on the science community or the amazing work they've been doing. I think, unfortunately, people grab headlines."
Though praising their "courage to spark this very important discussion", other scientists countered in a follow-up paper in the same journal that more research, not less, was needed to "address these power structures".
They wrote:
"We disagree that the science-society contract is broken and that a moratorium on climate change research is a tenable or meaningful solution."
Stopping IPCC would be a 'significant loss'
Mark Howden, director of the Australian National University's Institute for Climate, Energy and Disaster Solutions, is another critic of the paper.
Professor Howden has been involved with the IPCC since 1991.
"I've been involved in the second, third, fourth, fifth and now sixth [IPCC] assessment reports," he says.
"I think I'm the only person alive, or the only person full stop, who has actually done all of that."
Professor Howden says there's still really critical science being done, especially around climate impacts and adaptation, emissions reduction, sustainable and equitable development, and creating robust energy systems.
If that research was to stop, it would be a "significant loss", he says.
"The prospect of scientists going on strike because we're not being listened to is just not a great idea.
"I think the argument is pretty clear that past scientific strikes have largely been ignored by the government."
But he's also not dismissing the scientists' frustrations out of hand.
Instead, he says the way forward is for scientists to engage more with policymakers, and for them to work out how to intervene in "constructive ways".
"Being a scientist and a communicator these days is a very complex role, and particularly if you engage with the policy as well," he says.
"Similarly, a high-level policy maker dealing with climate change … that's an extraordinarily complex role, particularly when you have a very interventionist political environment.
"So I think understanding and respect are crucial to having a more productive relationship."
'What options have we got left?'
But Professor Smith says that approach has been done.
"People have said, 'well, you need better partnerships between governments and society', but we've tried that as well. So what options have we got left?"
The IPCC reporting process moves in cycles. We're at the tail end of the sixth cycle, which will likely wrap up in early 2023.
Professor Smith says he understands the idea of a strike is unpalatable, and that he'd love for someone to come up with a better idea, but that there's no time to wait and see what happens.
"Do we need a seventh [assessment cycle]? Are we going to wait another seven years to again hear about how terrible things are?
"We just don't have time for that. We need radical, transformational action now.
"We need just to put a pause on what we're doing. We haven't tried it before. It might not work, but maybe it will."
Professor Howden says he's not against scientists being activists as long as they are clear that that's what they're doing.
But he thinks climate scientists and the IPCC have already achieved great things, and can achieve even more by continuing to provide data in a "non-policy-prescriptive" way.
"I think there's a huge role for some scientists to engage with the public and in the political process. But in a trusted adviser way.
"I don't think the science community should be in there lobbying unless they're deliberately labelling themselves as lobbyists."
But Professor Glavovic says the idea of science being a completely objective endeavour unsullied by values is a myth.
"Science is an endeavour where choices are made about the questions that we explore, the methodologies that we use," he says.
"You can have socially relevant and meaningful science driven with passion and commitment in a robust, replicable and meaningful manner … it doesn't reduce the merit and the value of science."
The authors are not about shutting down the IPCC altogether. Instead, they say their paper was meant as a "provocation" — to get the conversation going in order to reimagine how the IPCC might have the greatest impact.
In the sense of starting a conversation, almost a year on from publishing their paper it's fair to say they've succeeded, and that the conversation is ongoing.
But Professor Glavovic says it will take radical action from the science community to make the big changes needed to get through to policymakers.
"I have no illusions — it's not going to take three white males to make a difference in this — we are not as immodest and arrogant as to assume that we could be a voice for the global climate change science community.
"I would like to see women and men from the Global South and diverse settings to be leading a charge that really mobilises a critical mass of the climate change science community."
As for getting climate change under control, he says that will take radical action from everyone.
"It is going to take mobilisation and action on multiple fronts and there will be some stand-out pivotal moments, that you will only realise with the benefit of hindsight.
"It is the Rosa Parks — refusing to get off a seat on a bus."
