Scientist Ditch the Alarmist Doomsday Climate Change Predictions

by Rod Williams, May 26, 2026- I have almost always accepted the theory of global warming. When I first heard about it and had not read serious articles and books about it, I was skeptical and may have even derided it. However, that did not last long. As I became more informed, I came to accept the theory. Shortly after it came out in 2007, I read Al Gore's book, An Inconvenient Truth, and found it convincing. I followed up by reading other mainstream articles, listening to informed debate, and became more convinced. Then I read the United Nations' The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report and was convinced with a greater degree of certainty. 

Despite accepting climate change as reality, I was always skeptical of the certainty with which many climate activists believed in a doomsday scenario. For one thing, I reasoned, while manmade CO2 emissions may be warming the earth, the climate is always changing. We do not know if we are entering or still receding from an ice age. Also, I reasoned, we have alternatives to fossil fuels that may become a greater share of the energy mix. Also, we will make advances in geoengineering, I reasoned.  In other words, there were too many other variables that one could not hold constant for me to be a climate change alarmist. I found it unconvincing that the predictions of climate change was going to kill us all.

It did not help that the most shrill voices warning of climate change were, well- were so shrill. Often, it seemed like their climate change hysteria almost had a religious component. It seemed they were the same crowd who wanted to blame all the world's ills on capitalism or colonialism or toxic masculinity or some such. Also, the most promising alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear energy and the same people who were the most shrill and alarmist about climate change were the ones most likely to chain themselves to the gates of the Clinch River nuclear reactor site and most likely to denounce nuclear energy. They vehemently rejected the most readily available remedy to the problem.  It seemed to me that they wanted the issue of climate change more than they wanted a solution. Climate change hysteria seemed like a lifestyle brand.  It was part of their identity as opponents of modernity and prosperity. Also, it does not help when the climate change activist equates climate change theory skeptics with Holocaust deniers, as some were prone to do.

So, while I accepted the theory of climate change, I was not an alarmist and the certainty with which I accepted the dire warnings of doom fluctuated.  You may recall the "hide the decline" scandal in which hackers released emails from climate scientists in which they spoke of "tricks" to manipulate data to make it conform to what they expected the data to show. This may not have been a scandal at all and simply a misinterpretation of scientific methodology. Nevertheless, for a while, my skepticism rose. 

Another source of my doomsday skepticism was reading False Alarm by bestselling author Bjorn Lomborg. He does not deny climate change is a reality but argues it's not the apocalyptic threat that we've been told it is. I recommend his book and becoming familiar with his arguments. In addition to people like Lomborg, there are other credentials people who are more measured in their concern about climate change than the apocalyptic doomsday climate alarmist. While the overwhelming majority of credentialed climate experts accept the theory of climate change, that does not mean they are all doomsday alarmists.  

A change is taking place in the climate change debate. Recently, an international team of climate researchers published a major revision of the emissions scenarios used to study global warming.  This is a big deal. The new paper has raised questions about whether some of the risks of climate change have been poorly communicated or overstated in years past and how best to think about those risks going forward. This in no way means climate change is nothing to worry about, or is a hoax, or is not real. it does mean one can look at the issue with more realistic clarity rather than "the end is near" hysteria.

The New York Times recently reported on this change. To read that article, see Scientists Ditched a Scary Climate Scenario. What Now? - The New York Times.

Top Stories