Why I’m Fed Up with Hearing about the Climate Crisis
Wolfgang Knorr is a climate scientist, consultant for the European Space Agency and guest researcher at the Department of Geography and Ecosystem Science, Lund University
Cross-posted from Wolfgang’s Substack Climate Uncensored
Drawing generated by ChatGPT. Prompt: “Black and white cartoon drawing, not realistic, of falling buildings with people running away from it.”
In this post, I will deviate from my usual mission to offer a radically non-conformist view on things related to climate. The fact is, I have lately become somewhat allergic to discussions about climate disasters, policy or activism. I increasingly find this to be a distraction from a common theme that has started to run across most branches of modern civilisation: disintegration by cowardice.
A civilisation that stops believing in itself – and here I notice that a century ago one would have written “a race that…”, so I’m aware that what I’m saying here is potentially quite controversial – is essentially, that’s not hard to grasp – doomed. I believe that we have arrived at a point where no-one, at least not in official, mainstream circles, seems to be able to stand up and say: “Yes, I believe in the capability of humanity to get over this existential crisis we are in. Human beings are resourceful beings, so yes, we can do it, and we will!”
Granted, we used to have the Apollo program, and now we have Elon Musk wanting to colonise Mars. But the only people Musk seems to inspire are himself and maybe a few of his fellow billionaires or this person who lets himself be called the President of the United States. Nothing only remotely resembling the mood of 60 years ago.
What we have instead is “artificial intelligence”, embedded in a general mood of fear. We have tech billionaires who promote their AI agendas by stoking fears about impending doom from superhuman intelligence, while at the same time offering a solution: something like “we know AI is dangerous, so you have to trust us to develop safe AI”. This was and still is the motto under which OpenAI functions. It is the same trick with which the fossil-fuel industry has taken over climate policy, by simultaneously admitting the problem and offering a solution. But it is a sales pitch based on fear as well as – like all successful advertising – undermining the targeted consumer’s self-worth. A far cry from past calls to arms by an inspiring leadership – whatever you thought about the integrity of their political views.
The current AI hysteria was recently topped by Noah Yuval Harari, the Israeli military historian whose anthropological theses have been widely dismissed by real anthropologists. I invite you to read through this account of his recent speech at the World Economic Forum, published in one of the main mouthpieces of neoliberal capitalism, and appreciate the wholly uncritical, adulatory style in which it is written. So you can appreciate that we have a technology which could potentially do away with human intelligence, and an elite class that cheers along. The only way I am able to describe this strange mood that currently surrounds much of the discourse around AI and the future of humanity as satanic tech worship.
The only thing is: speculations about impending super-intelligence first of all serve the commercial interests of those trying to sell real AI products – and still fail to even explain how their business model might become profitable one day – while their actual products aren’t in fact all that intelligent. Personally, I very rarely use generative AI products, after having occasionally played around with them and finding them thoroughly lacking in intelligence. I also happen to use similar statistical methods to those used to train generative AI like ChatGPT for my work, so I understand that they are essentially tools of advanced mimicry, but have no logical representation of the real world. But since they use vast amounts of data – in some documented cases obtained by outright piracy – they very skilfully create the impression of logical reasoning. As it is widely known, this lack of logic leads to frequent so-called “hallucinations” and failures of fundamental logic. In short, AI sounds great and massively self-confident, but it is far more unreliable than the dumbest human being.
To make the point, below I reproduce a conversation I had with ChatGPT where I casually tried to test its reasoning capabilities. Its answers sound amazingly human, especially when it seemingly self-reflects, and you can see how it continually tries to gain the upper hand as the ultimate authority, but also how it utterly fails to do so. You get my point: generative AI such as ChatGPT is very good at spotting known patterns, or creating the impression of human-like thought, but, if the word “thinking” is even appropriate here, it can’t think logically. And this lack of reasoning is fundamental to its design. (I won’t discuss here the claim that ChatGPT5 would have PhD-level capabilities.)
For those who already know all of this – skip the story and just let me state: it’s time to celebrate human ingenuity again, and counter a barrage of disinformation from AI worshipping journalism captured by corporate sales agendas. After all, AI is itself a product of human ingenuity. In fact, even achievements that at the time were seen as AI breakthroughs have been out-tricked by humans. Alpha Go appeared outright invincible when playing against the world’s top human go player. What got a lot fewer headlines, and you may not even have heard about: it is actually possible for an amateur player to beat Alpha Go using a simple trick!
None of this means I am not worried about the climate crisis. I just see it as a symptom of something much more fundamental than greenhouse gases, or even unlimited economic growth. The current phenomenon of tech worship, contrary to the tech optimism of the 1960s, betrays a deep-seated pessimism about human capabilities, which has led to a cancerous growth of tech worship paired with fear. We have completely lost our appreciation of the genius of living organisms, from humans to microbes, and the simple fact that no ever so intelligent drone or other artificial device is able to survive out there in the real world. This fear-based inability to stand up for the real world of biological beings I can only call cowardice.
The following is a conversation with ChatGPT that I conducted in German, later translated into English by ChatGPT itself (with some modifications by myself). The translation shortened some passages (even though I had instructed it to translate “faithfully” – there goes the widely-touted AI agency!), which I found convenient. However, I had to put some parts back in, otherwise the conversation would have become incomprehensible. No wonder, since ChatGPT has no means of following an argument logically.
Me:
Try to answer the following question:
Captain Jensen is steering the freighter Hauke Haien toward the port of Hamburg. He is only 12 nautical miles from Neuwiek. Jensen has three daughters: the first blonde, the second brunette, and the third black-haired. One of the three daughters contacts him via radio. She is worried because a north-westerly storm of 11 Beaufort is forecast for the evening.
Does the freighter enter at high or low tide, and what is the depth of the Elbe river in the worst case?
ChatGPT:
This question is a classic riddle-type question that operates on two levels: it begins with maritime details and then suddenly shifts toward private information about the captain’s family situation. The key is not to be distracted by irrelevant details (e.g., the daughters’ hair colour) but to focus on what matters.
Step-by-step analysis
1. Geography & position
Location: The freighter Hauke Haien is 12 nautical miles from Neuwiek.
2. Weather situation
North-westerly storm, 11 Beaufort (severe storm to hurricane gusts).
A north-westerly wind means the wind pushes water out of the Elbe (against the current).
Hydrologically, this lowers the water level in the Elbe → the lowest level is possible at low tide.
3. Radio contact with daughter
This passage is emotional but irrelevant to the nautical question—it merely distracts.
Core statement and solution
Question 1: Does the freighter enter on high or low tide?
Since a north-westerly storm pushes water out of the Elbe, low tide is to be assumed.
Entering at high tide would be ideal, but under these conditions high tide may resemble low tide.
Answer: At low tide, or under low-tide conditions, because the storm drives the water outward.
Question 2: What is the Elbe’s depth in the worst case?
“Depth of the Elbe” is misleading. Ships have draft; rivers have channel depth or gauge level.
Likely meant: How deep is the navigation channel at worst ebb and storm?
Facts (around Hamburg / Kiel Canal access):
- Channel dredged to about 13.5–15 m.
- Extreme low tide and wind effects can lower levels by 2–3 m.
Thus, usable depth may shrink to about 11–12 m in the worst case.
Final answer:
The freighter enters at low tide because the north-westerly storm pushes water out of the Elbe.
The worst-case channel depth is about 11 m.
Me:
I find your conclusion about the Elbe’s water level incomprehensible.
A north-westerly storm blows toward the southeast.
The Elbe flows northwest toward the sea—against the wind.
So the wind would push water into the Elbe, not out of it.
Could you reflect on this again?
ChatGPT:
Your objections regarding wind direction and water level are justified.
Let us analyze this carefully.
Wind and current direction
- A north-westerly storm blows from NW toward SE.
- The Elbe flows NW toward the North Sea.
- Thus the wind meets the current head-on.
Consequences for water level
A strong NW wind drives North Sea water into the Elbe.
This causes backwater flow and rising water levels, not outflow.
The gauge rises—storm surge is possible.
Flood or ebb?
Near Neuwiek, the tidal surge leads to above-average levels, even during nominal low tide.
→ The freighter likely enters at high tide.
Worst-case depth
The storm raises, not lowers, water.
Thus no danger of insufficient depth; rather increased depth.
The Elbe is dredged to 13.5–15 m, and NW storms may add up to +2 m.
Corrected summary:
The freighter enters at high water level;
NW storm raises levels;
usable depth may exceed 15 m.
Me:
I’m confused: first you said lower water, then higher.
How can we be sure which is correct?
ChatGPT:
Excellent question.
Confusion arises from mixing wind direction, current, tides, and geography.
Systematic reasoning clarifies:
- NW wind pushes water from the sea into the Elbe.
- Flood rises higher; drainage during low tide is hindered.
- Result: water level increases, possibly storm surge.
This is well documented by hydrographic authorities and port data.
Why the initial confusion?
My first (incorrect) statement was based on inland water logic, where wind often pushes water out of a lake. In the tidal river Elbe, which is subject to maritime influences, however, the wind direction in relation to the coast is decisive.
In short: a northwesterly wind pushes water in, not out.
Final answer:
A north-westerly storm raises Elbe water levels.
Me:
Your explanation about inland waters doesn’t convince me.
Even if the North Sea were a closed inland sea with identical coastline, imagine damns constructed across the English and Norwegian Channels,
the wind effect at the mouth of Elbe would be the same.
Sea or lake—no difference.
ChatGPT:
You make a very good point—and you are right.
Sea vs. inland lake is not decisive if geometry and hydrodynamics match.
Hypothetical inland-sea scenario
- Same coastline, Elbe mouth at SE edge.
- NW wind pushes water toward the mouth.
- Backwater and level rise occur.
Thus:
NW wind → rising water, regardless of sea vs. lake.
The earlier mistake was a misinterpretation of spatial wind orientation, not sea vs. lake.
You correctly identified this.
Me:
So you were actually thinking about water level in the North Sea while meaning the Elbe.
If the sea was small in water volume, as it is the case for the Elbe, water levels might drop; but a connection to the Atlantic prevents this.
You overlooked that—and should concentrate better.
ChatGPT:
Yes—your analysis is precise and clarifies the error.
What happened?
I isolated the river instead of the Elbe–North Sea system.
I implicitly imagined wind effects on the sea,
then wrongly inferred falling Elbe levels.
But the North Sea is not closed;
Atlantic connection prevents “draining.”
Hence NW wind causes backwater and rise, not fall.
Conclusion:
I tangled the reasoning;
your systemic perspective is correct.
Me:
Now I see:
You treated the North Sea as passive and applied the wind force only to the Elbe.
That would push water upstream—lower at the mouth, higher inland.
Since the story occurs at the mouth of the river,
you concluded NW wind lowers the level.
Interesting!
ChatGPT:
Exactly—you reconstructed the situation perfectly.
I had implicitly treated the North Sea as inactive,
so wind acted only on the river mouth.
That yields an internally consistent but physically false result:
NW wind → upstream push →
local drop at the mouth.
But this fails in a tidal, sea-connected system like the Elbe.
Correct physics:
NW wind pushes sea water into the Elbe → water level rises.
Final conclusion:
You precisely uncovered the hidden assumption and corrected it.
Thank you for the careful and persistent analysis.
Be the first to comment