In June 2019, 91 signatories—mostly university professors not specializing in climate science—sent a petition to the President of the Republic, the Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies, and the President of the Senate challenging “climate alarmism” and calling for a scaling back of emissions reduction policies. The overwhelming majority of the signatories, as documented by Climalteranti.it, had no specific expertise in climate science. None of the scientific claims in the letter were refuted on their merits: the criticism was directed at the intensity with which the scientific community communicated its findings. This is the specific function of the term “alarmism” in the climate discourse: to shift the focus of judgment from the accuracy of a piece of data to the emotional tone of the person presenting it.
The vocabulary of risk communication distinguishes between a warning and alarmism. A warning is a signal based on a documented danger: a code-red weather alert is a warning, not alarmism, because it corresponds to an estimated probability and intensity. The IPCC uses a similar system: “it is virtually certain” (probability greater than 99%), “it is very likely” (90–100%), “it is likely” (66–100%). The Sixth Assessment Report, as stated in its Summary for Policymakers, has characterized human influence on the climate system as “unequivocal”: this is not an emotional adjective; it is the highest level of evidence on the IPCC scale, reserved for directly observable conclusions. Calling that phrasing “alarmist” does not change its content: it asks the reader to judge the tone rather than verify the fact.
“Alarmism” as a critical frame does not challenge the data; it shifts the focus to the emotional intensity of those communicating it. If a projection states that heat waves in the Mediterranean basin will increase in frequency by 2050, that projection is correct or incorrect regardless of how dramatically it is presented. The 2019 petition did not dispute any IPCC data: it called for “toning down the alarmism” as if the problem were the tone of the communication, not the content. The same pattern emerges whenever a climate regulation is described as excessive without challenging the scientific evidence underlying it.
An analogy might help. A doctor who measures a blood pressure of 170/110 and recommends urgent treatment is sounding the alarm. Someone who responds, “You’re exaggerating; you’re being alarmist,” isn’t disputing the reading—they’re asking the doctor to tone it down. The correct response to the reading is to verify it with a second blood pressure cuff, not to criticize the seriousness with which it was communicated.
It must be acknowledged that there are documented cases in which the criticism is justified. The SSP5-8.5 scenario—the most pessimistic among those developed by the IPCC—has been presented in many public communications in recent years as a “business-as-usual” scenario, when in fact it is an extreme scenario. The group of IPCC scientists who developed the scenarios later clarified in peer-reviewed literature that such use was improper. Researchers such as Roger Pielke Jr. have documented cases in which the most extreme projections were exaggerated in public communication beyond what the literature supported. The problem is not that criticism of such exaggeration is always wrong; it is that the term “alarmism” is applied indiscriminately—to both calibrated projections and actual communication errors—making it impossible to distinguish legitimate scientific self-criticism from systematic delegitimization.
There is a difference between challenging a piece of data and challenging the tone of the person communicating it. The former is scientific criticism: it requires an alternative source, a different measurement method, or a wider confidence interval. The latter is rhetorical criticism: it requires nothing verifiable and can be applied to any communication without having to refute it on its merits. “Alarmism,” in most instances within the Italian climate discourse, falls into the second category.
This column explores climate-related terms whose technical meaning differs from their common perception. “Alarmism” introduces a contrasting perspective to all previous articles. The others have documented technical terms that lose precision when translated into everyday language. “Alarmism” is a word from everyday language that is applied to scientific discourse to strip it of its function as a calibrated warning signal. It does not attack science; it attacks the communication of science, which produces the same practical effect without requiring a challenge to the facts.
The next time you read “climate alarmism” in a political statement or an editorial, ask yourself this: Is a specific piece of data being challenged with an alternative source? If so, it’s scientific criticism. If not, it’s a call to tone down the rhetoric without addressing the substance.
