Getting your view of 'doomists' from Guenther, DWW and Scranton and a legacy quote from Lovelock, while not quoting or even mentioning James Hansen, Peter Kalmus, William Rees, William Catton, and many other legitimate modern voices.
And then you have the nerve to quote Shellenberger and Nordhaus, two of the heroes of climate disinformation. Of course, they are the gurus of the "breakthrough institute" so you are obligated to pay homage to your masters.
Thanks for the comment professor, but it's not at all clear what you're saying here, apart from that you seem to disagree and wish that I wrote the kind of article that you would have written.
What facet of my argument would have changed, had I included a few more doomists who happen to also be climate scientists? My focus was on doomism as a cultural force, but I'm not sure I would see Rockström, Hansen, and others as immune from it, just because they are closer to the science. They still interpret the same data that other scientists look at and arrive at alarming conclusions, but not necessarily alarmist.
Thanks. That is helpful. For what it's worth, I do have an unpublished attempt to categorize varieties of doomism (eco-miserables, avertive apocalypticists, planetary doomists, etc.), it was just too dry for this kind of article.
But you bring up a good point, in any case, those categorizations can be shallow, because they work only with texts. I'm actually writing a proposal right now to fund an interview project, because, as I write in the piece, I struggle to understand my former mindset to my satisfaction. I think there's something to my argument, but best is to understand the roots of doomism in terms that doomists themselves can at least half agree with.
Thanks for your reflections. Guenther was particularly non-academic in both her arrogant tone and lack of citations on this topic. It was like she wanted to be in the 'doomer-bashing' club and just assumed there were no rules except to be as insulting as possible.
Meanwhile, Mann was spot on in his critique of DWW in "The New Climate War," echoing my own thoughts when I read The Uniinhabitable Earth. This shows the necessity of quoting actual climate scientists when discussing doomers.
Some doomers get it right, others are very wrong, and there are at least 22 types of doomers. Guy McPherson and his longstanding Jan. 1, 2026 prediction, for example.
I hesitate to go an inch beyond the science, what the data says and predicts, and that's plenty enough for me.
I have conducted 125 or so interviews with leading sustainability professionals, government officials, non-profit leaders, and entrepreneurs for my podcast, and my recommendation to consider the utility of doomers, over time.
That, to some degree, this was necessary as a way to create momentum, but as momentum grows, structures are build, and knowledge/ practice diffuses, the role of a "doomer" will fade without an iteration.
More than happy to discuss with you if it would help your research.
I'll reach out Rich. I would like to talk. I go back and forth between seeing doomism as a discomforting necessity (like slavery abolition) and an unproductive distraction.
I have a simple, two-step plan for ending cataclysmic thinking:
1) Forever avert any and all cataclysms; and
2) Stop thinking.
Yes, the achievement of either step alone might appear, at first glance, to suffice, but consider the following:
i) The absence, however prolonged, of cataclysms cannot ensure the absence, however brief, of cataclysmic thinking; and
ii) The absence, however prolonged, of thinking cannot ensure the absence, however brief, of cataclysms, and the presence, however brief, of cataclysms would render any victory over cataclysmic thinking a Pyrrhic one.
This is just a wordier version of the standard internet chant, “tHe pReDiCtiOnS diDn’T cOmE tRuE”.
The obviously fallacious arguments used here are that apocalyptic predictions have always existed and we are still here therefore all apocalyptic predictions are wrong. And that “some people say the AMOC might collapse soon and others say it probably won’t therefore all science about climate change is uncertain and therefore just doomist”.
It’s the same intellectually lazy self deceit practiced by all denialists. “If I ignore the vast body of science on the topic I can easily assert that because things seem fine now they’ll be fine forever”.
This essay has the same flavour as a lot of writing by religious apologists. The “I used to be a doomer but now I’m saved” line. The cherry picking of one, single, uncertain aspect of climate science, collapse of the AMOC.
Without checking, I’d put ten bucks on that the masthead it’s published under is a religious one. I can see the author arguing that evolution is real but guided by a god, using exactly the same writing techniques, arguing over the top of something while carefully not engaging with any of the relevant facts.
Tough to respond when I'm not a denialist, not particularly religious, and not at all saying there's not the possibility of cataclysm. And my argument is exactly against the idea of setting up an opposition between the "saved", who ostensibly know the right way to understand climate change, and the heretics, that that very framing repeats a classic mistake and is politically unhelpful. I call out Ecomodernists themselves for precisely that reason.
My conclusion is also against the idea of using doomists as a pejorative. I'm urging the readership of the Ecomodernist to see doomism as having legitimate roots in our politics and culture, that it ought to be taken seriously and not dismissed, even if I'm also arguing that the evidence underdetermines doomists conclusions.
It's the 'evidence' you quote (AMOC) that is quite cherry picked. Like the denialists cherry pick polar bear populations or the recent growth of Antarctic land ice. The evidence quite assuredly supports the doomists conclusions, and more so each day.
I'm not so sure, Professor. There's the accelerationists and the non accelerationists. Roger just noted on his substack that Stern's predictions for natural disasters were overly pessimistic. We could go on and on about RCP 8.5 (or constructs like the living planet index or the sixth extinction if we include biodiversity). No doubt any framing is cherry picked to a degree, but I reject the notion that AOC science is unusual.
There's error bars around future emissions, around the exact impacts of this emissions, and our ability to avoid, counter balance, and adapt to emissions/impacts. Even formerly certain projections of human population by 2100 look to be off by a lot. To toss all that uncertainty out in embracing an apocalyptic interpretation is, in my mind, more political than scientific.
Getting your view of 'doomists' from Guenther, DWW and Scranton and a legacy quote from Lovelock, while not quoting or even mentioning James Hansen, Peter Kalmus, William Rees, William Catton, and many other legitimate modern voices.
And then you have the nerve to quote Shellenberger and Nordhaus, two of the heroes of climate disinformation. Of course, they are the gurus of the "breakthrough institute" so you are obligated to pay homage to your masters.
Your understanding of 'doomism' is narrow and uninformed. For example, my recent essay: https://climatecasino.net/2025/12/what-is-the-definition-of-a-doomer/
Shoddy academic work.
Thanks for the comment professor, but it's not at all clear what you're saying here, apart from that you seem to disagree and wish that I wrote the kind of article that you would have written.
What facet of my argument would have changed, had I included a few more doomists who happen to also be climate scientists? My focus was on doomism as a cultural force, but I'm not sure I would see Rockström, Hansen, and others as immune from it, just because they are closer to the science. They still interpret the same data that other scientists look at and arrive at alarming conclusions, but not necessarily alarmist.
You might enjoy reading my rebuttal to Guenther's definitions of 'doomism.'
https://climatecasino.net/2025/06/doomism-at-the-end-of-the-universe/
https://climatecasino.net/2025/08/the-third-and-final-form-of-doomism/
Thanks. That is helpful. For what it's worth, I do have an unpublished attempt to categorize varieties of doomism (eco-miserables, avertive apocalypticists, planetary doomists, etc.), it was just too dry for this kind of article.
But you bring up a good point, in any case, those categorizations can be shallow, because they work only with texts. I'm actually writing a proposal right now to fund an interview project, because, as I write in the piece, I struggle to understand my former mindset to my satisfaction. I think there's something to my argument, but best is to understand the roots of doomism in terms that doomists themselves can at least half agree with.
Thanks for your reflections. Guenther was particularly non-academic in both her arrogant tone and lack of citations on this topic. It was like she wanted to be in the 'doomer-bashing' club and just assumed there were no rules except to be as insulting as possible.
Meanwhile, Mann was spot on in his critique of DWW in "The New Climate War," echoing my own thoughts when I read The Uniinhabitable Earth. This shows the necessity of quoting actual climate scientists when discussing doomers.
Some doomers get it right, others are very wrong, and there are at least 22 types of doomers. Guy McPherson and his longstanding Jan. 1, 2026 prediction, for example.
I hesitate to go an inch beyond the science, what the data says and predicts, and that's plenty enough for me.
I have conducted 125 or so interviews with leading sustainability professionals, government officials, non-profit leaders, and entrepreneurs for my podcast, and my recommendation to consider the utility of doomers, over time.
That, to some degree, this was necessary as a way to create momentum, but as momentum grows, structures are build, and knowledge/ practice diffuses, the role of a "doomer" will fade without an iteration.
More than happy to discuss with you if it would help your research.
I'll reach out Rich. I would like to talk. I go back and forth between seeing doomism as a discomforting necessity (like slavery abolition) and an unproductive distraction.
And yet carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is at an all-time high and rose by a record amount in 2024-2025.
How am I supposed to view the data and what conclusions should I draw from the acceleration of warming?
I have a simple, two-step plan for ending cataclysmic thinking:
1) Forever avert any and all cataclysms; and
2) Stop thinking.
Yes, the achievement of either step alone might appear, at first glance, to suffice, but consider the following:
i) The absence, however prolonged, of cataclysms cannot ensure the absence, however brief, of cataclysmic thinking; and
ii) The absence, however prolonged, of thinking cannot ensure the absence, however brief, of cataclysms, and the presence, however brief, of cataclysms would render any victory over cataclysmic thinking a Pyrrhic one.
I got this response to your article from the re-post on FB I put up.
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61554934689989
This is just a wordier version of the standard internet chant, “tHe pReDiCtiOnS diDn’T cOmE tRuE”.
The obviously fallacious arguments used here are that apocalyptic predictions have always existed and we are still here therefore all apocalyptic predictions are wrong. And that “some people say the AMOC might collapse soon and others say it probably won’t therefore all science about climate change is uncertain and therefore just doomist”.
It’s the same intellectually lazy self deceit practiced by all denialists. “If I ignore the vast body of science on the topic I can easily assert that because things seem fine now they’ll be fine forever”.
This essay has the same flavour as a lot of writing by religious apologists. The “I used to be a doomer but now I’m saved” line. The cherry picking of one, single, uncertain aspect of climate science, collapse of the AMOC.
Without checking, I’d put ten bucks on that the masthead it’s published under is a religious one. I can see the author arguing that evolution is real but guided by a god, using exactly the same writing techniques, arguing over the top of something while carefully not engaging with any of the relevant facts.
Tough to respond when I'm not a denialist, not particularly religious, and not at all saying there's not the possibility of cataclysm. And my argument is exactly against the idea of setting up an opposition between the "saved", who ostensibly know the right way to understand climate change, and the heretics, that that very framing repeats a classic mistake and is politically unhelpful. I call out Ecomodernists themselves for precisely that reason.
My conclusion is also against the idea of using doomists as a pejorative. I'm urging the readership of the Ecomodernist to see doomism as having legitimate roots in our politics and culture, that it ought to be taken seriously and not dismissed, even if I'm also arguing that the evidence underdetermines doomists conclusions.
It's the 'evidence' you quote (AMOC) that is quite cherry picked. Like the denialists cherry pick polar bear populations or the recent growth of Antarctic land ice. The evidence quite assuredly supports the doomists conclusions, and more so each day.
Cheers.
I'm not so sure, Professor. There's the accelerationists and the non accelerationists. Roger just noted on his substack that Stern's predictions for natural disasters were overly pessimistic. We could go on and on about RCP 8.5 (or constructs like the living planet index or the sixth extinction if we include biodiversity). No doubt any framing is cherry picked to a degree, but I reject the notion that AOC science is unusual.
There's error bars around future emissions, around the exact impacts of this emissions, and our ability to avoid, counter balance, and adapt to emissions/impacts. Even formerly certain projections of human population by 2100 look to be off by a lot. To toss all that uncertainty out in embracing an apocalyptic interpretation is, in my mind, more political than scientific.
Complexity doesn’t primarily demand better tools.
It demands minds that can carry ambiguity without collapsing into performance or consensus.
That capacity — criterion — is what I’m working on here:
https://substack.com/@leontsvasmansapiognosis