Climate Scientists Speak Out Against Exaggerated Global Warming Claims


Nov 25, 2019

Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong

Michael ShellenbergerContributor Energy

I write about energy and the environment.

Environmental journalists and advocates have in recent weeks made a number of apocalyptic predictions about the impact of climate change. Bill McKibben suggested climate-driven fires in Australia had made koalas “functionally extinct.” Extinction Rebellion said “Billions will die” and “Life on Earth is dying.” Vice claimed the “collapse of civilization may have already begun.”

Few have underscored the threat more than student climate activist Greta Thunberg and Green New Deal sponsor Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The lattersaid, “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change.” Says Thunberg in her new book, “Around 2030 we will be in a position to set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control that will lead to the end of our civilization as we know it.”

Sometimes, scientists themselves make apocalyptic claims. “It’s difficult to see how we could accommodate a billion people or even half of that,” if Earth warms four degrees, said one earlier this year. “The potential for multi-breadbasket failure is increasing,” said another. If sea levels rise as much as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts, another scientist said, “It will be an unmanageable problem.”

Apocalyptic statements like these have real-world impacts. In September, a group of British psychologists said children are increasingly suffering from anxiety from the frightening discourse around climate change. In October, an activist with Extinction Rebellion (”XR”) — an environmental group founded in 2018 to commit civil disobedience to draw awareness to the threat its founders and supporters say climate change poses to human existence — and a videographer, were kicked and beaten in a London Tube station by angry commuters. And last week, an XR co-founder said a genocide like the Holocaust was “happening again, on a far greater scale, and in plain sight” from climate change.

Climate change is an issue I care passionately about and have dedicated a significant portion of my life to addressing. I have been politically active on the issue for over 20 years and have researched and written about it for 17 years. Over the last four years, my organization, Environmental Progress, has worked with some of the world’s leading climate scientists to prevent carbon emissions from rising. So far, we’ve helped prevent emissions increasing the equivalent of adding 24 million cars to the road.

I also care about getting the facts and science right and have in recent months corrected inaccurate and apocalyptic news media coverage of fires in the Amazon and fires in California, both of which have been improperly presented as resulting primarily from climate change.

Journalists and activists alike have an obligation to describe environmental problems honestly and accurately, even if they fear doing so will reduce their news value or salience with the public. There is good evidence that the catastrophist framing of climate change is self-defeating because it alienates and polarizes many people. And exaggerating climate change risks distracting us from other important issues including ones we might have more near-term control over.

I feel the need to say this up-front because I want the issues I’m about to raise to be taken seriously and not dismissed by those who label as “climate deniers” or “climate delayers” anyone who pushes back against exaggeration.

With that out of the way, let’s look whether the science supports what’s being said.

First, no credible scientific body has ever said climate change threatens the collapse of civilization much less the extinction of the human species. “‘Our children are going to die in the next 10 to 20 years.’ What’s the scientific basis for these claims?” BBC’s Andrew Neil asked a visibly uncomfortable XR spokesperson last month.

“These claims have been disputed, admittedly,” she said. “There are some scientists who are agreeing and some who are saying it’s not true. But the overall issue is that these deaths are going to happen.”

“But most scientists don’t agree with this,” said Neil. “I looked through IPCC reports and see no reference to billions of people going to die, or children in 20 years. How would they die?”

“Mass migration around the world already taking place due to prolonged drought in countries, particularly in South Asia. There are wildfires in Indonesia, the Amazon rainforest, Siberia, the Arctic,” she said.

But in saying so, the XR spokesperson had grossly misrepresented the science. “There is robust evidence of disasters displacing people worldwide,” notes IPCC, “but limited evidence that climate change or sea-level rise is the direct cause”

What about “mass migration”? “The majority of resultant population movements tend to occur within the borders of affected countries," says IPCC.

It’s not like climate doesn’t matter. It’s that climate change is outweighed by other factors. Earlier this year, researchers found that climate “has affected organized armed conflict within countries.

However, other drivers, such as low socioeconomic development and low capabilities of the state, are judged to be substantially more influential.”

Last January, after climate scientists criticized Rep. Ocasio-Cortez for saying the world would end in 12 years, her spokesperson said "We can quibble about the phraseology, whether it's existential or cataclysmic.” He added, “We're seeing lots of [climate change-related] problems that are already impacting lives."

That last part may be true, but it’s also true that economic development has made us less vulnerable, which is why there was a 99.7% decline in the death toll from natural disasters since its peak in 1931.

In 1931, 3.7 million people died from natural disasters. In 2018, just 11,000 did. And that decline occurred over a period when the global population quadrupled.

What about sea level rise? IPCC estimates sea level could rise two feet (0.6 meters) by 2100. Does that sound apocalyptic or even “unmanageable”?

Consider that one-third of the Netherlands is below sea level, and some areas are seven meters below sea level. You might object that Netherlands is rich while Bangladesh is poor. But the Netherlands adapted to living below sea level 400 years ago. Technology has improved a bit since then.

What about claims of crop failure, famine, and mass death? That’s science fiction, not science. Humans today produce enough food for 10 billion people, or 25% more than we need, and scientific bodies predict increases in that share, not declines.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) forecasts crop yields increasing 30% by 2050. And the poorest parts of the world, like sub-Saharan Africa, are expected to see increases of 80 to 90%.

Nobody is suggesting climate change won’t negatively impact crop yields. It could. But such declines should be put in perspective. Wheat yields increased 100 to 300% around the world since the 1960s, while a study of 30 models found that yields would decline by 6% for every one degree Celsius increase in temperature.

Rates of future yield growth depend far more on whether poor nations get access to tractors, irrigation, and fertilizer than on climate change, says FAO.

All of this helps explain why IPCC anticipates climate change will have a modest impact on economic growth. By 2100, IPCC projects the global economy will be 300 to 500% larger than it is today. Both IPCC and the Nobel-winning Yale economist, William Nordhaus, predict that warming of 2.5°C and 4°C would reduce gross domestic product (GDP) by 2% and 5% over that same period.

Does this mean we shouldn’t worry about climate change? Not at all.

One of the reasons I work on climate change is because I worry about the impact it could have on endangered species. Climate change may threaten one million species globally and half of all mammals, reptiles, and amphibians in diverse places like the Albertine Rift in central Africa, home to the endangered mountain gorilla.

But it’s not the case that “we’re putting our own survival in danger” through extinctions, as Elizabeth Kolbert claimed in her book, Sixth Extinction. As tragic as animal extinctions are, they do not threaten human civilization. If we want to save endangered species, we need to do so because we care about wildlife for spiritual, ethical, or aesthetic reasons, not survival ones.

And exaggerating the risk, and suggesting climate change is more important than things like habitat destruction, are counterproductive.

For example, Australia’s fires are not driving koalas extinct, as Bill McKibben suggested. The main scientific body that tracks the species, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, or IUCN, labels the koala “vulnerable,” which is one level less threatened than “endangered,” two levels less than “critically endangered,” and three less than “extinct” in the wild.

Should we worry about koalas? Absolutely! They are amazing animals and their numbers have declined to around 300,000. But they face far bigger threats such as the destruction of habitat, disease, bushfires, and invasive species.

Think of it this way. The climate could change dramatically — and we could still save koalas. Conversely, the climate could change only modestly — and koalas could still go extinct.

The monomaniacal focus on climate distracts our attention from other threats to koalas and opportunities for protecting them, like protecting and expanding their habitat.

As for fire, one of Australia’s leading scientists on the issue says, “Bushfire losses can be explained by the increasing exposure of dwellings to fire-prone bushlands. No other influences need be invoked. So even if climate change had played some small role in modulating recent bushfires, and we cannot rule this out, any such effects on risk to property are clearly swamped by the changes in exposure.”

Nor are the fires solely due to drought, which is common in Australia, and exceptional this year.

“Climate change is playing its role here,” said Richard Thornton of the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre in Australia, “but it's not the cause of these fires."

The same is true for fires in the United States. In 2017, scientists modeled 37 different regions and found “humans may not only influence fire regimes but their presence can actually override, or swamp out, the effects of climate.” Of the 10 variables that influence fire, “none were as significant… as the anthropogenic variables,” such as building homes near, and managing fires and wood fuel growth within, forests.

Climate scientists are starting to push back against exaggerations by activists, journalists, and other scientists.

“While many species are threatened with extinction,” said Stanford’s Ken Caldeira, “climate change does not threaten human extinction... I would not like to see us motivating people to do the right thing by making them believe something that is false.”

I asked the Australian climate scientist Tom Wigley what he thought of the claim that climate change threatens civilization. “It really does bother me because it’s wrong,” he said. “All these young people have been misinformed. And partly it’s Greta Thunberg’s fault. Not deliberately. But she’s wrong.”

But don’t scientists and activists need to exaggerate in order to get the public’s attention?

“I’m reminded of what [late Stanford University climate scientist] Steve Schneider used to say,” Wigley replied. “He used to say that as a scientist, we shouldn’t really be concerned about the way we slant things in communicating with people out on the street who might need a little push in a certain direction to realize that this is a serious problem. Steve didn’t have any qualms about speaking in that biased way. I don’t quite agree with that.”

Wigley started working on climate science full-time in 1975 and created one of the first climate models (MAGICC) in 1987. It remains one of the main climate models in use today.

“When I talk to the general public,” he said, “I point out some of the things that might make projections of warming less and the things that might make them more. I always try to present both sides.”

Part of what bothers me about the apocalyptic rhetoric by climate activists is that it is often accompanied by demands that poor nations be denied the cheap sources of energy they need to develop. I have found that many scientists share my concerns.

“If you want to minimize carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2070 you might want to accelerate the burning of coal in India today,” MIT climate scientist Kerry Emanuel said.

“It doesn’t sound like it makes sense. Coal is terrible for carbon. But it’s by burning a lot of coal that they make themselves wealthier, and by making themselves wealthier they have fewer children, and you don’t have as many people burning carbon, you might be better off in 2070.”

Emanuel and Wigley say the extreme rhetoric is making political agreement on climate change harder.

“You’ve got to come up with some kind of middle ground where you do reasonable things to mitigate the risk and try at the same time to lift people out of poverty and make them more resilient,” said Emanuel. “We shouldn’t be forced to choose between lifting people out of poverty and doing something for the climate.”

Happily, there is a plenty of middle ground between climate apocalypse and climate denial.

Follow me on Twitter. Check out my website or some of my other work here.Michael Shellenberger

Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment” and Green Book Award Winner. He is also a frequent contributor to The New York Times, Washington Post

Comments (18)
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

So... we should ignore the melting ice caps and glaciers? We should pretend our oceans are clean and not over-fished, and the coral reefs aren't dying? We should turn our backs on the extinctions of flora and fauna taking place as we speak?

We should pretend that our atmosphere and stratosphere are healthy? And we should ignore the rise of sea levels, the extremity of weather patterns 'round the globe, the rise in volcanic activity... some which are responsible for tsunamis, the sinkholes appearing... many within our own country...

And the list goes on... including the loss of important rain forest, mangrove swamps, etc... all of which are important to the health and viability of the planet we call home.

We should throw out actual statistics and real measurements, actual science, because... what? Greed? Because those with all the power and wealth haven't yet finished plundering Earth?

If you aren't just a little bit scared about what our progeny and their progeny might have to face because of Global Warming, which humankind has had a hand in rushing along, you either haven't been paying attention, or you just don't care about generations to follow.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

A dead whale was found off the shore of Scotland with 100 kilos of plastic junk in his stomach. A deer died in the forests of Malasia from consuming plastic. Plastic is everywhere. I don't know about a global climate change, but we littered the planet to it's breaking point.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
loonlakelaborcamp(3 A/B)

I'm all for recycling around the world. Now if China, India and all those third world countries would stop flushing their junk into the ocean.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo


The article did not advocate ignoring the overfishing or pollution or rainforests. Just the opposite. It said we SHOULD be paying more attention.

It advocates telling the truth about the effects of climate change. Trumpeting false narratives will only harm what environmentalists are trying to achieve.

Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Talk to China and India, Greta.


Thought so.

Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Knowing the author has become a big proponent of nuclear energy added a twist to my understanding of the purpose of his missive. He sees continuing current industrialization policies as a major part of the solution.

There is good funding for those studying nuclear energy (& who have a positive view of it).

Too many reporters don't have a good science background.

Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

CC is a trillion dollar racket.

Who audits all the contributions, hmmmm?

Why do you think Needles Nancy took an entire delegation to Spain to talk about it? Why not do teleconferences? They're pilfering tax payer money. They're raging hypocrites.

Or..are they just trying to figure out what to do when the FISA reports drop? It's a CYA tour.

Pelosi Flying out with Democrats to U.N. Climate Meeting in Spain

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will fly out Sunday with a large delegation of congressional Democrats heading 3,781 miles across the Atlantic to the United Nations COP25 climate change conference in Madrid.

A key element of the conference will seek to place financial penalties on global commercial aviation to stop people flying and making “unnecessary contributions to atmospheric carbon dioxide pollution.” The Pelosi delegation will join almost 25,000 people and 1500 journalists flying into the Spanish capital to attend the meeting.

Pelosi’s absence from Washington, DC, will cast cast doubt on the possibility of passing an updated North American trade deal by the end of 2019, a departure from her previous characterization of the deal as “imminent.”

The members of the taxpayer-funded Pelosi Democrat delegation include:

  • Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
  • Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
  • Chairman Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Committee on Energy and Commerce
  • Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), Committee on Science, Space, Technology
  • Chairman Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Committee on Natural Resources
  • Chairwoman Kathy Castor (D-FL), Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
  • Congresswoman Betty McCollum (D-MN)
  • Congresswoman Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR)
  • Congresswoman Julia Brownley (D-CA)
  • Congressman Jared Huffman (D-CA)
  • Congressman Scott Peters (D-CA)
  • Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (D-MI)
  • Congressman Mike Levin (D-CA)
  • Congressman Sean Casten (D-IL)
  • Congressman Joe Neguse (D-CO)

COP25 will also consider implementing taxes on developed countries to transfer wealth to nations dealing with “the cost of drought, floods and superstorms made worse by rising temperatures,” as Breitbart News reported.

Pelosi’s team claims it will will seek to “reaffirm the commitment of the American people to combating the climate crisis” at the 2019 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, also called COP25, her office said on Saturday confirming the trip.

This is despite the fact the Speaker of the House will represent nobody but herself and her party as she is prevented by law from conducting foreign policy or make any agreements with foreign leaders regarding sovereign treaties.

Dem Rep. Casten: 'The Climate Crisis Is the Greatest Test We Have Ever Faced'Volume 90%

“It is a privilege to accompany a high-level Congressional delegation to Spain to combat the existential threat of our time: the climate crisis,” Pelosi said in the statement.

“Taking action to protect our planet is a public health decision for clean air and clean water for our children, an economic decision for creating the green, good-paying jobs of the future, a national security decision to address resource competition and climate migration and also a moral decision to be good stewards of God’s creation and pass a sustainable, healthy planet to the next generation,” she added.

President Donald Trump officially withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord in October as part of an election promise to voters, saying he was “elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.”

As Breitbart News reported, as far back as June, 2017 Trump said he was looking forward to exiting the agreement.

The president spoke then of following through on his commitments to the American people.

“In order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord,” Trump declared.

Compliance with the accord could have cost the U.S. “as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025 according to the National Economic Research Associates,” said Trump. “This includes 440,000 fewer manufacturing jobs — not what we need…”

The final U.S. withdrawal from the landmark accord is scheduled for November 4, 2020, a day after the next presidential election.

Several Democratic presidential aspirants have said that, if elected, they would immediately return to the agreement.

Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

I still always come back to the idea that, if it's as inevitable as it's presented, (and maybe not quite as dire as the fear mongers want us to believe), that the best course of action might be to deal with it.

If I see a freight train barreling down on me, I just get off the track. I certainly don't stand there and try to stop it.


Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Apocalypse Sells!

Something about it excites us.


Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

We, as a global community, should have begun to deal with all of it when scientists the world over began to note significant changes that were starting to affect our planet.

It's a little late, now...

Nuclear is clearly not the way to go, as several nasty events should show us... Chernobyl, Japan's incident...

And here we are, still fracking and poisoning our potable water sources...


Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
terrene(5b MA)

I agree that journalists and activists should try to adhere to the truth as strictly as possible. It's rather ironic that a Trump supporter and climate change denier would express such concern about this topic however.

So if you're really interested in what scientists have to say, instead of a few cherry picked quotes in the OP, here's an excerpt from the declaration of "climate emergency" in the peer-reviewed scientific journal "Bioscience" singed by 11,000 scientists:

Despite 40 years of global climate negotiations, with few exceptions, we have generally conducted business as usual and have largely failed to address this predicament (figure 1). The climate crisis has arrived and is accelerating faster than most scientists expected (figure 2, IPCC 2018). It is more severe than anticipated, threatening natural ecosystems and the fate of humanity (IPCC 2019). Especially worrisome are potential irreversible climate tipping points and nature's reinforcing feedbacks (atmospheric, marine, and terrestrial) that could lead to a catastrophic “hothouse Earth,” well beyond the control of humans (Steffen et al. 2018). These climate chain reactions could cause significant disruptions to ecosystems, society, and economies, potentially making large areas of Earth uninhabitable.

Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

40 years of fear mongering and pseudoscience and it looks really stupid at this point.

Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
terrene(5b MA)

Uh huh, articles published in peer reviewed scientific journals and refereed primary literature, 11,000+ legitimate scientists, every scientific institution around the world, the IPCC, NOAA, etc. are just fear-mongering and practicing pseudoscience. They have NO idea what they're talking about, worse they are conspiring and paid by ???? to perpetuate a worldwide conspiracy theory.

But random anonyous posters on the Internet know the REAL truth, since surely no one was ever organized and paid to spread disinformation by the fossil fuel industry or petro-states because their assets and profits are threatened, and climate change deniers have never been propagandized by such interests.

Yeah, that's the ticket!

Lurker, check out the dunning-kruger effect.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Embothrium(Sunset Climate Zone 5, USDA Hardiness Zone 8)

Uh huh, articles published in peer reviewed scientific journals and refereed primary literature, 11,000+ legitimate scientists, every scientific institution around the world, the IPCC, NOAA, etc. are just fear-mongering and practicing pseudoscience. They have NO idea what they're talking about, worse they are conspiring and paid by ???? to perpetuate a worldwide conspiracy theory.

But random anonyous posters on the Internet know the REAL truth, since surely no one was ever organized and paid to spread disinformation by the fossil fuel industry or petro-states because their assets and profits are threatened, and ideologue climate change deniers have never been propagandized by such interests.

Your assessment is correct - the warnings about the global climate are fact-based and the denials are not.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
terrene(5b MA)

Embo, thank goodness you were able to notice the sarcasm! ;)

Browse Gardening and Landscaping Stories on Houzz See all Stories
Kitchen Design World of Design: Global Foodies and Their Kitchens
By Houzz
Join us as 11 food lovers tell us about their kitchens and give us a taste of their culinary heritage
Full Story
Homes Around the World The Kitchen of Tomorrow Is Already Here
A new Houzz survey reveals global kitchen trends with staying power
Full Story
Houzz Tours My Houzz: African Art and Midcentury Style in a Louisiana Home
Global mementos and classic modern furnishings come together in a couple’s one-of-a-kind home and artist’s studio-residence
Full Story
We focus on residential design offering AutoCAD drafting of floor-plans & development of interior decor boards to... Read More