Essay by Eric Worrall
Nordhaus is one of the giants of the climate alarmist movement – but in his own words: “I no longer believe this exaggeration.”
Why I stopped being a climate catastrophist
And why so many climate pragmatists cannot give up catastrophism
AUGUST 11, 2025
TED NORDHAUS
Recently, my former colleague Tyler Norris noted in an exchange on X that my views on climate risk have evolved significantly over the years. Norris posted a screenshot of a page from the book Break Through, in which Michael Shellenberger and I argued that if the world continued to burn fossil fuels at the current rate, catastrophe would be virtually inevitable:
If we continue to burn as much coal and oil as we have over the next 50 years, global warming will lead to sea level rise and the collapse of the Amazon, triggering a series of wars over basic resources like food and water, according to scenarios commissioned by the Pentagon.
Norris is right. I no longer believe this exaggeration. Yes, the world will continue to warm as long as we continue to burn fossil fuels. And sea levels will rise. About 9 inches in the last century, perhaps another 2 or 3 feet over the rest of the century. But the rest? Not so much.
…
Even after grappling with the fundamental disconnect between what climate advocates say about extreme events and the role climate change could potentially play, I long clung to the possibility of a catastrophic climate future based on uncertainty. The sting, as they say, is in the tail, i.e. in the so-called “fat tails” in the climate risk distribution. These are tipping points or similar low-probability, high-consequence scenarios that are not reflected in central estimates. The ice sheets could collapse much faster than we understand, or the Gulf Stream could stall, leading to freezing temperatures in Western Europe, or permafrost and methane hydrates frozen in the seafloor could melt quickly, accelerating warming.
…
But like the alleged collapse of the Amazon, when examined more closely, these risks do not lead to catastrophic consequences for humanity. While sensationalized news stories often refer to the collapse of the Gulf Stream, what they are really referring to is the slowing of the Atlantic Meridian Overturning Circulation (AMOC). AMOC helps transport warm water to the North Atlantic and moderates winter temperatures across Western Europe. But its collapse, let alone its slowdown, would not lead to a hard freeze across Europe. In fact, under plausible conditions where it could slow significantly, it would act as a negative feedback, offsetting the warming that is occurring faster on the European continent than almost anywhere else in the world.
…
Read more: https://www.breakthroughjournal.org/p/why-i-stopped-being-a-climate-catastrophist
Nordhaus wrote the article in August. Normally WUWT sticks to breaking news, but Nordhaus is a significant figure in the climate movement.
Could sea levels rise by 2 to 3 feet by the end of this century? It’s not impossible – although I would put this at the high end of possible changes – based on current trends, sea level rise would be more like 12 to 18 inches by the end of this century.
And guess what? If it happens, no one will notice.
I lived in a house that was at risk of flooding during unusually high tides. We stopped a flood by sealing the doors with plumber’s putty. The next owner solved the problem by raising the floor 3 feet.
If the house is still standing in a century, the floor will certainly be raised another meter.
Without this “fat tail” of frightening tipping points, climate alarmists have nothing. And as Nordhaus admits in his article, noticeable climate impacts are so unlikely that they are not worth taking seriously.
I applaud Ted Nordhaus for his courage in speaking out and admitting that he no longer believes climate change is an imminent catastrophe. Hopefully his example will inspire others.
Like this:
Load…
Explore more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to receive the latest posts by email.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.