The Princely Crypt
A final resting place in new splendour
Debate
Reality is not open to negotiation
In Discussion (left to right): SCHILLER Editor Irena Walinda, Prof. Dr Edda Humprecht and Prof. Dr Markus Reichstein
Text: Irena Walinda
What do we know about current climate trends—and where are the limits of our knowledge?
Reichstein: Climate change is real and it is human-made. A few years ago, the 1.5-degree mark for global warming was exceeded for the first time in a single year. Over the next two decades, the ten-year average will also exceed 1.5 degrees. Even the Paris Agreement’s two-degree target is now difficult to achieve. If all current political commitments were honoured, we would be heading for around 2.7 degrees of global warming. It is important to note that land temperatures are rising at roughly twice the global average rate. For cities such as Jena, global warming of 2.7 degrees would likely mean a local temperature rise of three to four degrees—climatically comparable to cities such as Zagreb or Bologna today. Conditions are also becoming
drier. Alongside heat and drought, flooding is a major risk in other regions.
Where do uncertainties still remain?
Reichstein: Uncertainties exist primarily on a local level and in terms of feedback loops. Weather and climate systems are complex and, in some respects, chaotic. We can clearly identify trends, but we cannot make precise forecasts for every location. Furthermore, there are feedback loops, for example with ecosystems. Currently, soils and vegetation absorb around 25 to 30 per cent of our emissions—otherwise, the CO₂ concentration would be significantly higher. But will this remain the case? As soils warm up, microorganisms release more CO₂. The extent to which such feedback loops have an impact is not yet fully understood.
How significant are the implications, and can AI help make predictions?
Reichstein: Artificial intelligence helps researchers analyse large and complex datasets and gain a better understanding of regional developments. It still has limitations, however, when empirical data is lacking or causal relationships need to be extrapolated. Many extreme events have become significantly more likely as a result of climate change—in some cases many times more likely. Some events, such as the extreme and deadly heatwaves seen in the Mediterranean region in July 2024 or in Canada in June 2021, would have been practically impossible without climate change. At the same time, the impacts are wide-ranging: heatwaves place strain on the body, droughts fuel fires, and air pollution exacerbates health risks. Experimentally investigating these complex relationships is difficult. Here, observational data and AI methods help to identify pat-
terns in high-dimensional datasets. Extracting causal relationships, however, remains a challenge. At the same time, AI offers practical opportunities: for example, in early-warning systems that clearly show which neighbourhoods would be flooded if water levels reached eight metres, or in the rapid analysis of satellite
data to produce situation reports in the event of a disaster. Multilingual warnings can also reach people more effectively. What matters is how we use these technologies.
Climate policy measures are often portrayed as uneconomical and ineffective.
Edda Humprecht
Is there a lot of misinformation circulating about climate change?
Humprecht: Yes. Climate change is one of the issues most affected by disinformation. In the past, the focus was primarily on denialist narratives—that is, the claim that human-made climate change does not exist. Today, the focus is shifting: climate policy measures are often portrayed as uneconomical or ineffective. This is linked to the fact that climate change affects economic and consumption models. Political polarization is also strong. Such narratives are used strategically by various political actors; we see this particularly frequently on the right-wing populist spectrum.
What role do digital platforms play?
Humprecht: Platform algorithms prioritize content that generates a lot of engagement—comments, likes and shares. Posts that trigger strong, mostly negative emotions—such as anger, outrage and fear—work particularly well. Those spreading misinformation deliberately exploit this. Online public spaces can become highly fragmented. Users often see a disproportionate amount of content that aligns with their existing preferences, and this can exacerbate polarization. But misinformation not only arises solely online. When political elites
adopt certain narratives and advocate them publicly, this has a significant impact on public perception. Communication by elites carries great influence.
When Donald Trump, for example, calls climate change a »hoax«—do many people believe him?
Humprecht: The impact is rarely immediate. Attitudes develop over the long term and are closely linked to trust and political allegiances. Those who feel close to a political figure are more inclined to accept their statements, or at least not to question them fundamentally. Often, it is less about deception than about con-
firming one’s own beliefs. Content is then shared further and gains visibility. Such narratives frequently aim to delegitimize elites or institutions—and this can also be directed against science. We have seen such dynamics clearly during the pandemic.
Is trust in politics and science suffering as a result of the spread of misinformation?
Humprecht: Political trust can suffer as a result of ongoing polarization and attacks from both sides. When it comes to trust in science, we continue to see high levels overall. However, when political decisions rely heavily on scientific expertise and researchers are highly visible, they too can become targets—as the pandemic has also shown.
Transparency is key. If you conceal uncertainties, you risk losing trust.
Markus Reichstein
Mr Reichstein, how can we strengthen trust without glossing over uncertainties?
Reichstein: Transparency is key. If you conceal uncertainties, you risk losing trust. At the same time, you mustn’t emphasize uncertainty to the extent that it gives the impression we know nothing. It’s about providing an honest assessment.
When measures are called into question politically—how do you take action?
Reichstein: At EU level, the »European Green Deal« set out ambitious strategies that included concrete measures to cushion social impacts. Then came geopolitical crises such as Russia’s war of aggression, which led to rising energy prices and political backlash. Narratives have shifted—indeed, they have been turned on their head. As a scientist, I don’t have a clear solution to this. Nevertheless, science is not powerless. Alongside analyses, researchers are increasingly offering solutions. Examples include biochar projects such as the so-called Terra Preta in Latin America. Carbon is sequestered in the soil while simultaneously increasing soil fertility. It is important to implement measures that are scientifically sound and site-specific. How do local people experience climate change—in Thuringia’s fields or in the ski resorts of the Vogtland? Science can engage with people’s everyday reality and draw on concrete experiences. Only in this way can dialogue emerge—and form the basis for joint action.
Humprecht: In communication science, we talk about the potential of constructive journalism. Constructive journalism seeks to highlight not only problems but also possible solutions. Studies show that such reporting can mitigate negative reactions to news and, in some cases, lead to greater interest or engagement.
Do constructive approaches stand a chance against attention-grabbing algorithms?
Humprecht: There is certainly interest. Some international media outlets regularly feature constructive articles—and these are well received. Nevertheless, it is impossible to reach all target groups. How people take in information depends on their openness, trust and existing beliefs.
Information
This is a heavily abridged version of the conversation. The discussion is available
as a video podcast: https://www.db-thueringen.de/receive/dbt_mods_00069875External link
