In the recent New York Times (NYT) editorial “Climate Change Could Become a Global Economic Disaster,” author David Gelles paints a picture of impending economic collapse, driven by climate-induced destruction of real estate markets, insurance availability, and global GDP. [emphasis, links added]
Gelles’ claims are speculative, based on a faulty analysis of climate change and a flawed understanding of economics and history.
The evidence suggests that these apocalyptic scenarios are not only built on worst-case modeling completely divorced from real-world empirical data, but also ignore humanity’s long record of adaptation, innovation, and resilience in the face of change.
Let’s start with the article’s centerpiece claim: that global temperatures are “all but certain” to exceed 2°C and may reach 3°C by century’s end. This assertion leans heavily on scenario-based climate models, not observations.
As noted at Climate Realism, even the IPCC now quietly acknowledges that its previously touted high-emissions pathway, RCP8.5, is increasingly implausible. And yet this outdated scenario remains the go-to for media catastrophism.
Real-world data shows warming trends more consistent with the lower-end projections, with no sign of the runaway feedback loops that media outlets breathlessly parrot.
Moreover, models are routinely adjusted retroactively, and their forecasts rarely match actual climate observations. As Roy Spencer, Ph.D., has detailed, models overestimate warming compared to satellite data, a point conveniently omitted by the NYT.
The NYT parrots an old favorite: cities like Miami and Osaka will be underwater. The implication is one of a biblical deluge, yet actual tidal gauge records and satellite altimetry show no acceleration in sea-level rise.
Sea levels continue to rise at a modest, linear rate of around 3mm per year—consistent with trends observed since the 19th century, and certainly nothing that improved infrastructure to prevent flooding can’t handle.
And what about that “$1.47 trillion in lost real estate value” forecasted by 2055? That claim is based on reports from First Street Foundation, whose track record includes exaggerated flood maps that frequently misrepresent actual local risk.
These so-called models overlook local infrastructure improvements, stormwater management, and elevation protections.
They are tools of advocacy, not science.
In fact, population increases continue to this day in areas historically prone to natural disasters like floods, hurricanes, and wildfires, as is reflected in rising property values.
Gelles’s warning of declining crop yields under 3°C warming is flatly contradicted by global agricultural data.
As Climate Realism explains, yields for major crops—corn, wheat, rice, and soybeans—have continued to break records year after year as the Earth has modestly warmed.
There is no impending famine due to climate change—only misleading headlines crafted to push policy agendas.
Carbon dioxide (CO2), the supposed villain in this narrative, is actually a plant nutrient. Increased atmospheric CO2 boosts photosynthesis and water-use efficiency—facts that real farmers know even if climate bureaucrats pretend not to.
Yes, localized crop failures can occur from drought or heat—but global food systems are more diversified, mechanized, and resilient than at any time in human history.
There is no impending famine due to climate change—only misleading headlines crafted to push policy agendas.
One of the more theatrical claims comes from Allianz SE board member Günther Thallinger, who warns that “entire regions are becoming uninsurable.” This narrative is increasingly deployed by activists hoping to push regulatory and financial compliance to extreme climate agendas.
But as Climate Realism notes, the real drivers behind insurance withdrawal from certain areas are not climate-induced disasters, but political and regulatory pressures—price controls, legal liability risks, and zoning decisions.
Insurers adjust rates and coverage areas based on risk, profit margins, and policy interference. That’s capitalism, not climate collapse.
Suggesting that the entire financial system is on the verge of implosion because of climate change is a falsehood, built upon an ignorance of how insurance markets work in tandem with government regulations.
The final paragraph of the editorial warns that, due to climate risk, the financial sector may collapse, and “capitalism as we know it ceases to be viable.” That’s not science—it’s propaganda.
No credible economic historian or climatologist has made such a claim based on empirical evidence. This is the NY Times at its most hyperbolic: throwing rhetorical grenades instead of engaging with facts.
Instead of holding alarming, unverified climate claims up to scrutiny, the NY Times prints them as gospel truth.
In fact, throughout the period of recent climate change, global and regional GDPs have continued to increase, more people have become wealthy, and fewer are mired in poverty now than ever before.
The real risk to economic systems isn’t climate change—it’s climate policy overreach. From carbon taxes that cripple industry, to forced electrification without grid readiness, the rush to “fight” climate change results in skyrocketing energy costs, manufacturing decline, inflation, and lost consumer freedom.
It seems the NY Times’ story is built on a fact-free “House of Cards,” emblematic of the mainstream media’s increasing tendency to write “Fake News” and ignore facts, especially when the issue is climate change.
The New York Times has long since abandoned journalistic neutrality on climate issues. Instead of holding alarming, unverified climate claims up to scrutiny, the NY Times prints them as gospel truth.
This piece isn’t journalism—it’s advocacy.
Any systemic climate risk to the economy comes from the misreporting of climate facts and government policies enacted in response to the false climate claims, not climate change itself.
Read more at Climate Realism
