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. 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 And yet this outdated scenario remains the go-to for media catastrophism.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 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: that cities like Miami and Osaka will be underwater. The implication is one of a biblical deluge, yet actual tide 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 claims 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’ 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. Carbon dioxide, 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 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 NYT at its most hyperbolic: throwing rhetorical grenades instead of engaging with facts. 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 NYT story is built on a fact-free “House of Cards,” emblematic of the mainstream media 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 NYT print’s 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.

Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute. Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts. He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues. He operates the most viewed website in the world on climate, the award-winning website wattsupwiththat.com.
Originally posted at ClimateREALISM
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

The NYT, a.k.a. “The Daily Duranty”, is always wrong but never in doubt.
Yes right up there with the global invasion of rats.
“Climate Change Could Become a Global Economic Disaster”
Shall we add in the obligatory may, if, might, possibly, likely, unless etc etc?
This is not what the press in the UK is saying. They seem to believe that President Trump is the real threat to the global economy.
“…trade tariffs, which President-elect Donald Trump has threatened to introduce on imports to the US, could have worldwide economic consequences.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce9n0l2p7meo
Trump’s trade war threatens a global recession
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2025/04/06/trumps-trade-war-threatens-a-global-recession
The Guardian (USA) Trump is willing to wreck the world economy. The global fightback must start now
How should we describe Trump? As a tornado, a typhoon or hurricane?
Like Brian, he’s just a “very naughty boy”.
The Left always has to have a demon they can fight against. Trump is their current Demon.
Anything that threatens their Socialist Paradise gets this treatment. Witness the way the Left demonizes Musk and GOGE.
Describe him as anything except President-elect.
That is not the problem, whether it is true or not. The reality is that climate change is real and has always occurred but it is NOT man-made, nor can be changed by him. We adapt to what we have as we always have done.
Most of us have at least 100 things to worry about more important than a trivial warming. Apparently, the climatistas don’t have any real things to worry about.
No, its their source of income and/or wealth.
The saddest part is that 99 percent of the American public has no clue about that. This explains the continued use of word games of omission and distortion.
It’s calculated.
And it isn’t an existential threat.
O/T… Global greening?
I thought broccoli was “little trees”
I saw a whole forest of them way, way back in ’68. 🙂 (all different colors too)
Steamed broccoli with a sprinkle of Tabasco sauce on it – mmmm.
All the Fe I need to keep my levels up.
Thanks AW – I’m always happy to read your take-downs of NYT stuff.
I would change just one word.
“Carbon dioxide, the supposed villain in this narrative, is actually a plant nutrient.” The term “nutrient” is confusing. NPK fertilizer contains three essential nutrients for plants: nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K). The numbers on the package indicate the percentage of each nutrient.
Most gardeners will add a purchased product to the soil around tomatoes, corn, squash, and so on, even though their plants will grow without doing so. Producers using enclosed (greenhouses) spaces will add Carbon Dioxide because their plants will not grow without doing so.
Gardeners would not know how to add the demon-witch molecule to their crops. It is the atmosphere that provides (singular) plant food.
C Hopkns CaFe Mn-aged B-y Mn CuZn MoCl – this the mnemonic soil and crop scientists learn as the list of 16 essential plant nutrients. Most come through the growth medium (soil or hydroponics), but others are atmospheric. Molecular carbon is definitely an essential MAJOR plant nutrient. Do not suggest otherwise.
Producers using enclosed (greenhouses) spaces will add Carbon Dioxide because their plants will not grow without doing so.
Not quite correct. They will grow without the addition, but the flourish with it.
“Dictionary
nu·tri·ent /ˈno͞otrēənt/ noun
plural noun: nutrients
a substance that provides nourishment essential for growth and the maintenance of life.
Seems that AW used language correctly. I think the quote is about a world in which he wrote “fertilizer”. Your quote uses “NPK fertilizer” as the subject.
“Dictionary
fer·ti·liz·er /ˈfərdəˌlīzər/ noun
a chemical or natural substance added to soil or land to increase its fertility.”
O/T. Another game of ‘guess the cargo’ and possible story tip?
https://maritime-executive.com/article/major-ev-fire-breaks-out-aboard-ro-ro-at-zeebrugge
Little if any coverage from mainstream press.
Quick! Everyone go out and buy a used EV!
And marshmellows…..
They’re throwing in asbestos suits I hear.
“by century’s end”
The biggest threat to the global economy is climate hysteria.
Has anyone read “The Gray Lady Winked” about NYT over the years?
nope- tell us about it
https://www.amazon.com/Gray-Lady-Winked-Misreporting-Fabrications/dp/1736703307
“With thousands of reporters covering events from all corners of the globe”
Not any more, I think.
It used to be that the NYT was good for lining bird cages. But now that it has mostly digital subscribers, not even good for that.
You forgot paper for the fireplace
Not after it’s been in the bird cage.
Your fireplace would have a smell that would outlast religion.
“Climate Change Could Become a Global Economic Disaster”
News flash!
The solutions to “Climate Change” already are an economic disaster wherever they’ve been applied.
Carbon dioxide, …, is actually a plant nutrient.
I like plant nutrient much more than plant food and especially much more than plant fertilizer.
Moreover, models are routinely adjusted retroactively,
This is also known as curve fitting. Turning the “control knobs” in a model negates any possibility the model can actually project with any kind of realistic accuracy.
with no sign of the runaway feedback loops media outlets breathlessly parrot
“Tipping points” with “positive feedbacks” is simply repackaging the “runaway greenhouse effect” used in the past. Same worthless product with a new shiny packaging.
“capitalism as we know it ceases to be viable.” That’s not science—it’s propaganda.
Actually, that is the plan and has been publicly state by multiple UN and IPCC officials, WEF, WMO, and WHO included.
This piece isn’t journalism—it’s advocacy
I would not give them even that credit. The NYT, like all other digital media, has become a profit center for some larger corporation. This kind of sensationalism is designed specifically to get ad click revenues and takes advantage of decreasing attention spans, failing critical thinking skills of the general public and “scan and scroll” as defined by a writer for the Lansing State Journal some 10 years ago.
I always love reading your analysis and comment, Anthony. Please continue. The world needs more of this.
Who photoshopped the NYT image, the janitor’s toddler?
I got as far as “Climate change could…..”
That’s when I stop. We also COULD become food for ETs. Hey, it COULD happen. 🙂
No tropospheric Hot Spots.
2021 UN IPCC Sixth Assessment Report WGI Chapter 12, Table 12.12 no increases in extreme weather events.
Yes, that’s the bottom line: No increases in extreme weather events reported by anyone including the IPCC.
And with respect to the fear of rising temperatures, the truth is it is no warmer today than it was in the recent past, even though there is more CO2 in the air than there was in the recent past.
The warmth of the 1930’s was extreme at certain times, but the 1930’s got no warmer than it is today and then in later decades, the temperatures cooled by about 2.0C, to the point that some climate scientists were raising alarms about the possibility of the Earth entering a new Ice Age in the late 1970’s.
So if you want to make weather predictions, you would be better off predicting coming cooling rather than the current narrative of continuous warming into the future.
The actual evidence shows we have a cyclical climate where the temperatures warm for a few decades and then they cool for a few decades, with about a 2.0C separation between the warmest and coolest temperatures. and this pattern has repeated since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850.
The current temperature is lower than it was in the high points of 2016, and 1998, and 1934.
Follow the money to NYT owners. History seems have to ignored the people who took money in Hollywood for promoting cigarette smoking in movies and TV series at the expense of actors’ lives. But it’s not too late to try to track similar pay to play moves today with 100x the cost to society.
This ad masked as Potemkin Village news was brought to you by…….the highest bidder.
Very nice Anthony, the New York Times is a disgrace. It makes the old National Enquirer look like a reputable and factual publication. Once again these bottom feeders are moving the goal posts. They are barely bothering with 2C, they are jumping right to 3C. Since 1.5C didn’t finish us off they don’t consider that they may be wrong, they simply adjust the goalposts. CAGW clowns are disgraceful.
It seems to me that these warnings about all the negative effects of climate change on, among other things, the global economy began in the 1960s. So shouldn’t it have collapsed by now, or was it waiting for Trump’s tariffs?.