Why I Stopped Being a Climate Catastrophist – Watts Up With That?

CORRECTION (EW): In the original article I mixed up Ted Nordhaus and William Nordhaus. Ted is William’s nephew. Thanks Neil Lock for pointing out this mistake. Interestingly, Ted is also a substantial figure in the climate movement, so most of what I wrote still applies.

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 hyperbole”.

Why I Stopped Being a Climate Catastrophist

And why so many climate pragmatists can’t quit catastrophism

AUG 11, 2025
TED NORDHAUS

Recently, in an exchange on X, my former colleague Tyler Norris observed that over the years, my views about climate risk have evolved substantially. Norris posted a screenshot of a page from the book Break Through, where Michael Shellenberger and I argued that if the world kept burning fossil fuels at current rates, catastrophe was virtually assured:

Over the next 50 years, if we continue to burn as much coal and oil as we’ve been burning, the heating of the earth will cause the sea levels to rise and the Amazon to collapse, and, according to scenarios commissioned by the Pentagon, will trigger a series of wars over the basic resources like food and water.

Norris is right. I no longer believe this hyperbole. Yes, the world will continue to warm as long as we keep burning fossil fuels. And sea levels will rise. About 9 inches over the last century, perhaps another 2 or 3 feet over the course of the rest of this century. But the rest of it? Not so much.

…

For a long time, even after I had come to terms with the fundamental disconnect between what climate advocates were saying about extreme events and the role that climate change could conceivably be playing, I held on to the possibility of catastrophic climate futures based upon uncertainty. The sting, as they say, is in the tail, meaning so-called fat tails in the climate risk distribution. These are tipping points or similar low probability, high consequence scenarios that aren’t factored into central estimates. The ice sheets could collapse much faster than we understand or the gulf stream might shut down, bringing frigid temperatures to western Europe, or permafrost and methane hydrates frozen in the sea floor might rapidly melt, accelerating warming.

…

But like the supposed collapse of the Amazon, once you look more closely at these risks they don’t add up to catastrophic outcomes for humanity. While sensationalist news stories frequently 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, much less its slowing, would not result in a hard freeze across all of Europe. Indeed, under plausible conditions in which it might significantly slow, it would act as a negative feedback, counterbalancing warming, which is happening faster across the European continent than almost any place 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 current news, but Nordhaus is a substantial figure in the climate movement.

Could there be 2-3 feet of sea level rise by the end of this century? It’s not impossible – though I would put this at the high end of possible changes – based on current trends the sea level rise by the end of this century would be more likely to be around 12 to 18 inches.

And you know what? When it happens, nobody will even notice.

I used to live in a house which was at risk of flooding during unusually high tides. We stopped one flood by sealing the doors with plumber’s non-setting putty. The next owner settled the problem by raising the floor by 3 feet.

A century from now, if the house is still standing, I’m sure the floor will be raised another 3 feet.

Without this “fat tail” of terrifying tipping points, climate alarmists have got nothing. And as Nordhaus admits in his article, noticeable climate impacts are so wildly improbably they are not worth taking seriously.

I applaud Ted Nordhaus’ courage coming forward and admitting he no longer believes climate change is an imminent catastrophe. Hopefully his example will inspire others.