There are some proofs that climate science is failed as a theory but that doesn’t mean that CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change) won’t happen.

Numerous articles I have written show that the science of Climate Science is absurd on many levels.  Chiefly the models are crap and the science quality is poor.   I have also shown a deep political bias that makes everything suspect.

Here is a unique proof that you won’t see elsewhere that the chances of catastrophic global warming is near zero.

Probability Proof

The probability of catastrophic global warming (CAGW) is dependent on 3 independent factors.  In mathematics the probability of something like this is A x B x C where A, B and C are the probabilities of each thing occurring. 

For instance, the probability of the Earth being struck catastrophically by an asteroid is dependent on the probability that an asteroid is of correct size to cause damage, the probability of the orbit coinciding with the Earth’s and the location of the strike being a critical position

Since all 3 of these things have to occur for CAGW to happen the probabilities of each affect the result.

The 3 things are:

  1. The probability that we reach the co2 level of 1000 or more
  2. The probability of the temperature change coefficient (the TCS) from a doubling of CO2 is 3 or greater.
  3. The probability that catastrophic results happen from 3C or more temperature change

These 3 things represent the crux of the matter. 

Will we get the CO2 levels they envision in their models that will cause a lot of temperature change? Will this temperature change then cause massive negative effects?  These all must be true or the theory falls on its face.   

In other words if we don’t reach the co2 levels they project then even if the change from CO2 is large then the temperature change won’t be much and even if the results of large temperature change were extremely damaging we won’t get CAGW.

If the co2 levels rise hugely but the temperature change from this co2 isn’t that great then even if the damage from high temperatures were great we won’t get the high temperatures and thus no CAGW.

If the damages are not great from higher temperature then even if we get co2 to be high and that causes great temperature change we won’t see damages, thus no CAGW.

If any 2 or 3 of the factors is low probability then of course it is also not true.  In other words the only way we get CAGW is if all 3 of these things are true and have high probability of happening.  That is a high bar that is not commonly recognized.  

This then means that CAGW or the huge negative effects that they say will happen by the end of the century is dependent on all 3 of these things being very high probability.  For instance, if all 3 are 50% probability then the chance of large damage by the end of the century is only 12%.  

However, if one of them is near zero percent chance then CAGW will not happen.  

It’s like saying that an asteroid could strike the Earth.  Yes, it is possible and if you multiple by the time eventually it will happen.  It’s almost a certainty to happen.

CAGW is not quite like that.  The chance for CAGW to happen is limited to the next 80 years.  The reason is that over time we will become much smarter and stop producing Co2 or we will run out of fossil fuels.  Even if we get a lot of co2 in the atmosphere over time we will fix it.  Also Co2 dissipates in the atmosphere and over time it will go away so this disaster has a time constraint.  

They need the temperature to rise fast and in this century or it’s too late.  So they are constrained that we reach the projected temperatures and co2 concentrations or this projected disaster is averted.

If we don’t get the damaging high temperatures and effects this century then by the time the next and next century happens we will see Co2 decline and temperatures drop. (According to their theory).   Thus, the danger is limited to this century.  If we don’t get the high levels and the temperature doesn’t rise or the effects aren’t as bad then that’s it.  End of danger.  Story over.  

Sea Levels

Sea level is the other part of this.  Even if temperatures do moderate if the temperature is over some threshold the ice will melt.  This has been happening.  The sea levels have been rising for centuries so it is clear that we are above the temperature that melts the ice of the Earth.   This means no matter if we fix the Co2 problem we still have to deal with rising seas and we will still have storms. 

No amount of co2 mitigation will stop bad things from happening.  We could spend $40 trillion on co2 mitigation and we will still get sea level rise, storms and disasters periodically.   In 1875 or thereabouts a drought is estimated to have killed 50 million people.  In 536 AD a massive volcanic eruption in Iceland apparently brought the Earth to darkness for a year.  Temperatures plunged degrees all over the Earth for several years and untold millions died.   These things and more typical storms will keep happening no matter what we do to stop global warming.

That means even if we restored Co2 levels to pre-industrial levels sea levels would keep rising and we will have to deal eventually with cities and houses being underwater.   In fact, this is happening now.  There is an industry to lift houses that is growing.  In fact, like the other things we do normally to adjust to and compensate for natural disasters we will have to be good at dealing with rising seas no matter what. 

Fortunately, the rate of rise is not accelerating and even if it were to rise it is a slow effect that we can work around.  We can build structures as Netherlands has to protect us from the sea, we can lift buildings and over hundreds of years we rebuild almost everything anyways.  This is normal and is not something we can change anyway.  So, get used to it.  

Catastrophe refers to things that aren’t so easily adjusted to and are more rapid.   CAGW is assumed to cause vast problems from food productivity losses to habitat and species extinction, the collapse of civilization as well as potentially some have said almost all life on Earth.  People on the left have virtually said this is what they expect in the next 80 years.  They predict this based on computer models that show 3-4C temperature rise by the end of the century.  That is 8F.  Since we have only seen 0.4C they are projecting 10 times the temperature change in the next 80 years.

This is why I write about this topic.   They say that it will destroy the Earth.  As a responsible human I believe it is important to understand such dangers and mitigate them.   Thus I took great interest in this topic as I think every scientist should.  They are saying our civilization and life on Earth is at danger.  That should be a concern.

4C is the basis for most of the studies of the effects of climate change.  4C would change things no doubt.  Places we would grow food would change.  The landscape of many frigid areas would become much more temperate and some areas that are hot would become hotter.  No doubt some creatures would prefer to change habitats and move closer to the poles.

So, what are the probabilities of these 3 things?  

The projected co2 levels are absurd

They project CO2 levels of 1000ppm (Parts per million)  to 1400ppm by the end of the century.   We have added 100ppm from the 300 level to get to 400 since 1945.   We are adding about 2-3ppm/year now.   In other words if we keep putting in at the level we are today for 80 years we will get around 200ppm or to 600ppm.   To get to 1000ppm or greater (they project 1400ppm in their bad scenario) requires a steep acceleration of co2 output by the world.  To get to 1000ppm we need to start putting in 8-10ppm or 4-5 times the current co2 output.

That should be surprising because it assumes a change, a massive change that we don’t see.

We already put in incredible amounts.  It’s not clear how even if we ramped up coal and oil production of co2 massively we could produce that much co2.  In fact, the US has decreased co2 output in the last few years.  While poor countries will continue to increase their co2 output it is impossible to imagine that co2 output gets to the levels they envision.  

Why would they put such a ridiculous number as 1400ppm or 1000ppm into their projections?  Probably because having a huge number allows them to have graphs and project very high temperature change.   In other words they gamed the projections to be ridiculously high so it would produce massive heat and then they could say it’s going to be bad but the fact is it is impossible to imagine how we get to 1000ppm or 1400ppm. 

It is much more likely we get to 600 or another 50% increase in the level of co2 in the atmosphere before we either finally convert away from fossil fuels or reduce our co2 output other ways.   That is half the level they project to cause CAGW.  So, right off the bat we seem to have an unlikely scenario.  Getting to 1000 or 1400ppm would require massively expanding by a factor of 5-10 all current co2 output we do.  Is that possible even?  I am not sure but it isn’t likely.

Some have speculated we wouldn’t have enough readily available fossil fuels to get to this level.

The models are too hot

Over the last 75 years since co2 was being produced in quantity the total temperature change is 0.4C (using their own temperature data which is suspect).   In other words a 30% increase in Co2 produced a 0.4C effect.

They projected 1C or more by now.  In other words the models are showing at least double the historical 75 year effect of co2.  One would think they would adjust the models to reflect reality.  Instead they ignore reality and trust the models which have missed hugely.  

They insist that the effect is 3 degrees C for a doubling of CO2.  However, if we get only 50% increase in CO2 then we only get 1.5C even if we assume their hot models are true.  However, the models are hot and it is likely they are off by at least 50%.  So even if somehow we got to 1000ppm we would still only get 2.0C change not 4.0C as they project.  

Since the projected increases in co2 are absurd and the models are running hot it is more likely we will see 1.0C or less change by 2100.  In fact, I project another 0.4C at most.  But even if you don’t believe me simple math shows that it is likely to be under 1.0C change.  

This can be verified another way.   We have gotten 0.4C in 75 years.   In order to reach the 3C they need to get CAGW by 2100 temperatures have to start rising incredibly fast very soon to make up the difference.  Essentially temperatures have to climb at 10 times the pace of the last 75 years.  We don’t see such an acceleration of temperatures.  Quite the opposite. We see a deceleration of effect from co2.

They claim from 1910-1940 the 0.4C change we saw was caused by a 4% change in Co2.   From 1945-1998 we got nearly 0.4C from 25% change and from 1998-2019 we have gotten virtually no change or maybe 0.1C from another 10% change.   These are 10C for a doubling to 1.6C for a doubling and then 1.0C from a doubling. 

In other words the rate of change from a percentage of co2 is decelerating as if the Earth were compensating for the co2 by reacting less and less to the co2.  Or their theory is wrong.  Either way it is NOT accelerating.

Whether this is true or their theory is simply horribly wrong the effect of co2 on the atmosphere is wildly overestimated by them and thus the chance that we will get the large temperature change they project from co2 is unlikely.  

The probability of disastrous effects is near zero

While you read everyday that there are all these negative effects from rising temperatures like certain species suffering, ski areas closing, rising catastrophic storms, the arctic melting and asthma rates going up none of these things is actually true let alone proven to be correlated with temperature or Co2.  

The science of the effect of temperature on things is horrible.  There is no correlation of these things and no causal relationship.  None of these things are even happening.  There is no increase in catastrophic storms or anything they claim even if you could tie it to global warming.

When you look at catastrophic events there is a huge mistake they made in their assumptions.   The energy available to storms is driven by the temperature difference between the poles and the equator.  This is the main force driving all weather.   As temperatures rise the temperature at the poles increase MORE than the equator.  Thus as temperatures rise the energy available for storms is LESS.   As temperatures drop more energy is available for storms.  This is why we got the current hurricanes after the 2015 El Nino and why we had a 12 year absence of hurricanes prior to 2017.   In other words it is far more likely there will be decreased storms as temperatures rise.

When you look at food production it is absurd that they predict food will decrease in 2080 causing starvation.  Our productivity growth in food production is phenomenal and is supported by the increasing co2.  Not only that more heat means longer growing seasons and more arable land.  They project less food partly because people won’t move production around.  That’s stupid. 

But none of this makes any sense because food is so cheap and easy to produce.  Developed nations spend less than 2% on food production.   If they needed more food for any reason an infinitesimal increase in investment would compensate massively.  There is ZERO chance of less food in 2080 even though their models predict this.  It is classic example of how bad their predictions are but it isn’t the only one.  Almost all their predictions of doom are as bad or worse and don’t stand the smallest introspection.

What they don’t tell you is the positive things either.  They don’t tell you we are getting more rain which is good for life and people and the Earth.  They don’t tell you the planet has greened and that probably a big part of the reason for the increased food production we have seen in the last 70 years is because we have been pouring co2 into the atmosphere.

Lancet produced a study of 74 million deaths and showed that for every degree rise in temperatures 23 times fewer people die than for a 1 degree drop.  In other words as temperatures rise the number dying from cold drops 23 times as much as the rate of increase in deaths from the heat. 

We have 15% more deaths in the winter than the summer.   There are a lot of people who die because of cold.  Pneumonia, heart disease and virtually every disease is dramatically worsened by cold temperatures.  Reducing the severity of cold temperatures drastically reduces death not increases death.

We know that increasing CO2 up to 1400 will increase plant productivity and increase resistance of plants to drought dramatically.  When plants get a lot of co2 they don’t need to respire as much and they give up less water allowing them to survive with less water.

Higher temperatures will increase arable land, increase the growing season and increase in general the energy for life.  It is counter-intuitive that more heat will hurt life.  The planet is cold.  Half of it is covered in ice a good percentage of the year.  

Energy = life.  There is a high correlation with higher energy and life up to a point but that point is hardly the current temperature.  As mentioned above the Earth is currently on the cold side.

We have history showing that over the last 60 million years temperatures on Earth were 8C warmer and that co2 levels were closer to 2000 average (much higher than even the ridiculous 1400 they project) and life evolved and thrived on Earth.

So, the idea that higher temperatures means negative consequences that overwhelm the positive consequences is not obvious and it needs to be proved that these consequences are indeed so negative because it is clear there are enormous benefits from higher temperatures.

We also have a physics argument.  Climate Scientists are essentially saying that we are at or have reached the “perfect temperature.”  Change up or down from this temperature is going to be worse than staying the same.

Such an idea is improbable.  In physics we learn to disparage ideas that our place or current situation is “perfect.”  This is called the anthropomorphic principle and it is highly discredited and virtually proof of falsity.   

As I point out we think that the Earth was 8C warmer for most of the last 60 million years when most of current life evolved.  Surely the water levels were higher and different species may have evolved but it seems incredibly unlikely that simply higher temperatures would be intolerable to life.  

Change is inevitable

No matter what we do change will happen.  I believe this is a consequence of quantum mechanics partly but in any case we have storms and events.  Shit happens.  Sometimes it’s manmade like wars and sometimes nature pulls out a trick.  A volcano or other astronomical event.  

The Earth itself is hardly stable.  Temperatures vary by degrees in a century over time during the LIA and MWP and periodically we’ve seen things that caused Vikings to occupy Greenland, then have to leave it.  The northern passage opens up sometimes allowing ships to pass then closes.   8.5, 9.0 Earthquakes and more happen.   We do go into ice ages and emerge every 100,000 years and we are at the trailing edge it seems of this ice age.

More prosaically we see constant sea level rise for centuries.  Floods droughts periodically.  No amount of reducing co2 will mitigate any of those.  In fact, to be honest there is as much reason to think these events will happen less frequently with more co2 than with less.

Life evolved.  Species go extinct naturally and species emerge naturally.  The rate of this is unknown.  There are estimated 30 million species on Earth.  Nobody knows if the number of extinctions is increasing, decreasing or if we are changing any of it.  We don’t know what the correct rate is even if we knew it. 

We have an argument on one side not to interfere in nature and let things evolve and some people who seem to be arguing that we must stop all change.  That’s probably impossible and it isn’t clear it’s desirable.

The point is that we have to be prepared for change. The idea we could somehow stop negative events or even more insane that reducing co2 would precipitate a much better world is ridiculous.  There were many many disasters that occurred when the Earth was colder too.   As I pointed out in the 1800’s there was a drought that killed 50 million people.  We had 8.+ Earthquake in San Francisco.  

Some have estimated that if we spent $40 trillion trying to mitigate co2 we would change the temperature in 2100 by 0.1C.  Is it worth it?


What I have shown is that the probability of the 3 things needed to precipitate CAGW are each pretty unlikely.  All we need is one of them to not be likely and the theory is shot or I should say the CAGW idea is dead.   We might have temperature change but little effect.  We might get some but not much temperature change.  

I estimate the probability of reaching 1000ppm at 10%.  I estimate the probability of models being correct and 3.0 TCS which results in high temperature change from small amounts of co2 to be 40% and I estimate the chances the damages from warm temperatures are more than the benefits is 20%.  The combined probability is less than 1%.

In other words it is incredibly unlikely that we will get CAGW.  This is unassailable.  

The only argument which some people use is called tipping points.  Tipping points are the idea that it isn’t the damage from the heat but that at some point there is a magical change.  Suddenly something triggers a collapse of the ice and we see unstoppable ice melting.   Somehow something happens which changes the albedo of the Earth suddenly causing a massive change in the Earths reflectivity and absorbing vastly more energy from the sun.   Somehow something happens and a deadly gas is released that kills all sea life or land life.  

These arguments are not proven.  There are thousands of things that could happen.  In fact we are extremely poor at predicting the next event.  Did anyone predict the fires or hurricanes this summer or fall?  No.  Nobody did not even climate scientists.  

Nature has a way of coming up with a surprise as does life.  All we can do is deal with each thing as it comes up and get better so the next time it comes up we can react better.

Predicting the next disaster is completely random chance.  Investing massively in one scenario (CAGW) will only make us weaker when the thing that hits us comes about. 

We see that with fires in the US.  President Obama and Jerry Brown (governor of california) underinvested in forest management.  They were worried about global warming and spent money on research into those things. 

President Trump when he came into office redirected funding to forest management and fire control.  Forest management went from 15% of the forest services budget to 50% under Trump but it was too late.  We had not managed forests and we got a huge burnout. 

This may or may not be strictly true.  I have not looked at this with great depth but the point is that by focusing on the wrong thing you can be less prepared for the real problems.  

The chances of CAGW are miniscule.  Yet we are doing crazy things to try and mitigate it now.  The more rational way to handle this is as follows:

We continue research on Climate Change with more focus on predictability of the temperature and other related KPI.  Spend far less on the “effects” of climate change.  We continue to invest in both research and deployment of new technology related to energy development.   

We also look into producing nuclear power again.  Nuclear power is potentially a safe alternative that produces no CO2 and is a backstop if for some reason the things climate change fanatics predict actually are shown to be more than 1% probability.   

The advantage of nuclear is that it is dense form of energy, nearly inexhaustible and can be made incredibly safe.   If some people are worried about it the point is to have it as a backstop in the worst case scenario because it is the only proven way to massively reduce co2 output and provide a base load of energy that can allow us to also use more variable renewable energies such as solar and wind.

The advantage of waiting to address this is that technology drastically expands our options and reduces costs of whatever approach we take over time.  Things that require incredible effort and cost and don’t work well now may be cheap and trivial in 20 years.   

One of the basic mistakes in this game of CAGW is assuming that we know today what the effects in the far future are and that we have to use todays technology to solve a problem that we may be able to fix later. 

Since in any case temperatures are rising slower than they anticipated no matter how much they scream we must act today they are wrong.   There is actually a 99% chance we don’t need to do anything at all.   

So, let’s keep researching.  Let’s not forget about it entirely.  Let’s understand our climate and weather better.  Let’s keep investing in mitigation and options.