Six Charts Put Climate Alarmism into Perspective

For more than two decades the public has been told that "the science is settled." Yet public scepticism has not disappeared. If anything, it has grown as predictions, policies and real-world experience have often failed to align.

A recent article on Watts Up With That? authored by Ramesh Thakur (Emeritus Professor, Australian National University, and former UN Assistant Secretary-General) attempts to explain why many people remain unconvinced by the dominant climate narrative. Rather than focusing on complex climate models, it presents six simple charts that illustrate why many ordinary people question claims of an unfolding climate catastrophe.

Figure 1: Dengue fever infections – global vs. regional

The BBC linked a dengue outbreak in Sri Lanka to rising global temperatures and mosquito range expansion, citing a surge from ~500,000 cases in 2000 to 14.4 million in 2024. Thakur notes that global *infections* (not just reported cases) rose from low levels around 2000 to ~37.5 million by 2023, but the sharp upward slope closely tracks the rise in Latin America and the Caribbean (from ~2 million to ~27.5 million). Asia’s increase has been far less dramatic.

Commentary

A global temperature rise does not automatically explain a regionally concentrated infection surge. Local factors (urbanisation, water storage, control measures, reporting changes) matter more than a uniform “climate change” driver.

Figure 2: Pakistan flood deaths – raw numbers vs. share of population

Media reports on Pakistan’s floods often emphasise climate worsening without long-term context or population growth. Raw flood-related deaths have risen since the 1950s, but when expressed as a share of total population the trend reverses (declining risk per person).

Commentary 

Growing populations and settlement in flood plains increase absolute exposure. Better infrastructure and economic development (which still relies heavily on affordable energy) reduce vulnerability more effectively than focusing solely on emissions.

Figure 3: Australia flood deaths relative to population

In Australia’s flood-prone regions, media coverage routinely frames events as evidence of a climate emergency. Proportionate deaths (relative to total population) have been lower in the four decades since the 1980s than in the preceding four decades.

Commentary 

Improved warning systems, building standards, and emergency management have reduced the human toll even as absolute events continue. Perspective is lost when every flood is treated as unprecedented.

Figures 4 & 5: Wildfire deaths/damage and area burnt (Australia & Canada)

Bushfires are common in Australia and Canada; recent European and North American fires are also framed as climate-driven. Historical context includes massive pre-industrial fires (e.g., the 1871 Peshtigo fire and others that killed thousands and burned millions of acres). Decadal averages of annual death rates and economic damage since the 19th century, plus area burnt so far this century, show trends that are “more reassuring than alarming.”

Commentary 

Fire weather, fuel loads, land management, and ignition sources all matter. Long records and pre-industrial extremes undercut claims that current fires are uniquely climate-driven or existential.

Figure 6: Extreme-weather mortality – cold vs. heat

Alarmist focus centres on heat-related risks while downplaying the much larger historical burden of cold-related deaths. Global data show a substantially greater reduction in extreme-weather mortality from very cold temperatures than from heat, alongside broader gains in food security (partly from CO₂ fertilisation/greening) and reduced vulnerability through development.

Commentary 

Cold has historically killed far more people than heat. Rising adaptive capacity and energy access have driven large net reductions in weather-related deaths overall.

Broader conclusion

Thakur argues that Net Zero policies are environmentally marginal at global scale, physically unrealistic, economically costly, and largely performative. They allow politicians to shift blame for inadequate disaster preparedness onto an all-purpose “climate emergency.” The more practical path, in his view, is resilient infrastructure and economic growth that reduce vulnerability to the natural disasters that have always existed.

The charts collectively emphasise context—population growth, regional differences, long historical records, and adaptation—over decontextualised event reporting. Readers can consult the original article and its linked data sources (especially Our World in Data) for the precise figures and full visualisations.

A Climate Model Built On Reality

For years we have been told that "the science is settled."

The public has been assured that climate models have spoken, the future is known, and all that remains is deciding how much economic pain we are willing to endure to prevent catastrophe.

There has always been one awkward problem with that narrative.

The models have not performed particularly well.

Many of the complex climate models used by the IPCC have consistently projected more warming than has actually occurred. Their forecasts are so diverse that some predict modest warming while others forecast climate disaster. If the science were truly settled, why do the models disagree so dramatically?

That is why a recent article titled "The Model That Works" on Watts Up With That caught my attention. It describes a climate model that takes a radically different approach. Instead of attempting to simulate every cloud, ocean current, weather pattern and atmospheric process on Earth, it focuses on a few key physical relationships that can actually be measured. 

A Simpler View of Climate

The model begins with a straightforward idea.

Earth's temperature is determined by the balance between energy entering the system from the Sun and energy leaving the system back into space.

Two observable factors largely control this balance:

• Albedo – how much incoming sunlight is reflected back into space.

• Greenhouse factor – how much outgoing infrared radiation is trapped by the atmosphere. 

More energy coming in than going out means warming.

More energy leaving than entering means cooling.

So far, this sounds like Climate Science 101.

The interesting part is that the model does not assume the climate system is static. Instead, it treats the atmosphere and oceans as an evolving system that continuously reorganises itself to move energy as efficiently as possible. The result is a dynamic model that appears to mirror how the real Earth behaves.

The Surprising Result

The author compared the model's output with actual observations of Earth's climate.

Instead of producing wildly divergent futures like many IPCC models, this simpler model closely tracks observed temperatures and climate patterns. 

No model is perfect.

The author himself acknowledges that this is not a complete description of Earth's climate.

But it passes an important test.

It correlates with reality.

That alone makes it worthy of attention.

What Does It Say About CO₂?

This is where the story becomes particularly interesting.

The model suggests that the warming effect of increasing atmospheric CO₂ is likely toward the lower end of previous estimates. In climate jargon, it implies a lower "climate sensitivity" than many of the more alarming projections assume.

In plain English:

The amount CO₂ contributes to warming may be substantially less than the worst-case scenarios that dominate headlines.

That does not mean climate change is imaginary, but the climate catastrophe narrative is wrong.

The Good News

If this model is even approximately correct, the future looks very different from the one often presented by activists and politicians.

Instead of:

• Runaway warming

• Climate apocalypse

• Economic collapse

• Emergency measures to eliminate fossil fuels

We are looking at:

• Gradual warming

• Manageable adaptation

• Continued technological progress

• More time to develop practical energy solutions

It is a reason for rationality, and human beings are remarkably good at adapting to changing conditions. We always have been.

The Science Is Not Settled

Perhaps the most important lesson from this model is not the exact temperature forecast.

It is the reminder that science is never settled. Science advances by testing ideas against reality. When a model agrees with observations, scientists pay attention.

The model described by Watts Up With That may not be the final answer. Further testing and validation will be needed.

But it offers something increasingly rare in climate discussions: a reason for optimism.

If the model proves broadly correct, then the future is not one of climate apocalypse.

It is one of manageable change.

And perhaps that is the most important message of all.

The evidence increasingly suggests that humanity's future challenge may be adaptation, not survival.

That is a very different conversation from the one we have been hearing for the last twenty years.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/06/14/the-model-that-works/

The Collapse of the Climate Catastrophe Narrative

For years we were told the world was heading toward climate catastrophe. Endless headlines warned of apocalyptic warming, collapsing societies, mass starvation, and cities disappearing beneath the oceans. Politicians demanded urgent action, activists glued themselves to roads, and ordinary Australians were told they must pay more for energy, cars, appliances and even food “to save the planet.”

Much of that fear campaign rested on one key assumption: the infamous climate scenario known as RCP8.5.

Now, according to a growing number of climate researchers and commentators, that scenario is effectively dead. The recent article at Watts Up With That highlights one of the biggest quiet backdowns in modern climate science.

What Was RCP8.5?

RCP8.5 was one of several emissions pathways used in climate modelling by the IPCC and researchers around the world. The “8.5” referred to a very high level of future radiative forcing — essentially a scenario involving enormous greenhouse gas emissions throughout the century.

The problem?

Critics have argued for years that it was wildly unrealistic.

To achieve RCP8.5 levels, the world would have needed an extraordinary explosion in coal use, population growth, and emissions far beyond current trends. Even as renewable energy expanded, technology improved, and many countries slowed emissions growth, climate activists and media outlets continued using RCP8.5 as the “business as usual” future.

That mattered because countless alarming studies were built on it.

Predictions of catastrophic fires, floods, famine, species collapse, and economic devastation often relied on this extreme scenario. It became the backbone for many of the scary climate headlines pushed over the past decade.

The Quiet Retreat

Now the scientific establishment itself appears to be moving on.

The next generation of climate modelling frameworks is abandoning the most extreme emissions scenarios including SSP5-8.5 — effectively the successor to RCP8.5. Researchers increasingly acknowledge that current technological and economic trends make such outcomes implausible. 

Even climate researchers defending the broader climate narrative are conceding that SSP5-8.5 is no longer considered realistic.

That raises an awkward question:

If the most extreme scenarios were implausible all along, why were governments, media organisations, schools and activists presenting them as the likely future?

The Politics of Fear

This matters because policy decisions were built on these assumptions.

Australians have endured soaring electricity prices, increasing energy instability, subsidies running into the tens of billions, and relentless pressure to restructure the economy around “net zero.” Entire industries have been demonised. Young people have been told they face a hopeless future unless drastic sacrifices are made immediately.

Meanwhile, many of the scariest projections came from models based on a scenario now being quietly retired.

That does not mean climate change does not exist. Nor does it mean human activity has no effect on climate. But it shows that the public debate has been driven less by balanced science and more by worst-case storytelling.

And worst-case storytelling is politically useful.

Fear is a powerful motivator. It helps justify massive government intervention, higher taxes, subsidies, regulation and restrictions on personal choice. Once fear becomes embedded in public discourse, few institutions are eager to admit they oversold the threat.

The Bigger Lesson

The death of RCP8.5 should trigger serious reflection.

How many “settled science” claims were actually based on exaggerated assumptions? How many media scare campaigns relied on the most extreme model available? How many politicians knowingly blurred the line between plausible projections and speculative extremes?

Perhaps most importantly, how much public trust has been damaged?

Because when ordinary people discover that the “end of the world” scenarios were never especially likely in the first place, they start questioning everything else as well.

The climate debate desperately needs less hysteria and more honesty.

And maybe, just maybe, the quiet burial of RCP8.5 is the first sign that reality is finally beginning to intrude on the politics of climate fear. (Watts Up With That?)