wild fire by Zach Dischner used under a creative commons CC BY 2.0 license.
My guess would be that the "proponents of CAGW" are supposed to be scientists and people that tend to believe climatologists over climate "skeptics". So what does the scientific literature say about catastrophic climate change? In the Web of Science, you can find one article for the term "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change". For comparison there are "approximately 75,755" articles on "Climate Change".
This article is "the evolution of an energy contrarian", an autobiographical essay by a gas company manager and researcher Henry R. Linden. It does not make the impression that it was reviewed.
Abstract: An analysis of the forces that have shaped energy and energy-related environmental policies is presented through the eyes of an active participant in their evolution over the past 53 years. ... Today, proponents of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, again claiming scientific consensus, threaten to create even greater energy market distortions at large social and economic costs. The author traces his conversion to energy contrarian to the general failure of consensus and to his own misjudgments in these critical policy areas.(my emphasis)
Furthermore, there is one article for the term "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming", while there are "approximately 17,866" articles on "global warming". This article is another single-author paper and written by Alan Carlin (Wikipedia | his blog) for the Special Issue on Advances in Environmental Economics with guest editor Alan Carlin(!). This journal publishes very fast: one article of the special issue was published in 1 month, while Carlin's article took the longest, but it was still published within 3 months.
Abstract: Economic analyses of environmental mitigation and other interdisciplinary public policy issues can be much more useful if they critically examine what other disciplines have to say, insist on using the most relevant observational data and the scientific method, and examine lower cost alternatives to the change proposed. ...(my emphasis)
The economic benefits of reducing CO(2) emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate sensitivity factor (CSF) is much lower than assumed by the United Nations because feedback is negative rather than positive and the effects of CO(2) emissions reductions on atmospheric CO(2) appear to be short rather than long lasting. ...
The risk of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming appears to be so low that it is not currently worth doing anything to try to control it, including geoengineering.
You got to love it when an economist from the RAND company knows better what the climate sensitivity is as climatologists ("United Nations"). The irony is that this paper, which is a peer-review catastrophe, explains at length why citing non-reviewed works is fine and the peer reviewed literature on the climate sensitivity needs to be ignored.
This "paper" should never have been published in the scientific literature. Fortunately, it is well hidden in a journal on public health were no climatologist or economist will find it. In this way, the peer-review system did do its filtering job.
A beautiful memeWith this post I just wanted to show that the Theory of Catastrophic Global Warming only exists in the minds of climate ostriches and is not present in the scientific literature. The two papers that look like exceptions are from climate ostriches and ended up in the literature by mistake and again accuse others of holding such a theory (as on the "skeptic" blogs).
In contrast to the scientific literature, these two catastrophic terms (and their abbreviations) are mentioned in over 8000 pages on WUWT.
This probably shows where the "skeptics" get their science information from: blogs and main stream media. Both have a history of turning almost every story into an unprecedented breakthrough or a major catastrophe to attract more readers, but are not the best sources for factual information on climate.
I understand that CAGW is a beautiful meme for the climate ostriches. You can use it to accuse others of doom saying. Who would like to be part of that? And you can make petitions "against the theory of CAGW", which everyone can sign as we have no idea whether the situation will become catastrophic. And the "skeptic" will shout: look how many people signed my petition against climate science.
In my view the main catastrophic climate is the discussion climate at "skeptic" blogs. I would be nice to see this catastrophic anthropogenic climate change.
UPDATE: An interesting thought by Sean at Climate, People & Organizations.
Catastrophe means a "reversal of what is expected". Thus climate change will only result in catastrophes in the eyes of climate ostriches. The rest already knows something will happen.
More posts on climate skeptics
ReferencesCarlin, A. A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 8, pp. 985-1031, doi:10.3390/ijerph8040985, 2011.
Linden, Henry R. The evolution of an energy contrarian. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 21, pp. 31-67, doi: 10.1146/annurev.energy.21.1.31, 1996.