Professor Guy McPherson believes catastrophic climate change may be irreversible. His advice is surprisingly useful even if he's wrong.
Professor Guy McPherson believes we're running out of time. Not metaphorically.
McPherson, professor emeritus at the University of Arizona, argues that human-caused climate change has pushed Earth into an abrupt and irreversible period of change that could ultimately lead to near-term human extinction.
That's an extraordinary claim. When someone makes an extraordinary claim, my instinct is to start asking questions.
What evidence supports it?
What assumptions does the conclusion depend upon?
How reliable are the models?
What have previous predictions gotten right?
What have they gotten wrong?
Most importantly: What would we do differently if the claim were true?
That's where my conversation with McPherson went somewhere I wasn't expecting. Even if he's wrong about the end of the world, he may be right about what we should do while we're here.
Is the World Actually Ending?
McPherson's position is more extreme than the climate discussion most encounter. He doesn't merely argue that climate change is serious; He believes we're already in an irreversible situation.
“Unless there's something I just don't know about,” he told me, “I don't see a way out of this mess.”
Notice the qualification. Unless there's something I don't know about. We spent a considerable portion of our conversation trying to understand the mechanisms behind his conclusion: greenhouse gases, aerosols, water vapor, clouds, Arctic ice, ocean heat and feedback effects.
The deeper we went, the more variables appeared. While discussing atmospheric aerosols, I asked where those particles were located in the atmosphere. McPherson answered:
“I don't know the answer to that question.”
He wasn't pretending to know something he didn't. That's good science. It illustrates predictions involving complex systems. There are things we know, things we think we understand, and predictions generated from models. Those aren't the same thing.
A Prediction Is Not an Observation
When we discussed Arctic sea ice, McPherson cited atmospheric scientist James Anderson, who was quoted in 2018 predicting that the chance of permanent Arctic ice remaining after 2022 was essentially zero. When McPherson and I spoke, Arctic ice still remained. McPherson called that good news.
Later, he returned to the failed prediction, saying, “I've been wrong before.” He explained that he had repeated predictions from Anderson and researcher Jennifer MacKinnon and, in doing so, predicted consequences that had not occurred.
“We still have ice in the Arctic.”
That doesn't establish that climate change isn't occurring, or that McPherson's larger concerns are wrong. It establishes something narrower and important: Predictions can be wrong, even when they're made by knowledgeable people using scientific evidence.
When we communicate predictions, we shouldn't go to the opposite position either. Saying, “Someone predicted X by 2022 and X didn't happen” does mean, therefore, climate change is a hoax. Similarly, evidence of warming doesn't establish, therefore, this prediction of human extinction is correct.
What Problem Are We Trying to Solve?
I like solutions. I kept asking McPherson what we could do. My ideas included questions about:
Solar?
Wind?
Reducing fossil fuels?
Reflecting sunlight?
Preserving trees?
Changing consumption?
McPherson had issues with nearly every proposed solution. One proposal discussed which he did seem to give potential to, involves increasing Earth's reflectivity. He said earlier calculations suggested an area of mirrors roughly the size of the Netherlands might be sufficient, while a more recent estimate suggested something closer to the size of the United States.
That solution introduces potential new problems, such as material requirements, scale, unknown environmental consequences and political feasibility.
He also described something counterintuitive. Industrial activity produces greenhouse gases; it also produces aerosols that reflect some incoming sunlight. McPherson argues that rapidly eliminating industrial activity could, therefore, remove some of that reflective effect and cause additional short-term warming.
He told me this discovery changed his thinking, after he had spent years living off-grid because he believed reducing industrial consumption was part of the solution. Whether his conclusions about the magnitude and consequences of that effect are correct is a question. There's a broader lesson that applies beyond climate change:
Solutions can change other variables in the system.
That's why, this reduces CO₂ type solutions, are not the end of the problem-solution analysis.
What resources does a solution require?
What does manufacturing it require?
What does it replace?
What secondary effects does it create?
How will people respond to it?
What happens at scale?
McPherson brought up the Jevons paradox: improvements in efficiency can be followed by increased consumption, rather than the expected reduction. The solution becomes part of the system.
Then McPherson Changed the Problem
Suppose McPherson is right - there isn't a technological or political solution capable of preventing the outcome he expects. Then what?
His answer was essentially, now we have a different problem to solve.
“If there is no way out,” he said, “then it's a legitimate question, how shall we act?”
The problem changes from: How do we prevent the end?
to: How should we live if we can't?
McPherson has been influenced by Stoicism, particularly the difference between what we can and cannot control. There are things he can influence. Those are where he wants to put his effort. For the things beyond his control, he tries to let them go. That's where a conversation about catastrophic climate change became a conversation about something much more ordinary.
How should we treat one another?
Treat Everyone Like Your Dying Grandmother
McPherson gave me an analogy that stayed with me. Imagine your elderly grandmother is dying. How would you treat her? You probably wouldn't waste your remaining time lying to her. You'd treat her with respect. You'd let her know she matters. You'd do things for her.
McPherson's suggestion was simple: Treat everybody that way.
I pointed out what seemed obvious: Shouldn't we do that anyway?
Yes, of course.
What If He's Wrong?
I asked McPherson directly, “What if we're wrong?” Climate is extraordinarily complex. Models are models. Predictions have uncertainty.
Suppose the catastrophe doesn't happen. What happens if we've spent the intervening years being kinder to one another and improving our communities?
His answer was essentially, what's the harm?
That may be the most useful question in the entire conversation. We often evaluate decisions by asking: What happens if this prediction is correct?
We should also ask: What happens if it's wrong?
Consider McPherson's prescription.
Tell the truth.
Treat people with respect.
Help people around you.
Improve your community.
Stop assuming you personally carry responsibility for fixing every global problem.
Spend more attention on things you can actually influence.
None of these require near-term human extinction. McPherson specifically warned against people beating themselves up because they feel personally responsible for the world's problems: “You're just not that important.”
It's funny. There's something liberating about it. You can care about climate change, without believing that the weight of the planet rests on whether you drove your car today.
Start in Your Own Backyard
Surely there must be something we can do.
This time McPherson's answer wasn't about atmospheric chemistry. It was about scale.
Start with yourself.
Then your community.
Then scale upward.
“If you're adamant about making the world a better place,” he said, “start in your own backyard.”
That doesn't mean national or international policy doesn't matter. It means there's a difference between problems that matter and problems you personally have meaningful control over.
We frequently confuse the two. Something can be important and not be something you can solve today. Meanwhile, there may be a person sitting ten feet away whose life you can improve.
Act as If Your Time Is Short
McPherson admitted that scientists whose work he trusted have been wrong before. None of us knows how much time we have left.
Moments?
Days?
Years?
McPhersons' conclusion: "Act as if your time is short.” He added, that often means treating other people kindly. You don't have to believe the world is ending to know that your world eventually will.
Mine will too. That's not a climate model. That's the one prediction which I can be reasonably confident in.
The practical question isn't: When will the world end?
It's: If I understood that my time here is limited, what would I do differently today?
Would you still have that argument?
Would you still be angry at a stranger?
Would you spend another year postponing something that matters to you?
Would you call someone?
Would you apologize?
Would you help someone who needs it?
Would you spend quite as much time worrying about things you cannot control?
Those are questions we don't need a climate model to answer.
Professor Guy McPherson may be right about where the climate is headed. He may be wrong. The future will provide the evidence.
We don't have to wait for it.
If he's wrong, being kinder to each other was still a pretty good idea.
If he's right, we probably shouldn't waste the time we have left.
What Can I Do Differently?
Climate change is a subject where disagreement often becomes judgment about the person. If you believe human activity is causing climate change, someone who questions that may appear to be ignorant or unwilling to accept science. If you don't believe in climate change, or question the severity, models or proposed solutions, someone who does believe can seem gullible, alarmist or politically motivated.
Regardless of what you believe, we can choose how we treat people, including those we disagree with.
- Don't insult people. Calling someone stupid, a denier, or an alarmist won't change their mind.
- Don't lose your cool. If you're getting angry, slow down and pause.
- Listen. Give the other person room to say what they think.
- Assume they have good intentions. Someone can care about the planet and the environment, and still reach a different conclusion.
- Know when to let it go.
Not every disagreement needs to be resolved. End a conversation before disagreement turns into anger. “We see this differently” is enough.
I have a page called, How to Talk About This: A User Manual for Discussing Complex Ideas With Other Humans. One suggestions is called the “Emergency Exit” —a way to end a difficult conversations.
Say to the person:
“This topic matters to both of us, which is why it seems difficult to discuss. We don’t have to agree, for this to have been a worthwhile conversation. I think this is a good place to stop.”
Preserving a relationship is more important than getting in one last argument.
- The relationship matters. Winning an argument about climate change isn't worth destroying a friendship or making another person feel bad or small.
- Be kind. This was McPherson's advice. Treat people with respect, and as though they matter.
We will never all agree about climate change (or anything for that matter).
That's okay.
We can disagree about what's causing something, how serious it is, what will happen next and what we should do about it, and still sit across from each other, talk, listen, laugh and treat one another decently.
We can control that.
Whatever happens to the climate, we don't have to make the world worse by being terrible to each other while we argue about it.
Listen or Watch
Apple Podcasts • YouTube • Spotify
Learn More About Professor Guy McPherson
Guy R. McPherson
Website: https://guymcpherson.com
Editor's Note
This article is based on my podcast conversation with Professor Guy McPherson. The ideas discussed here originated in that conversation, while the structure, emphasis, and commentary are my own. Any errors or interpretations are mine, not Professor Guy McPherson's.
Related Articles
How to Talk About This:
A user manual for discussing complex ideas with other humans
What If We Solved Climate Change Without Reducing CO₂?
What are we trying to change?
How to See the Temperature Data for Yourself
How to Obtain and Plot Weather Temperature Data
More links can be found at:
Climate : Competing priorities, trade-offs, and long-term thinking.
About the Author
Daniel Stih (danielstih.com) is an aerospace engineer, software engineer, indoor environmental consultant, and author of 12 books. For more than 30 years, he has investigated complex problems spanning engineering, technology, the built environment, and human decision-making. His work explores how evidence, assumptions, and systems shape the conclusions we draw—and whether we're solving the right problem. Learn more about his approach in Why I Think This Way.