My spreadsheet I have been working on is actually quite simple.

We look at what the energy sources that are in play at any time. We look at population and per capita gdp as primary variables to determine co2 levels. We look at energy use and industrial use.

Unless some external forcing event like a massive unexpected release or absorption of co2 the co2 levels have to be deterministically determined by these factors.

The level could be off slightly if we figure out how to grow trees over more of the earth or if there were super volcano eruptions or if there are other phenomenon they and we don’t know about now.

We don’t know what we don’t know but co2 levels aren’t that complicated. We see how much is absorbed by the ocean, by the trees and we know how much we emit in various processes. Therefore we can predict with decent accuracy co2 levels.

That doesn’t mean we know what temperatures will be as a result. In my mind there is still huge uncertainty about how much co2 produces in temperature change.

We also don’t know what the impact of the temperature change will be. My studying of this shows that these studies on the impact of climate change is the worst science of all. It is selective, based on very poor data, incomplete and speculative.

But this article is not about all that. It is just about the scenario that climate believers claim is the “normal” course that they claim will lead to the end of earth as we know it in some catastrophic way.

That scenario predicts temperatures will climb 10F degrees. This extraordinary rise in temperatures would return the Earth to near the average temperature over the last 60 million years which was 16F higher than today.

This is what AOC, Bloomberg, Sanders and other Democratic hopefuls lament as inevitable if we don’t introduce massive change immediately.

What if that scenario is a fantasy and not real? They claim it’s science. Science is about prediction but our science is nowhere near good enough to predict the future like Hari Seldon’s math that he used in the Second Foundation to control the world to a better future.

How do we get to the “normal” future which they claim is what will happen if we do nothing?

So the math on this is simple.

Today we use worldwide 66,000 BTU OF energy per year per person. The US population on the whole uses 333,000 BTU per person per year today.

Energy use in the US is declining as things become more efficient. Therefore it is unlikely anyone will ever need more energy than what the average American consumes today.

Electric cars get 110 mpg equivalent and as gas runs out or is replaced the overall energy needs of everyone continues to fall.

To get the high temperature change the climate alarmists use to scare people they need to have maximum co2 output for the next 80 years.

To get to 1400 parts per million of co2 is no easy thing. We have added 100 PPM in the last 80 years so they are saying if we do nothing we will add 10 times as much in the next 80 years as we did in the previous 80 years.

Thus the most pessimistic assumption to produce maximum co2 is that everyone eventually uses as much energy as the average American today, that there is a lot more people and that we are incredibly good at increasing wealth for the next 80 years so people use all this energy and wealth to produce massive amounts of co2.

We also have to assume that we don’t transition away from fossil fuels.

I was unable to produce the scare scenario even using the most pessimistic assumptions.

Assuming that in 2100 we are producing worldwide 8 times as much energy as today that is almost all produced with the worst co2 producing source which is coal I can’t reproduce anywhere near 1400ppm.

Assuming that we make no advances in sequestering or cleaning the co2 output of these coal plants.

Assuming that the population bumps to 12.2 billion people by 2100.

Assuming that we have enough coal to produce this amount of energy for 80 years and that we transition to using these high carbon coal sources more and more over time to generate maximum co2.

Assuming that the number of planes, cars, boats, and other transportation devices don’t improve in efficiency but we simply make more SUV’s with the same fuel efficiency and we all use 8 times more vehicles than today because we have the wealth and desire.

Assuming that we don’t do electric panels on people’s roofs anymore.

Assuming that there is no additional greening of the Earth soaking up co2 and that we don’t discover any way to absorb the co2 we are producing.

Assuming that the technology to make metals and other industrial processes don’t improve substantially in co2 output but that we increase those industries by a factor of 8.

With these assumptions I can only get to less than 900 ppm not the 1400 they have as their estimate for this.

That’s amazing.

This is not “business as usual.” I am presuming to maximize co2 output that we not only don’t improve anything for 80 years but that we actually regress and in utter disregard for anything we might discover use the most co2 producing way we can.

I assume no advancements and no science emerges in 80 years that we employ. Almost as if in total defiance of the current theory and beliefs. We actively work to produce maximum co2 output we can.

I still can’t get to 1400 ppm.

So how did they get to 1400?

The difference of course is huge. We have added about 100ppm in the last 80 years. They are saying we will add 1000 ppm in the next 80 years.

Why are they saying that?

It is sort of their worst case scenario except they call it their business as usual scenario except it is a scenario that even with absurd assumptions that border on impossible I can’t get within 500ppm of their high number.

That’s 5 times what we have put in during the last 80 years and is still 500ppm lower than their guesstimate.

What is particularly enlightening about doing this spreadsheet is you start to realize what crazy assumptions their predictions depend on.

To get even to the level I project is the worst/best case scenario we as a world will have to be so rich on average that the average person on the Earth will make $91,000 / year adjusted for inflation and the population will near double with every one of those 12 billion people making on average that much money.

This is an incredible thing to think about.

The model they are touting as the normal do nothing approach postulates that a population almost twice the size of the current population of the earth will be so wealthy that the average person in the world will be making 50% more than the average American is today.

Is that reasonable?

That’s rich. How will these people spend this money? What will we do for jobs with AI maybe taking over? If we are so rich what is everyone doing with it? Traveling? Buying pools? Bigger houses? Robots?

Do we fight? With that much wealth how do the world’s conflicts not end in incredibly destructive manner with countries having access to such monies and technologies how do we prevent mass killing?

There’s a lot of questions that this raises that makes us wonder what other problems we will have beside hotter temps.

What’s also amazing is they are projecting that in spite of this massive increase in prosperity we will be suffering from storms and worried about droughts. won’t our houses be able to lift themselves when it floods? I mean I have no idea what this world looks like in 80 years with that much wealth and industrialization.

It’s just not realistic to make predictions like this. The next 80 years are going to see massive change simply because our technology is exponentially increasing. We are able to edit genes by then, possibly have ships traveling to the stars and a colony on Mars. We may be traveling in hyper loops and discover how to do fusion power by then.

Yet the scenario they have assumes that we go along as today and consume and produce energy in the worst way possible. It’s not at all reasonable to expect any prediction of 80 years from now to be accurate. We never have been and our prediction methods have not improved enough to claim any better results.

Population is a critical number

What you must also understand is that the only way to get the high co2 future they predict is incredible amounts of co2 that can only be produced in that quantity by the worst technologies we have today like coal. Why would we do that?

If we don’t turn out to become so super rich or we aren’t as many people then this means we will produce vastly less co2 and problem averted.

In this book there is an argument that population is already leveling out and may decline significantly by 2100. If that were to happen then the theory is shot in the head because the amount of co2 is related to population exponentially.

This is because people today produce X co2 but because of higher wealth they produce 6X – 8X in 2100 because of the massively greater income times a larger population producing exponentially more co2.

At 1/2 the 12 billion projected by my analysis the amount of co2 will massively be reduced from the projected levels of even more conservative scenarios the Ipcc and climate alarmists project.

In other words the only way there is a climate catastrophe is if the population surges, we get massive increase in wealth and energy use which is generally a good thing and we somehow also never stop using coal and in fact it becomes almost the only way we generate energy in 2100.

Every other scenario would result in far less than 900 ppm in fact closet to 600 ppm.

This points out some fundamental mathematical logical and statistical facts about the global warming catastrophe.

All 3 of these things below must be true or there is no catastrophe.

1) We produce massive quantities of co2 equal to 8 to 10 times the rate of today in a linear accelerating fashion till 2100 resulting in co2 levels of 1200-1400 ppm of co2 in the atmosphere.

This is extremely problematical. I have no idea how you get to anywhere near the Ipcc projected co2 levels. My analysis shows this is impossible even with the most ludicrous assumptions.

In order to get to this phenomenal number of co2 we must paradoxically get to a population of 12 billion and a wealth level 50% greater than Americans today adjusted for inflation for every one of those 12 billion people.

We also have to not have found any technological solution to either reducing co2 output or removing it from the atmosphere other ways.

This point has already been effectively disproved which essentially means you don’t even have to read about the other 2 points.

You see the probability of catastrophic climate change is the multiplication of the probabilities of these 3 things happening.

If the probability of any of them is low or 0 then there is No chance of catastrophic global warming.

Zero times 1 times 1 equals zero. That is zero probability. In other words impossible.

.1 times .8 times .8 = 6% or almost impossible.

So if any of the 3 conditions is low probability of being true then catastrophe averted.

So maybe you don’t have to read about the other 2 conditions to get to catastrophe because the inability to get to the catastrophic inducing levels of co2 appear completely impossible on the face of them.

Thus we already have the 0% of the first factor in the probability computation and therefore we know the answer is 0% chance of catastrophic results.

End of story.

2) the effect of co2 has to be huge similar to what the Ipcc predicts.

Unfortunately, the models have been off by a factor of 2 since 1945. This means that for nearly 80 years they have produced twice the heat we’ve actually seen.

If that keeps up for the next 80 years then regardless of if we reach 1400 ppm there will be no catastrophic change.

3) the effects of climate change have to more damaging them beneficial by a huge amount.

Every study I’ve seen look at assessing the impact of climate change has been stupid. Beyond stupid. Numerous studies show significant advantages from a warmer world.

This may shock you but it’s true. They have not proved there will be any negative effects from warming temperatures. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that warmer temperatures are good for life and humans not bad.

What does this all mean?

In summary the scenario to produce the catastrophic levels of co2 needed in combination with high sensitivity of the atmosphere to co2 ( twice what we’ve seen in the last 80 years) and hugely negative effects on the planet from higher temperatures is needed to create the catastrophic scenario that alarmists scare you with.

The very first part of this which is getting to the high levels of co2 is revealed by my analysis to be extremely problematic and depends on a lot of rather unbelievable things.

It depends on us being so stupid to produce all our energy with coal when we know how to do nuclear today. So that even if in 80 years we don’t figure out how to make solar or wind economic or fusion that we still for some reason decide to use the dirtiest most co2 producing energy source for our massively increased energy needs because we are so rich.

The population must also increase at a high rate to get us to 12-15 billion people by 2100 when today we see a much lower rate and evidence we may see a falloff of population before mid-century.

The earth must be an unbelievably rich place with the average person making 50% more than the average American today adjusted for inflation. Along the way it is hard to imagine this land of dreams with every nation vastly better off. No poverty and incredible wealth is hard to assume will happen but they assume it will.

I feel very excited about this future and frankly a few more storms to have such a positive future is not such a big price to pay although there is no evidence there would be any more storms in that world.