Doomsday 2030: The latest Wild Climate Claim


Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Researchers at University of Queensland and Griffith University have published a study, which claims global warming will exceed the green panic threshold of 2c by 2030.

The abstract of the study;


The United Nations Conference on Climate Change (Paris 2015) reached an international agreement to keep the rise in global average temperature ‘well below 2°C’ and to ‘aim to limit the increase to 1.5°C’. These reductions will have to be made in the face of rising global energy demand. Here a thoroughly validated dynamic econometric model (Eq 1) is used to forecast global energy demand growth (International Energy Agency and BP), which is driven by an increase of the global population (UN), energy use per person and real GDP (World Bank and Maddison). Even relatively conservative assumptions put a severe upward pressure on forecast global energy demand and highlight three areas of concern. First, is the potential for an exponential increase of fossil fuel consumption, if renewable energy systems are not rapidly scaled up. Second, implementation of internationally mandated CO2 emission controls are forecast to place serious constraints on fossil fuel use from ~2030 onward, raising energy security implications. Third is the challenge of maintaining the international ‘pro-growth’ strategy being used to meet poverty alleviation targets, while reducing CO2 emissions. Our findings place global economists and environmentalists on the same side as they indicate that the scale up of CO2 neutral renewable energy systems is not only important to protect against climate change, but to enhance global energy security by reducing our dependence of fossil fuels and to provide a sustainable basis for economic development and poverty alleviation. Very hard choices will have to be made to achieve ‘sustainable development’ goals.

Read more:

From the press release in The Guardian;

Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study

Australian researchers say a global tracker monitoring energy use per person points to 2C warming by 2030.

The world is on track to reach dangerous levels of global warming much sooner than expected, according to new Australian research that highlights the alarming implications of rising energy demand.

University of Queensland and Griffith University researchers have developed a “global energy tracker” which predicts average world temperatures could climb 1.5C above pre-industrial levels by 2020.

That forecast, based on new modelling using long-term average projections on economic growth, population growth and energy use per person, points to a 2C rise by 2030.

The new modelling is the brainchild of Ben Hankamer from UQ’s institute for molecular bioscience and Liam Wagner from Griffith University’s department of accounting, finance and economics, whose work was published in the journal Plos One on Thursday.

Read more:

In the embarrassing aftermath of all the failed ice free arctic deadlines, it is nice to see climate researchers once again daring to put their reputations on the line, with testable predictions – just 4 years to wait, until 2020.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

They’ve still hedged their 2020 prediction by stating “average world temperatures could climb 1.5C above pre-industrial levels by 2020″
So we can expect a bunch of excuses in 4 years

I have tried to get some of the liberal AGW cult members to read the articles they spout as evidence, I mean read the action words and prediction wording. Most articles reach no conclusion, merely insinuate a potential conclusion. Words like could, might, possibly and so many others are just guesses?? Some use slightly stronger wording like likely, potentially and commit more to a belief in their theories. The world could stop spinning but it is very unlikely. After the failed theory of Ice Age, then all the evidence submitted on the modeling for Global Warming were proven wrong by not materializing, these same supposed scientists have learned not to commit to being wrong a 3rd time just by operative wording.

Sal Minella

The paper is the collaboration of an accountant and an a molecular biologist using an econometric model to predict the future climate. What could go wrong?

Bill Powers

They use modifiers because they have a very weak and unproven hypothetical that they strengthen with software programming and modified data. As the climate has changed, warming and cooling over 4.5 billion years, and without the participation of man burning fossil fuel most of that time, they cannot predict what the climate will do next year let alone what it will do in the next X years. But anybody can say it might change that is pretty predictable it’s that nasty how and when that is out of their hands hence the might, maybe, possibly, followed by the woulda, coulda, shoulda.

Bryan A

I really don’t think that there will be any issue of indicating a 1.5C rise by 2020 or 2C by 2030. Of course the DATA might not agree with their findings but don’t fret about that inconvenience. They will simply say the data needed some form of adjustment and voila the adjusted data will indicate the predicted 1.5C & 2C increases


“….it is nice to see climate researchers once again daring to put their reputations on the line, with testable predictions – just 4 years to wait, until 2020….”
And I am willing to bet they will produce numbers, however questionable, to verify their claim at that time. The whole AGW meme is based on misinformation and half truths that are perpetuated by the MSM so it’s no surprise claims like this are made and the narrative perpetuated.

You’re right; what’s amazing is that, after nearly three decades of this, the ethical scientific community persists in ignoring the fact that the agenda is the use of science to achieve a global satanic political and economic takeover.


Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study

Yes, but not too soon because then they’d have to move the goal posts again… LOL

Hoyt Clagwell

Tom, your comment about moving the goal posts suddenly reminded me of an episode of “Gilligan’s Island”. The professor thought the island was sinking because the water kept reading higher on his tide gauge stick each day. It wasn’t until the end of the episode that everyone figured out that Gilligan had been using it to stake his lobster trap and kept moving it into deeper water to catch more lobsters. I think the AGW crowd consists of about 97% Gilligans.


I think you mean to say 97% professors, which is a more accurate analogy in any case.
Gilligan only moved the stick.

Oh, now THAT’S a line I want to use.
97% Gilligans. Yes, that works. That’s how I shall think of them from now on. It’s so fitting!


Based on the history of life on Earth, “dangerous global warming” is an oxymoron right out of the box–and these “modelers” sound dumber and more desperate for attention every. single. day.


Whenever some organisation writes:

provide a sustainable basis for economic development
and poverty alleviation

you just know economic development
is going to be negatively impacted and poverty turned into a growth industry.
We don’t need another World Bank and International Monetary Fund.
Both of them were tasked with `economic development’ and `alleviation of
poverty’ when they were established after WW2. Since then, economies
have stagnated and inflated faster and faster and poverty growing at similar
rates wherever their prescriptions have been enacted.

Sceptical Sam

How does that explain the empirical evidence?
March 7th, 2016 | by Barbara Johnson.
Moscow | National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden, has made a new controversial claim yesterday during an interview, saying that he possesses some classified information proving that the CIA is behind the “theory of Global Warming”.
Snowden, who lives as a fugitive in Russia after leaking documents about the NSA’s surveillance programs, has made some previously unreported allegations during an interview with the Moscow Tribune.
Mr. Snowden says the CIA first orchestrated the spread of the “Global Warming scare” in the 1950s, in order to divert the attention of the scientific community, from the dangers of the weapons race and reinforce its control over research institutes.
“I have documents showing that the CIA invented the whole thing,” claims Edward Snowden. “Global Warming was invented to both scare people, and divert their attention from other human-made dangers like nuclear weapons. The CIA gave millions of dollars to any scientist who would confirm the theory, so many unscrupulous scientists did what they were told in order to get the money. Now, there is so much fake data to confirm that Global Warming “exists”, that they actually convinced everyone that it was real.”
This gets better and better!


Not sure if I believe this, doesn’t Snowden have a book to plug?

4 Eyes

See the other headlines at the site and your doubts will evaporate!


@4 eyes
ah ha! WNDR is the US equivalent of the UK’s Sunday Sport

Bryan A

it must be called WiNDeR cause you can see rite thru it

Don K

Frankly, this seems a bit over the top to me. But Snowden says that he has documents. How about we reserve judgment until we see what he has? So far he’s been right about a lot of stuff.


Oh dear. Heretofore The Guardian loved Snowden. This could be the sad end of a love affair.
But, I am sceptical. Publish the docs on the internet, Snowdon.

Maybe it was Snowden who ‘leaked’ the Climategate emails………?

Does this mean Mikey Mann is a CIA stooge? A pawn of Big Government?
It makes sense. After all, academics are supposed to be intelligent. Surely the government would seek to control intelligent people by way of an Intelligence Agency. And of course this control would need to be centralized.
US Academia controlled by a US Central Intelligence Agency. All it would take is the right bait. Something that is in short supply in Academia. Something like money.

spangled drongo

Ah! Just nicely timed for Alan Alda’s opening of the World Science Festival of story telling here tonight:


“Third is the challenge of maintaining the international ‘pro-growth’ strategy being used to meet poverty alleviation targets,…”
This is a current and burgeoning Marxist angle:
1. capitalism’s humanism depends on increased average , wealth per individual (somehow, the rising tide will lift all ships);
2. the wealth of nations is built upon land, labor, capital, and entrepreneurship (Adam Smith, with credits to the Author of Isaiah);
3. the earth’s resources, A. Smith’s “land,” are all in environmental cycles, except when humans are in the cycle;
4. humans are messing everything up (maybe due to inherent evilness)(which is it, greenies: are humans different from all other species as the Bible says, or are we yet another part of the natural cycles and naturally operating evolution? — is there actual good-and-evil, or is all relative?);
5. whatever good it might have ever had, wealth-building is about to run its course as a solution for poverty;
6. What Karl Marx said is the solution should be adopted as the solution.
It is watermelons all the way down.

Bruce Cobb

Where’s a big mallet when you need one?

chris y

wood for trees using hadcrut4 from 1850 – 2016, 5 year smoothing gives about 0.8 C increase since pre-industrial times.
That means they have predicted 0.7 C increase in the next 4 years, or 0.18 C per year.
It looks to be high by an order of magnitude right out of the gate.

And that’s after the “adjustments” that add up to something like half a degree. I’m not going to claim that all of the adjustments are false, but I do NOT believe that they are all valid. I think they are currently claiming 1.2 degrees above, though, through adjustments, so that they only need to be able to show 0.3 degrees of increase in the next 4 years. I think they might just do that.
In a few decades, with these levels of adjustments, we’ll be 3 degrees over pre-industrial times (on the official record), just like they said we would. Panic in the streets. No real change in local temperatures, but you know, your local thermometer isn’t “global temperatures” and thus don’t matter.


I’m starting to think more and more that “planetary temperature” is not even a real-life “thing.” It only exists as a statistical construct, and is so microscopic as to basically tell us nothing about anything. The fact that such a non-entity is capable of causing worldwide anxiety, panic, and depression tells me that innumeracy is now the norm, critical thinking has gone out the scuppers, and people’s “threat” triggers are set pretty damn low. Pathetic that millions willingly give “the media” this kind of power over their minds!


Renewable energy. Back your car up to windmill and let you blow you down the road.
Or have a portable one hidden in the boot.

I worked with a guy a long time ago who would always back his car into the parking space that was very steep. He claimed it saved gas when he left to go home. (first gas shortage when prices went sky high)

always back his car into the parking space
are you sure he wasn’t oriental?

No, and with spelling like that I might be the oriental. — large part of extended family is Filipino. 🙂

Note the change in strategy. Its no longer “worse than we thought”, it is now “sooner than we thought”.
Forecast by a molecular biologist teamed up with a glorified accountant. Excellent. Physics has left the building.

I suppose “sooner than we thought” makes it “worse than we thought”. Either way, they’re going to look stupid when the temperature drops.

4 Eyes

Clever by them. If their prediction is wrong then their credibility as climate scientists is in tatters but what the heck their reputations as molecular bioscientist and accountant are still intact. It seems that very few warmists who are atmospheric physicists and earth scientists are making DIRE predictions anymore.

Javert Chip

4 Eyes
With all due respect, failing at “climate science” predictions does not appear to have damaged CAGW reputations & careers. In fact, quite the opposite.
We’ve fallen down a rabbit hole where failing (as opposed to learning from failing) simply enhances credibility (or fundability).


that’s not such a hard thing when they keep ‘adjusting’ the data (or rather their interpretation of it) to make the past colder and the present warmer…

Patrick MJD

From the article;
“The new modelling is the brainchild of Ben Hankamer from UQ’s institute for molecular bioscience and Liam Wagner from Griffith University’s department of accounting, finance and economics, whose work was published in the journal Plos One on Thursday.”
Models again! More garbage from Australia. Plos One is clearly only suitable for Lew paper, make sure you don’t push your finger too far and too hard.


Settin’ ’round a garbage FIRE, sounds like to me!

“Australian researchers say a global tracker monitoring energy use per person points to 2C warming by 2030”
except that there is no empirical evidence that shows that fossil fuel emissions cause warming

Chris Hanley

To “scale up of CO2 neutral renewable energy systems” and “provide a sustainable basis for economic development and poverty alleviation” are mutually exclusive propositions.


Embarrassed to be an Aussie ! At least it’s worse than we thought .

mutually exclusive propositions.
the law of threes. The old rule was: cheap, fast, reliable. The politically correct version is now: economical, performs well, sustainable. you can have any two, but only two.

John Peter

They are “gambling” on a democrat as next US President, who will encourage Karl, Mears, Schmidt et. all. to continue moving global warming temperature records up towards the climate models. A democrat in the White House will accomplish that, whereas Cruz or Trump will prevent it. The verification boils down to who enters the White House in January 2017.

Tom in Florida

You mean Cruz, Rubio or Kasich will prevent it. Trump is a liberal Democrat in conservative Republican clothing who feeds off the low information voter.

Javert Chip

Trump’s actually a NYC businessman who did what he had to dots get projects approved. Trump does not appear to be the reflective type; I doubt even he knows what his “core” politics are.
Based on the results of several recent elections, there’s a strong argument that most voters are “low information”.

Chris Hanley
Another Ian

But the head of the Australian Research Council has rejected the claim scientists have to lie to get a project funded, saying there is a difference between speculating and lying.
that in a nutshell is the heart of the problem. I’m not lying, I could be speculating.

NW sage

As in: I could be speculating, Hillary must not be lying.

Bill Powers

So NW, is your points that Scott Pelley, while interviewing Presidential candidate and former SEC STATE Hillary Clinton, should have asked her: “have you ever speculated”? Or, is it that when asked if she has ever lied she should have answered “No, but I have speculated.”

Don K

These guys have a point actually. It should obvious to just about anyone with an IQ even approaching room temperature that the folks now living low energy lives in Asia, South America, and Africa are going to consume humongous amounts of energy as their standard of living improves. That’s very likely going to cause considerable real, actual climate change even if, as seems likely, “climate science” has considerably overestimated the sensitivity of climate to CO2. Sadly that simple reality seems to be beyond the comprehension of world leaders and their advisors.

Javert Chip

Well, we’ll see, but we’ve already been thru this: 1880-now saw a huge ramp-up in energy use (mucho CO2), with a smallish temp increase that as yet cannot be proven to have been rebounding from Little Ice Age, CAGW or some well understood combination of the 2.

Brian H

You think the globe is going to be built over? The world’s populace could be housed in bungalows covering Texas.


Dear Lord, that is desperate stuff, University of Queensland and Griffith University researchers are telling fairy tales.
It leads one to speculate on, is there a competition going on down under? Thus, to order and decide on, just who can weave the most deceitful web, to be the greatest climate catastrophe spinner of them all?


Hmmm…. In case the CAGW alarmists haven’t looked at their calendars recently, it’s 2016, and there has only been 0.85C of warming recovery since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850, for a trend of 0.05C/decade….
In order to get an additional 1.15C of warming recovery within 14 years to meet the magical 2.0C by 2030, a warming trend of 0.82C/decade is required…
I don’t think so…..
Given that there hasn’t been a discernible global warming trend for 20 years, despite 30% of all manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 being made over just the last 20 years, the probability of a 0.82C/decade warming trend developing from CO2 forcing is essentially 0.00000000%….
From 2020: 1) the PDO will be 12 years into its 30-yr cool cycle, 2) the AMO will just be starting its 30-yr cool cycle and the weakest solar cycle since 1790 will just be getting ready to start…
How CO2 forcing will miraculously overwhelm all these cooling phenomena is not explained, other than by repeating the silly mantra, “it’s worse than we thought….because the models say so…”
CAGW is a disconfirmed hypothesis.. It’s dead… It doesn’t work..

+1000. Amen to that.


i’m not sure what a 30 year PDO cool cycle looks like, but I agree with the rest of it.


Resource guy– Since 1850, there has been a 100% direct correlation between PDO 30-yr warm/cool cycles and global temperature warm/cool trends:
The current 30-yr PDO cool cycle just started in 2008, and its cooling effect has been obscured by two El Niño events (2009/10 and 2014~16). After the subsequent La Niña event occurs, the 2008~2019 global temp trend should become flat again, and when its coolest point is reached around 2025, a downward trend from 2008 will likely occur, based on past PDO cool cycles effects observed over the past 165 years.
We’ll see…

Komrade Kuma

You mean UQ, the home of John Cook bestie to La Lewnie?? !!!!
Wow, what authority!

I thought that study, like most in climate “science”, should have been published in the Journal of Irreproducible Results.

Another Ian

Going along with this
“Statistically Significant
Statistically significant is a catch phrase developed in the mid-twentieth century to describe situations which are not otherwise significant. Of course the term may also be used in situations in which no particular significance has been found – since this would be significant in itself.”
Journal of Irreproducible Results


” Second, implementation of internationally mandated CO2 emission controls are forecast to place serious constraints on fossil fuel use from ~2030 onward, raising energy security implications”
This is the real looming catastrophe. In the recent past wars have been fought over energy security. What will have happen this time?


Most of the world is tired of you shit dear “Its happening sooner than you think, actually we just need more grant money” department. Grow up, leave Uni and join the real world.

Javert Chip

I guess these guys weren’t part of the crowd that recently got laid off (defunded, whatever).

Patrick B

“a thoroughly validated dynamic econometric model is used to forecast global energy demand growth…”
“validated” huh? Man I bet the energy traders can’t wait to use that model and stop all their needless speculation.
Do these people actually think?
If there were such a model, it would change the world of trading. But the world of energy trading continues as it has – so whatever model they have, it isn’t validated.

Javert Chip

Well, Black-Scholes gave this a shot for hedge funds a few years back. Myron Scholes’ 1997 Nobel prize not withstanding, things didn’t work out so well.
…’scuse me as I reach for more popcorn.

Is it possible to farm in southern Greenland yet? If not, we are not yet as warm as the Midieval Warm, so this is no big deal even if true.


The Norse didn’t name it Greenland to be pointlessly ironic, after all. Hipsters hadn’t been invented yet.
When they beached their longboats and came ashore, they really did find large tracts of green land. The product of warming temperatures and soil fertilized by trace minerals in the glacial melt.
(Real) climate science hadn’t been invented yet, either, so they had no reason to suspect that it wouldn’t stay that way. Their colony got a nasty surprise at the end of the MWP.

CD in Wisconsin

Quote from the paper:
“….First, is the potential for an exponential increase of fossil fuel consumption, if renewable energy systems are not rapidly scaled up….”
When, oh when is somebody going to make the world realize that wind and solar do not scale up as a replacement for commercial base load fossil fuel and nuclear power plants? The long it takes for us to wake up to that reality, the more resources will be wasted on solar and wind.
From the article:
“Key Concepts:
29.3 billion 1 square meter solar panels are required for 100% solar power in the U.S. based on current demand 24 hours a day, 365 days per year.
29.3 billion 1square meter panels would cover 29,333 km2 which equals 7.2 million acres, or almost all of Maryland and Delaware.
If 1 square meter PV panels were manufactured at the rate of 1 per second, it would take 929 years to manufacture 29.3 billion panels
The cost of a solar only approach exceeds $15.27 trillion
To meet all energy demands for transportation, industrial, and commercial-agriculture would require 176 billion solar panels and 5,574 years to produce
Moore’s Law is not applicable to the production or deployment of solar panels
Increases in “solar cell efficiency” have little impact on land area to produce utility scale power
Unsubsidized Solar has applicability in rural areas and developing countries with low population density
Google’s Green Energy Project RE<C was canceled; “Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach; Suggest “A disruptive fusion technology…”"
Still trying to figure out why Google is invested in Ivanpah when their own engineers admit that renewables won't work. Sigh……

Kevin Kilty

“…29.3 billion 1square meter panels would cover 29,333 km2 which equals 7.2 million acres, or almost all of Maryland and Delaware…”
Would happily sacrifice Maryland and Delaware if it put D.C. permanently in the shade.

Javert Chip

I’m good to go for paving over Maryland with PV solar – I can think of several university research centers as further candidate sites – you know, a “follow the sun” strategy.

Walt D.

Meanwhile, if Maunder Minimum solar activity produces Maunder Minimum temperatures, then we could be in another mini ice age by 2030.


Doomsday 2020 was looking old and stale anyway.

Berényi Péter

That forecast, based on new modelling using long-term average projections on economic growth, population growth and energy use per person, points to a 2C rise by 2030.

There is a wide consensus among unskeptical climate scientists, that temperature rise since pre-industrial times is somewhat less than 1°C so far.
At first sight it seems to be quite impossible to exceed this warming in the remaining 14 years we have until 2030. However, all is not lost, because only a brand new set of proxies is needed, calibrated just-so, to produce an unprecedented cooling of the pre-industrial past, which makes it attainable to reach the 2°C target by 2030.
However, it is not a small job, so research funding must be increased accordingly.

Scott Scarborough

The temperature data for the average temperature for the earth will probably, in fact, show 2C worth of warming by 2030. The fact that it will be fraudulent data just is not mentioned.


Future cherry picking? 2020 could very well be an El Niño year.


Translation : We need even more grant money than we thought. Alarm!! alarm!!

Bruce Cobb

The United Nations Conference on Climate Change (Paris 2015) reached an international totally meaningless, face-saving and bogus agreement based on pseudoscience and politics, to pretend to keep the rise in global average temperature ‘well below 2°C’ and to hilariously ‘aim to limit the increase to 1.5°C”.
There, fixed.

Once again, people in Australia are forced to publicly apologise for the arrant nonsense emanating from a centre of higher ‘education’, in this case at University of Queensland and Griffith University. It has something to do with too many large grants and idle hands,

Javert Chip

Apology accepted. Us Yanks would gladly trade our president for all your goof-balls. We’ll even throw in ALL our presidential candidates.
But seriously, you’re producing some world-class sheep shearers – you just ned to point ’em at Ovis aries, not taxpayers.

David Cage

Am I incorrect in remembering the this was supposed to be in a hundred months from the last prediction which is up in six months or so. Surely if this is true instead of listening to climate scientists we should be charging them with criminally overselling the quality of the product instead of listening to the next wild prediction.
Watching the film “shattered glass” should be compulsory for anyone before assessing climate science and then seeing how the way data has been adjusted follows such a similar progression from tweaking for effect to near total fiction. It is interesting how in the interview with the real life character who is the basis of the story he uses any words but lie or deceit to describe his actions.


why is calamity always 15 years or more down the road? I want it NOW. Ten years ago Al Gore promised doom and death from climate change….very disappointed. I don’t have that many years left, I think I will never get to see the dire results predicted for climate change.
Still there is something for not having climate change, NYC looked much nicer covered in a half mile thick glacier.