Al Gore branches out into population control theory

Not content to make a fool of himself confusing weather and climate, Al has now decided to lecture empower women on how to reduce the population for the benefit of the planet. Watch the video below, now we know why he doesn’t allow recordings of his lectures. Darn those Flip Video Cameras.

Al Gore How Empowering Women Fights Climate Change

And here is his wisdom of weather and climate

Al Gore Talks Extreme Weather, Climate

Recorded June 20th by Brian Merchant, hat tip to Chris Horner.

UPDATE: Tom Nelson on his blog points out the bottled water next to Gore.

Flashback: Pour the bottled-water trend down the drain

it’s time for those of us who care about the environment and are concerned about global warming to stop buying and drinking bottled water.

2007: Bottled Water Ban Not Enough
Following the radically liberal traditions of San Francisco, Mayor Gavin Newsom banned municipal departments from purchasing bottled water, even for water coolers.

About these ads

197 thoughts on “Al Gore branches out into population control theory

  1. See:
    The War Against Girls

    Since the late 1970s, 163 million female babies have been aborted by parents seeking sons . . .”Sex selection typically starts with the urban, well-educated stratum of society,” she writes. “Elites are the first to gain access to a new technology, whether MRI scanners, smart phones—or ultrasound machines.” The behavior of elites then filters down until it becomes part of the broader culture.
    High sex ratios mean that a society is going to have “surplus men”—that is, men with no hope of marrying because there are not enough women. Such men accumulate in the lower classes, where risks of violence are already elevated. And unmarried men with limited incomes tend to make trouble. In Chinese provinces where the sex ratio has spiked, a crime wave has followed. Today in India, the best predictor of violence and crime for any given area is not income but sex ratio.. . . .
    It becomes harder to secure a bride, and men can find themselves buying or bidding for them. This, Ms. Hvistendahl notes, contributes to China’s astronomical household savings rate; parents know they must save up in order to secure brides for their sons. . . . .
    the Ford Foundation, the United Nations and Planned Parenthood, showing how they pushed sex-selective abortion as a means of controlling population growth. . . .
    another Planned Parenthood official celebrated China’s coercive methods of family planning, noting that “persuasion and motivation [are] very effective in a society in which social sanctions can be applied against those who fail to cooperate in the construction of the socialist state.” . . .
    Ms. Hvistendahl identifies a ban on abortion—and not the killing of tens of millions of unborn girls—

    Al Gore continues this bloody legacy.

  2. I for one am extremely disappointed- isn’t it usual to have singing and tap dancing in a show like this?

  3. Shocking. Well just like the fact he lives in a mansion and flies around on private jets yet talks about reducing fuel consumption – he has 4 children.

  4. In an Armageddon scenario it is a certainty that his armed guards would turn on him and his family. As it is, I am quite sure that he is surrounded by people who hold him in complete contempt, and I hope that he has to pay for their services.

    Such thoughts let me sleep at night.

  5. Not surprised. AGW solutions are linked with eugenics. Always have been. Always will be. That’s why the proponents are so dangerous.

  6. The best way to control population is to decrease poverty, provide abundant, affordable electricity and enhance education. It works like a charm everywhere it has been tried…perhaps too well. Developed countries have had to import the poor from third world countries for labor because their own fecundity has been reduced.

    The nonsense about weather events is just that…nonsense. “We” can’t do a damn thing about the weather.

  7. Poor people aren’t idiots. They have more kids because it increases their chance of producing successful offspring.

    Rich people aren’t idiots, either. They have fewer kids – because it increases their chances of producing successful offspring.

    The difference is that there are more risks involved in a poor person’s life. Reduce those risks (by making them richer, by increasing their access to energy, water, health care, etc) and they will have fewer kids. Increase those risks by making energy more expensive only increases their biological need to produce more kids.

    Increasing their capability to do something that isn’t in their best interest will achieve absolutely nothing.

  8. Not sure what your beef is with his comments about education and empowerment for girls and women. There is a correlation between womens education and child rates. Do you feel it is wrong for women to be empowered or girls to have education?

  9. He is joining Bill Gates with this population reduction ideas, except that Gates wants to do it with vaccines.

  10. Here is an idea bout what to do against floods… don’t built houses in flood basins. The developers are at the source of the problem.

  11. Seems we have been told that a warmer world would lead to increased likelihood of major floods and draughts and we are now experiencing more of these in a warmer world. Climate effects weather events.

  12. Zowie. So we should educate women and try and prevent childhood deaths because we need to reduce CO2 emissions, not because those are intrinsically good goals. So if we’re entering a Maunder minimum and need to further increase CO2 to compensate, will Gore recommend eliminating women’s education and killing children by the millions so parents will pump up the output of new babies?

  13. Harold Lewis, emeritus professor of physics at the University of California-Santa Barbara, who resigned this month from the American Physical Society after 67 years of loyal membership. His resignation letter said this:
    “It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.” http://bit.ly/h2XnZ8

    “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal

    “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland

    “I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” – Dr. Gn LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO.

    Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in history . . .When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, and award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

    “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds. . . I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian Geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

    “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA

    “After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

    “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way around. . . A large number of critical documents at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.” Andrei Kapista, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher

    “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” – Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

  14. What the heck has happened to the Berkeley Earth Temp Project?????

    http://www.berkeleyearth.org/index

    This was supposed to have been resolved a long long time ago ? Was it not April, then delayed to May, were in June now, still no answer. My guess is that they have found that the data cannot be released because it does not show ANY warming since 1880.

  15. alGore has become a cleric. His version of religion fits his regime.
    How was the sex poodle with givving his meseeuse intelligent choice?

  16. I am sorry, but this is just far too easy.

    I’ll just wait to comment on an article that poses at least a small intellectual challenge.

  17. We all know the real aim is to reduce human population. So show us the way Al baby, make yourself a good example of what “responsible people ” should do. It would be a better legacy than you have now.

  18. sceptical says:
    June 21, 2011 at 3:14 pm
    Seems we have been told that a warmer world would lead to increased likelihood of major floods and draughts

    Yeah, the draughts help cool us down again.

    Did you hear the one about the guy carrying the cardoor through the desert?

    He said it was so he could wind the window down when he got hot…

  19. “Dr. Dave says:
    June 21, 2011 at 2:51 pm

    The best way to control population is to decrease poverty, provide abundant, affordable electricity and enhance education. It works like a charm everywhere it has been tried…”

    I agree,
    but having a well educated population would not be in the self serving interest of Al Gore and the rest of these popularized modern megalomaniacs because very fue educated people would believe a word they uttered.

    There are too many political figures, royalty etc.. on the world stage who are qualified in anthropology who love nothing more than to push their misanthropic Ideological beliefs on the uneducated, trusting and gullible public.

    Last week I read about plans to reduce world population through vaccines, How does that work? are they actually calling the sterilization of millions of woman and children “a vaccine”? does this mean these nut jobs see babies as a disease or some kind of virus??

    People should be allowed to control their own destiny and have the same freedoms and opportunities that has allowed this modern band or merry grim reapers to become wealthy and look down on the rest of mankind with utter contempt and disgust.

  20. sceptical says: “Seems we have been told that a warmer world would lead to increased likelihood of major floods and draughts…”

    Show me one warmist prediction of increased flooding prior to 2005.

  21. The ‘filter bubble’ is a sinister phenomenon. But Eli Pariser’s alternative sounds even worse.
    That’s the title of an article I found today at the telegraph

    In his new book, it is this world that Eli Pariser names the “filter bubble” – a place where a hidden code decides what you can and can’t see..

    …and aimed directly at Facebook and Google for filtering our search:

    to make sure that these algorithms have encoded in them a sense of the public life. A sense of civic responsibility. We need you to make sure that they’re transparent enough that we can see what the rules are that determine what gets through our filters. And we need you to give us some control so that we can decide what gets through and what doesn’t.

    I imagine that without a choice to control what information we receive, I doubt we will find videos of this nature.
    If Google, Facebook and Al Gore had their way.. they would spoon feed us all the alarmist crap known to man, and hide anything to the contrary.

  22. What Gore means by “empower women” is propagandize them into drinking the Kool-Aid.

  23. To empower educated, successful Western women how to commit demographic suicide.

    THAAAAATS the ticket!

    Speaking of bat s____ crazy freaks getting attention in the MSM, there have been an unusually high number of warmista pressos going out of late.

    Meanwhile not a mention of the fall like cold front digging into the center of the country right now. Or of the fact that leaves are already starting to turn in Norcal. Sure we’re having a couple of summer like (well, really, spring like or fall like) days with an offshore. But it will be back to cold by the end of the week. Actually, that’s very fall like.

  24. I’d be thinking about now that Generation Investment Management now has stock in Planned Parenthood…

    Why should we be surprised? Every single thing Gore has advocated the general public to do, he’s done the opposite. He’s the quintessential hypocrite tent preacher/snake oil salesman.

  25. sceptical says:
    June 21, 2011 at 3:14 pm
    Seems we have been told that a warmer world would lead to increased likelihood of major floods and draughts and we are now experiencing more of these in a warmer world. Climate effects weather events.

    Show me your evidence that “we are now experiencing more of these in a warmer world. “? I assume you agree that we have had 30 odd years of global warming.

    FLOODS
    “Analysis of trends and of aggregated time series on climatic (30-year) scale does not indicate consistent trends worldwide. Despite common perception, in general, the detected trends are more negative (less intense floods in most recent years) than positive. Similarly, Svensson et al. (2005) and Di Baldassarre et al. (2010) did not find systematical change neither in flood increasing or decreasing numbers nor change in flood magnitudes in their analysis.”
    [2011]

    http://itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1128/

    STORM DAYS
    “However, the global total number of storm days shows no trend and only an unexpected large amplitude fluctuation driven by El Niño-Southern Oscillation and PDO. The rising temperature of about 0.5°C in the tropics so far has not yet affected the global tropical storm days. ”
    [2010]

    http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2010/2010GL042487.shtml

    As for droughts try the biosphere has been greening. Maybe this is droughtflood parchedgreen. ;>)

    http://modis.cn/pubs/PERS_2007_Liang.pdf

  26. Sceptical, read……..

    “Fluctuations in some climate parameters”
    “Here we report results on those parameters of which we have had experience during the last few years: Global surface temperature, Cloud Cover and the MODIS Liquid Cloud Fraction. In no case we have found indications that fluctuations of these parameters have increased with time.”

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2011.01.021

    I assume you agree that we have had around 30 years of global warming. The hottest decade on the record.

  27. The coded words of the eugenics masters, most people are not even smart enough to understand it or the concept. Kinda funny(not really) how open they have become with the concepts of reducing the population of useless eaters(us) and nobody stands up to them and asked the hard question about it.

  28. He had no choice but to branch out. AGW was not sustainable.
    He’s not the first one to exand the horizons. Stephan Schneider was all sold on the Next Ice Age before AGW came along.
    Ride the wave.

  29. Henry chance says:
    June 21, 2011 at 3:27 pm
    alGore has become a cleric.

    He thinks he is a messiah.

  30. It took him a minute to say “have less children.” That’s something he should have no say in.

  31. Now that Al is worried about excessive population, I wonder if he would reconsider building the fence along the Mexican border. After all, the USA has done its (Liberal? Modern?) duty and reduced its birthrate to below replacement. That happened more than forty years ago. Except for emigration, the population of the US would be roughly where it was in 1970.

  32. Not content to make a fool of himself confusing weather and climate…….

    Nice one Anthony… But are you not the guy who all winter long posts articles about snow storms and cold spells… In a single city??? Are you sure your qualified to make that statement?

  33. What would Al Gore say if everyone had 4 kids like him? The Duke of Edinburgh goes on and on about overpopulation yet ignores the fact that he also has 4 kids who consume the world’s resources like there’s no tomorrow. Take Prince Charles who is very concerned about global warming. Now see how he lives with less: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riXrqyGrnCc

  34. Sssshhhh! Don’t stop him! Think about it: the more people are exposed to Gramscian indoctrination (ie college) the less they reproduce.

    We should encourage this self-selection. We should be happy to see the Gaian secular aristocrats reproducing less. This will leave the rational and civilized people (ie serious Christians and Muslims) reproducing more.

  35. The reason why these hypocrites want fewer people in the world is so that there will be more resources for them. Look at how Gore and the other Watermelons live.

  36. Robb876,

    Anthony doesn’t confuse weather and climate. He comments on weather events because that is relevant to this site, as you can read on the mast head.

  37. sceptical says:
    June 21, 2011 at 3:14 pm

    You have it backwards. Climate doesn’t control anything. Climate is simply average weather. If there are lots of eg floods they will eventually show up in the climate as a change in rainfall (not necessarily at the place where the floods happen).

  38. algore is correct in that the way to limit the population of any species is to kill the females.
    It works for deer, bear, coyotes, and multiple other species.

  39. Earlier, the Millenium Bug Hoax …
    Then, the Global Warming Hoax …
    And now, Birth Control … What’s he up to now then? (Bilderberg?)
    Something more …?

    Isn’t fraud illegal anymore?

  40. Robb876 @ 4:53

    I’m sure you meant to say something intelligent and interesting. Please go to the top of the page and under Watts Up With That? (black on white) read what it says after the word Commentary (white on black). Then return and try again. Did you not know that folks like to talk about the weather? That is why hitching posts were invented. And saloons, water coolers, park benches, stop lights and stop signs, the telephone, the internet, blogs, and coffee, hot chocolate, . . .

  41. Not interested in Al Gore enough to watch the videos. These people have fallen so hard so fast.

  42. I find myself not entirely unsympathetic to Gore’s arguments. As Dr. Dave says, ” decrease poverty, provide abundant, affordable electricity and enhance education”. These are the drivers for population control. Not quite what Gore said, but something of the ilk.

    Gore has, I think, good anecdotal arguments for a changed climate. However, these are short term events–more weather than climate. But at least he has some arguments.

  43. Now we know why Dr. Al-Mengele is retreating from AGW into his bunker.

    …-

    “Hopes fading for climate agreement ”

    “Ask for a camel when you expect to get a goat,” runs a Somali saying that sums up the fading of ambitions for United Nations talks on slowing climate change — aim high, but settle for far less.

    Developing nations publicly insist the rich must agree far deeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, but increasingly believe that only a weaker deal can actually be achieved to keep the existing Kyoto Protocol, or parts of it, alive beyond 2012.

    “They have to ask for a camel … but will settle for a goat,” Mohamed Adow, of Christian Aid, said of poor nations’ strategy at a just-ended session of 180 nations in Bonn.

    Hopes for a treaty have dimmed since U.S. President Barack Obama and other world leaders failed to agree a binding pact at a summit in Copenhagen in 2009.

    Rich economies are reluctant to make substantial cuts in their emissions beyond 2012 without commitments from big developing economies like China and India to also curb their fast-rising emissions.

    At issue now is what can be salvaged from the talks.

    “This process is dead in the water,” said Yvo de Boer, the former head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat who stepped down last year to work at KPMG, a consultancy and auditing firm.

    “It’s not going anywhere,” he said during the June 6-17 talks in Bonn among negotiators trying to avert more heatwaves, floods, droughts and rising sea levels.”

    http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Environment/2011/06/19/18304261.html

  44. There is something wrong with most any woman that listens to Al “touch my chakra” Gore.
    But what is it with it women looking to be empowered, flocking to listen to an obvious manBearPig?

  45. In video 2 the goracle says most of Colombia has been under water for the last year. That just cant be true.

  46. I thought population in the ‘western world’ was already in decline.!? Who does he think should go first?

  47. When a free people want advice they will ask for it. I don’t recall there being a demand for Al Gore to give advice to anyone on family matters. Besides it is none of his business how many kids a family should want or have.

  48. So, this seminary dropout is proposing eugenics? VERY Christian. One of the interesting side stories to me about this whole environmental cause is that although many Christian groups are getting involved in the whole “save the Earth” campaign (rather than save your soul!- imagine that! Christianity without personal overhaul – VERY interesting!) – but the thing is that the Save the Earth ideology invariably involves population control, which invariably involves eugenics. Eugenics has a lot of great references as a practice, let’s see – Nazi Germany, Chinese Communism, Some really wackadoo groups in the USA, and any other group that has either tried to create a master race or to breed infirmity or inferiority out of the Human species. And AGW walks with this idea hand-in-hand. The more I read and research this topic, the more I see how dangerous it is on social and religious levels. I am not trying to proselytize here, but if you happen to be a Christian believer, eugenics is historically verboten! (That’s forbidden, for those who don’t know German) – and this whole save the earth campaign is a massively powerful and insidious attack against the Church. Try that on for size, if no one has thought about that….

  49. Al Gore’s extreme weather comments sound exactly like what people said of the Dust Bowl 1930’s and entering the LIA. Exception is they did not ignore the harsh winters and the ice & snow storms like Al Gore does.

  50. I did a quick calculation to see how much space the world’s population would take up if they all stood side-by-side. Take a population of 6 billion, multiply by 3sq ft (space for them to stand) divide by 43560 (# of sq ft in an acre) then divide by 640 (number of acres in a sq mile) and it would only take 646 sq miles to hold the earth’s population.

    Makes the over population argument seem a little silly.


  51. Bob the swiss says:
    June 21, 2011 at 2:29 pm

    I cant believe that this guy earn millions with such of ignorance !

    Agree with your sentiments 100% Disagree with the use of the word earn though. Maybe filches instead?

  52. In Western countries, girls and women have as much access to education as men. Admittedly, the quality of this education is often more than dubious — the very idea of “education” has been subverted by the wannabe bismarcks of Al Gore’s totalitarian persuasion — but boys and men are no less suffering from public education and tenured professors than girls and women. No discrimination there.

    Why, then, ex-vice-president Gore thinks women would need an extra help? Because he thinks women are stupid? His former boss, Bill Clinton, was of the same opinion. Almost got him impeached, if I recall correctly.

  53. katlab says:
    June 21, 2011 at 8:28 pm

    I did a quick calculation to see how much space the world’s population would take up if they all stood side-by-side. Take a population of 6 billion, multiply by 3sq ft (space for them to stand) divide by 43560 (# of sq ft in an acre) then divide by 640 (number of acres in a sq mile) and it would only take 646 sq miles to hold the earth’s population.

    Makes the over population argument seem a little silly.

    Unless you’re the one in the middle.

    Actually I find little exercises such as yours silly. Are you going to volunteer to live in a 500 sf apartment with 50 people? Didn’t think so.

  54. Looks like that woman just sitting there like a statue before him is in desperate need of some kind of “empowerment”, stat! Women in the U.S. are the majority, live longer, control who is born, and aren’t subject to the draft, not to mention that when it comes to possible crimes, the sky’s the limit! What more are we supposed to do?

  55. sceptical, no one around here disagrees with the simple platitudes involving “empowering and educating women”. So is Gore addressing the more radical Islamic Nations? [apologies, I'm having trouble copying and pasting with this computer, and with some other things.]

  56. Good ole’ Al “don’t do as I do, do as I say” Gore. If he didn’t exist you’d have to invent him…

  57. I cant believe that this guy earn millions with such of ignorance !
    —————-
    This man is a brilliant marketing specialist!

  58. Jeff Alberts:

    At June 21, 2011 at 9:48 pm you say to Katlab:

    “Actually I find little exercises such as yours silly. Are you going to volunteer to live in a 500 sf apartment with 50 people? Didn’t think so.”

    Actually, Katlab does have a point although he overstates it. So, let me state it in another form.

    If the entire human population of the world were all to move to the USA then the resulting population density in the USA would be less than the population density that now exists in Holland.

    The Dutch seem to quite like their way of life.

    Humans inhabit a small part of the less than 20% of the Earth’s surface which is not covered by water. Of course we affect the areas in which we live and we see those changes and effects wherever we are, but it is silly to think our trivial activities are ‘destroying the planet’. Such thinking is like a beaver thinking that beavers are flooding the planet because beavers see the affects of beaver dams wherever they are.

    A sense of proportion is needed in all such considerations. And Al Gore seems to have no sense of proportion.

    Richard

  59. It should be clear by now that to the insane CAGW maniacs like Al Gore (and Jim Hansen), “climate change” (and its scientific underpinnings) is just an excuse for demanding more control over our lives. If it weren’t climate change, it would be something else. Their aims are entirely political…

  60. I couldn’t bring myself to listen to the video clips. Gore is a self aggrandizing ingoramus. His mother should have taken his advice.

  61. @Richard S Courtney
    I am from Holland (although the country is known as the Netherlands but the part where i live has been named Holland for quite a while know, the word is btw derived from Houtland because it was once covered in dense forrests.)

    And yes there are also Beavers here, but they don’t have to build dams, there is enough deep water for them, They are moving out from an area called the Biesbosch where there are so many of them that you can talk about an overpopulation in that area, beavers have now been seen building burroughs near towns like Barendrecht and Dordrecht.

    So not only we Dutchies are happy, the beavers are happy campers to :)

    As for over population, especially in the west, just press the red button, no not that one, the one marked M.A.D.

  62. From over here in the UK what worries me is that I have grandchildren over there in the US, and you guys nearly elected this man. Most of his arguments seem to me to be without reasoned facts, poorly thought out, and quite immature, but having now seen these clips, the only description which I can think of is “Barking Mad” .

  63. I’m a CAGW skeptic, and yes, he appears to have botched climate, however I think there should be more discussion about population – I feel very uneasy about the continual push for growth and I can’t help wonder whether we should in fact be doing something to reduce population. So, I’m glad he is discussing this.

  64. Cold Englishman;
    Yes, but they DID eventually elect Obama. The English elected Cameron, and the Aussies have Gillard. WC’s wry description of democracy as the worst of all systems except for all the others which have been tried from time to time sure has some bite! Fortunately, Canada elected Harper, who isn’t having any of this AGW crap, notwithstanding a few temporizing comments and some photo ops with Suzuki (who, if Gore is “Barking”, is surely “Howling Mad”). I hope we serve as a beacon to draw the rest of you benighted and careless voters out of the darkness!

    :)

  65. On the theme of warmism-religion, there’s a nice opinion-piece in today’s National Post (Financial Post) in which author Peter Foster discusses how corporations have been co-opted by ENGOs, It’s titled “Milton’s Loophole”:

    In fact, a new “iron fist” has emerged in the intervening period to “curb the market.” It belongs not to bureaucrats but to radical environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs), who have achieved a stunning amount of boardroom influence. They have done this, paradoxically, by learning from Prof. Friedman, and in particular by exploiting what might be called “Milton’s loophole.”

    Prof. Friedman said that part of an executive’s role, beyond his primary task of serving shareholders, was to conform to “the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical customs.”

    What ENGOs learned was this: If you want to bring corporations to heel, work on those “ethical customs,” which is precisely what they have done by helping make the environment a “moral issue.”

    Foster likens ENGOs such as Greenpeace to the Mafia because of their ability to shake down corporations and make them toe the line on issues such as rejecting oil from Canada’s ‘environmentally destructive’ tar sands.

    http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/06/21/peter-foster-miltons-loophole/

  66. Sceptical,

    “Seems we have been told that a warmer world would lead to increased likelihood of major floods and draughts and we are now experiencing more of these in a warmer world. Climate effects weather events.”

    More floods than WHEN? More draughts ( misspelling intentionally left alone) than WHEN? Please correlate for us the history of climate on earth in any given era, then number of floods in that area, and the number of “draughts” and compare those numbers to atmospheric CO2 levels for each given era. You might learn something useful.

    Also did you know that La Nina is a phenomenon of Oceanic COOLING and that in La Nina years the weather patterns get shifted in such a way that certain areas receive an over-abundance of rainfall, while other areas are excessively dry, thus causing excessive flooding in some areas, and excessive droughts in other areas? Did you know, in fact, such phenomenon are much easier to associate with COOLING than they are with warming?

    It is very easy to educate yourself on such matters. Even though you have not done so yet, at least there is hope, since you came to the right place!

  67. Population naturally controls itself, there is no need to force controls on it. When handled correctly (as by a truly free market- and I do mean free market, not this crap that the confused masses call “capitalism”), increasing population leads to increased prosperity. In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s there were many calls by people such as John Holdren to control the population by whatever means necessary, or we would run out of food by the year 2000. Well, it is 2011, and we are nowhere near running out of food. Agricultural yields are at record levels. In fact, the greatest threat to agricultural yields would be a prolonged period of global COOLING.

    The “left” always desires control through force. It is how you recognize a bad idea when you see one. Resorting to methods of force (as opposed to finding non-violent solutions) is the hallmark of people who only want power and control for the sake of power and control. The use of force to control something which is beyond your control (such as weather or climate or population) is the hallmark of foolishness.

  68. Alas, Anthony, when you branch out into the arena of the culture wars, you make some questionable points yourself. Just what is so remarkable about Gore’s statements on women and population growth in the first video? It fits right in, BTW, with the views of libertarian types such as the late, great Julian Simon. Give women education, allow them more involvement with the choice of how many children they have, education of women raises living standards and is closely correlated with stabilizing of population, etc. etc. etc. Just what do you find ridiculous?

    And personally, contrary to one commenter, I don’t find brown shoes objectionable.

    Posts like this, and the comments that it elicits, are one good example of why AGW folks still get mileage out of the charge that critics of theirs are Yahoos.

  69. @GregS,

    “…I feel very uneasy about the continual push for growth and I can’t help wonder whether we should in fact be doing something to reduce population. So, I’m glad he is discussing this….”

    You really need to study up on population trends. Yes, global population continues to rise mainly due to increased life spans. But if you look at either stats from the CIA Factbook or the UN population studies, you will find that since 1970 global birh rates have dropped. Currently, birthrates are in free-fall. The world population is growing, but it is also getting older. The TFRs (Total Fertility Rate) in almost all G-20 nations are below replacement levels (2.1 live births per female); most are in the 1.2-1.5 range. In Japan, Russia, Italy, Greece, and Spain TFRs have been below 1.5 for decades. Japan is now losing population. China has had a one male child policy for 30 years. Its ratio of females to males is below 1.0 . That is, if trends continue China will be producing fewer and fewer children due to the simple fact that there are not enough women. China’s TFR is below 1.5 and it will soon have over 300 million eldery on its hands. Even in the more fecund Muslim North Africa, TFRs have dropped from over 4.5 births per female in the 1970s to below 2.1 . Ditto for Turkey and Iran. Indonesia, the most populace Muslim nation has a TFR beow 2.0 . The Americas are not much better. Birthrates have fallen in Canada, Mexico, and Central and South America. Only portions of Africa and East Asia have birth rates in the 4s or higher.

    If trends continue, the global population will peak out somewhere around 2040. It will begin to fall after 2050. And the fall will be swift. Many nations are set to see thier populations halved every generation (Japan, Russia, China, Italy, and Spain).

  70. I have been following the theories of the Radical Left for ~35 years or more. This IS the one common thread. The goal of reducing the surface population by 90% by sterilization (or worse) is an open secret. As of late the Left has gotten considerably bolder in their proclamations. In 2006 Dr. Eric R. Pianka, gave just such a lecture at Texas Academy of Science. http://www.freedom.org/board/articles/mims-506.html … Going as far as to Suggest that a weaponized form of Ebola would do the trick… Folks, it’s not news that the Left is nuts, but neither was Osama Bin Ladin, and nobody needs reminding of how dangerous he turned out to be. Don’t trust in the belief that the Left are simply harmless nuts.

  71. “Brian Hall says:
    June 22, 2011 at 4:42 am
    Cold Englishman;
    Yes, but they DID eventually elect Obama. The English elected Cameron, and the Aussies have Gillard. WC’s wry description of democracy as the worst of all systems except for all the others which have been tried from time to time sure has some bite! Fortunately, Canada elected Harper, who isn’t having any of this AGW crap, notwithstanding a few temporizing comments and some photo ops with Suzuki (who, if Gore is “Barking”, is surely “Howling Mad”). I hope we serve as a beacon to draw the rest of you benighted and careless voters out of the darkness!”

    I stand corrected! You’re right, most of the world’s leaders have become certifiable! Want proof? Read this and weep: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2011/0620/1224299223415.html
    Not only do we build our own stupid windmills, but we’re going to build them in Ireland too, all care of the UK taxpayer of course.

  72. Right. Empowering women will help stop all of those rapes happening in developing nations, particularly those nations which have endured all those years of civil war.

  73. GregS, re: your worry concerning doing something about Overpopulation, think about it: what-the-hell can we do about “overpopulation” in other areas of the World, except to show by example how the Constitution and Constitutional Capitalism is able to handle increasing populations via individual freedom and wealth creation? If we here in the U.S. focus on taking care of our own system and the integrity of our country, that’s certainly the first and probably the best overall thing we can do.

  74. Right, Lichanos, Gore just wants to “help” us, just like he did in being integral to the disasterous, except to people like him, CO2 = CAGW Climate Science Propaganda Operation. Snap out of it! please

  75. Richard S Courtney:
    June 22, 2011 at 1:21 am

    Your point makes sense, his/her comment made no point except to say all the people in the world could stand in a very small area. No mention of living conditions or anything else. It was very pointless.

  76. Lichanos says:
    June 22, 2011 at 6:45 am
    Just what is so remarkable about Gore’s statements on women and population growth in the first video?
    With Gore, you often have to look beyond WHAT he actually says to WHY he’s saying it. His goals, and those of his cohorts are far from being humanitarian. Like all snake oil salesmen, he’s just peddling a product.

  77. Man, that’s qute a visual they’re presenting. Chairman Gore in his deeper brown Mao suit uniform, otherwise with no difference between male and female whose water bottles are also so touchingly bonded….that it almost makes me want to cry out, “Together we thrive!”

  78. As I have said the great Greenie fear is healthy, happy and prosperous dark skinned children.
    Al has some issues in that area -look at Daddy..

  79. IT IS A REVOLUTIONARY THING TO TELL THE “TRUTH” WHEN ALL THAT IS BEING STATED ARE LIES! ALBERT “AL” GORE IS THE LEADER WHEN IT COMES TO LIES!

  80. Lichanos:

    What is ridiculous about Al Gore’s statement is:
    1. “empowering” women so that they have fewer children will NOT bring down CO2 emissions and (in Gore’s mind at least) prevent climate change. The Western Nations release the largest share of CO2 and our birthrates are now ALL below the replacement rate. Gore is urging lower birth rates for those producing the least CO2.

    2. “Empowering” women can only take place in an environment of surplus. Western women became “empowered” when there was a large enough surplus to allow for education and an improvement in technology that allowed “women’s work” to be done more efficiently so that they had the leisure to be “empowered”. CO2 levels will have to go up.

    3. Neo-Malthusians like Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren (they’ve been co-authoring papers for over thirty years) pay lip service to free, voluntary birth limitation and population control, but their writings make it perfectly clear that they consider the problem so urgent that they would not object to involuntary methods, if required. If that were done, then currently poor nations will STAY poor because they’re unable to reach a critical mass of non-subsistence laborers that allow them to engage in infrastructure projects that generate wealth and thus “empower” women.

    Are you starting to get a clue?

  81. Clearly female education is doing fairly well,…..his wife was smart enough to divorce him after all.

    I am just grateful that Pres. Clinton remained safe and alive through his terms. The thought of this twit being a heartbeat away from the most powerful job in the world is quite paralyzing. Let him eat cake, uh, streak, his life and his “message” are completely disconnected. Which one is real ?…. No, no, don’t tell me…..I have this one figured out.

  82. In point of fact, there is a much better correlation between per capita CO2 emissions and birth rates than there is between CO2 and temperature rise.

    Countries with the lowest birth rates have the highest per capita emissions of CO2. Countries with the highest birth rates have the lowest per capita emissions of CO2.

    So, if Gore wants to control population, he is going about it the exact wrong way be suggesting we reduce CO2.

    When people are wealthy they use lots of energy and have high CO2 emissions, but have relatively few children. When people are poor they use little energy and have low CO2 emissions, but have lots of children.

    By telling people to reduce CO2 Gore is in effect trying to force people into poverty which will increase the worlds population. As a failed divinity school student, perhaps this is what Al really wants? To keep the women of the world barefoot and pregnant. While he emits as much CO2 as much CO2 as thousands of the earth’s poor.

    Do as I say, not as I do.

  83. “There is a correlation between womens education and child rates. Do you feel it is wrong for women to be empowered or girls to have education?”

    Correlation is not causation. Women are better educated in rich countries. When you make people economically secure, they have less children, because they are more secure.

    Educating poor people to have less children will not work if you live in a country where the future is not secure. You would need to force them to have less children, as in China. Otherwise, education will simply show them the reasons for what they already know from observation of other people.

    That if you are poor the future is more secure if you have lots of children to take care of you as you age and less secure if you have no children to take care of you.

  84. In my opinion, men on both sides of the political spectrum are clueless about family planning and how to encourage good decisions. It’s like watching gold fish flop around after being dumped out of the bowl.

  85. @GregS,
    “…I feel very uneasy about the continual push for growth and I can’t help wonder whether we should in fact be doing something to reduce population. So, I’m glad he is discussing this….”

    The US among other countries has a huge debt. The interest on that debt is is increasing every year, requiring a greater and greater share of tax revenues simply to keep up with the interest.

    Quite simply, without growth the US and a number of other countries are quickly reaching the point where any significant increase in interest rates would required more than 100% of tax revenues simply to service the interest of the debt.

    Technically, the US at its current rate of borrowing is against the Federal Reserve is quickly approaching bankruptcy. You are pouring trillions of dollars into worthless projects that do nothing to increase the wealth of the nation.

    Consider this. You are going to borrow $100 thousand from the bank. You can either spend this to built a factory, or go on an luxury world cruise. The US is spending to go on the world cruise. China is spending to build the build the boat to take you on the cruise.

  86. DirkH says:

    June 21, 2011 at 2:32 pm

    Nashville had a 1000 year flood? That’s long. I think that qualifies as climate.

    Nashville has had several of these 1000 yr floods since we’ve been keeping records.
    http://water.weather.gov/ahps2/hydrograph.php?wfo=ohx&gage=nast1&view=1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1

    Historical Crests for Cumberland River at Nashville

    (1) 56.20 ft on 01/01/1927
    (2) 53.90 ft on 01/26/1937
    (3) 51.86 ft on 05/03/2010
    (4) 49.70 ft on 02/18/1948
    (5) 48.90 ft on 01/15/1946
    (6) 48.60 ft on 02/10/1950
    (7) 47.64 ft on 03/15/1975
    (8) 47.30 ft on 03/01/1962
    (9) 46.50 ft on 03/23/1955
    (10) 45.80 ft on 01/05/1943

  87. @ferd berple,

    Outside of China, almost all nations with falling birthrates are doing so voluntarily. But, I do get your point. It is one thing for a generation to consume all of its wealth; it is something quite different to also consume the wealth of the next 2 generations as well.

    @Pamela Gray,
    To even use the phrase “family planning” evokes images of faceless bureaucrats sticking thier nose in one’s own bedroom. But on a more serious side, I think it is safe to say that secular organizations have been most successsful in changing the brithrates of both developing and developed nations. Artiifical birth control, and not abortion have caused birth rates to fall regardless of a nation’s religion, race, or politics. The birthrates in what were once traditionally Catholic nations are amazing (look at Poland, Ireland, Italy, Spain, and Mexico). Even Muslim nations like Indonesia, Algerial Turkey, and Iran have birthrates that are rapidly declining.

    Whether both sides of the “Family Planning” debate have valid points is immaterial. Family Planning is a reality. I made this point at CA some years ago when the last IPCC SPM and TAR were published. I had a bone to pick with the IPCC population and GDP projections. If population trends continue, then the Alarmists have little to worry about. Industrial capacity of the globe will most certainly go down. Even if the Alarmists are right about CO2, thier projections are wrong. The only shortages to come in the future will be shortages of people.

  88. Personally, I think that the size of the population on earth is creating some stress, it’s just that I think it is more likely that natural processes have a better chance of creating a better world than have Algore and his ilk. By “natural processes” I mean the familiar – war, famine, pestilence, and disease.

    Please understand, I do not long for these, I just fear the hand of man more. When totalitarians find that their schemes do not produce the paradise they intend they never doubt the validity of their schemes, they seek to destroy those who are “thwarting” the scheme, which is invariably people, lots and lots of people. Those who die quickly in such times are often to be envied.

    To quote Peter Weiss (Marat/De Sade)

    “Fight on land and sea.
    All men want to be free.
    If they don’t, never mind,
    we’ll abolish all mankind.”

  89. David Falkner says:
    June 22, 2011 at 9:47 am

    Yes, isn’t that a shocker. Al wants to steer the ship by tossing Obama overboard.
    It’s safe to say that Gore has reached his tipping point, and is preparing to go Full Steam Ahead.
    In the world of politics, Gore now has the suit against Hansen as negative political baggage, plus Al is moored to adjusted rising sea levels. Oops… failure to maintain distance while navigating tricky waterways.

  90. Folks should click the link provided by Constitution First: June 22, 2011 at 6:54 am.

    http://www.freedom.org/board/articles/mims-506.html.

    It is the opinion of experts in the field that man is only about a decade from being able to create the type of weapon mentioned in the article. If (when, IMO) these weapons are used, cities will be morgues. Whether they are used as a weapon of war or a tool for population control will not matter to the dead.

    Of course, if used for population control one may rest assured that there will be a select vaccinated group.

  91. “katlab says:
    June 21, 2011 at 8:28 pm

    I did a quick calculation to see how much space the world’s population would take up if they all stood side-by-side. Take a population of 6 billion, multiply by 3sq ft (space for them to stand) divide by 43560 (# of sq ft in an acre) then divide by 640 (number of acres in a sq mile) and it would only take 646 sq miles to hold the earth’s population.

    Makes the over population argument seem a little silly.

    Unless you’re the one in the middle.

    Actually I find little exercises such as yours silly. Are you going to volunteer to live in a 500 sf apartment with 50 people? Didn’t think so.”

    I tried the same equation only instead of 3 sq feet per person I went with 500 sq feet per person. If I did my math right the whole world could live comfortably in Nevada…. with almost 3000 sq feet to spare and the rest of the world empty of humans. Mind you, the whole world empty of humans seems to be the goal with algore and his ilk.

  92. As every red-blooded Ultra-Progressive Liberal knows, the best way to control things is to control the cause of things, ergo –as they used to say in the good ol’ Soviet Union– control the population and you control everything (and everyone;-). Climate Control is just a little red stepping stone to the New World Order! AGW is an excuse that millions and millions are buying. Would you like to invest in the future too? (SarcOff)

  93. http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/video/series-95/episode-1/conservations-dirty-secrets

    Follow the money

    “Dispatches reporter Oliver Steeds travels the globe to investigate the conservation movement and its major organisations.”

    http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-95/episode-1

    “Dispatches reporter Oliver Steeds travels the globe to investigate the conservation movement and its major organisations. Steeds finds that the movement, far from stemming the tide of extinction that’s engulfing the planet, has got some of its conservation priorities wrong.
    The film examines the way the big conservation charities are run. It questions why some work with polluting big businesses to raise money and are alienating the very people they would need to stem the loss of species from earth.
    Conservation is massively important but few dare to question the movement. Some critics argue that it is in part getting it wrong, and that, as a consequence, some of the flora and fauna it seeks to save are facing oblivion.”

  94. @Deborah says:
    June 22, 2011 at 10:59 am
    “katlab says:
    June 21, 2011 at 8:28 pm

    I did a quick calculation to see how much space the world’s population would take up if they all stood side-by-side. Take a population of 6 billion, multiply by 3sq ft (space for them to stand) divide by 43560 (# of sq ft in an acre) then divide by 640 (number of acres in a sq mile) and it would only take 646 sq miles to hold the earth’s population.

    —–
    REPLY Thank you, Deborah, that was a useful and illustrative exercise!

    There are vast tracts of land available, but many of them lack even the most basic resources to sustain a civilization.

    For example, China….if you look at a map, it appears vast. However, the central and western regions of China are very mountainous, arid and unsuitable for much of anything, so the great majority of 1.3 billion Chinese live in cities and regions fairly close to the Pacific coast. Shanghai, the largest city in the world, has about 20 million souls.

    Same for Canada….If I were Canadian, I wouldn’t be very anxious to live in Nunavut! However, the land area is vast.

    People like Gore tick me off…..there are numerous technical fixes to all of these problems, including carbon emissions. Government just needs to provide a very small incentive to allow entrepreneurs to develop such technologies. Same for food supplies…..I see that Chicago has a burgeoning business for home-grown vegetables, tilapia and other boutique crops grown in abandoned city warehouses, using hydroponics.

    What we don’t need are nattering, hectoring know-it-all hypocrites like Gore, Mann, Gavin, Holdren, Hansen etc.etc. imposing their brilliance upon the rest of us. Like nagging parents to unruly teenagers, they don’t understand when they are shut out & ignored.

  95. @Robert E. Phelan at 8:28 am
    What is ridiculous about Al Gore’s statement is…
    Not defending Gore’s statements about CO2 at all – don’t agree with him on that! Some people may advocate forced birth control, but you don’t have to look far to find many who agree with Gore and regard that as impermissible. (There are people for any position you care to suggest.)

    Regarding the comment of Bruce Cobb at 7:36 am:
    With Gore, you often have to look beyond WHAT he actually says… This is positively wonderful. Extreme bonkers conspiratorial Right meets extreme conspiratorial Left. Yes, by all means, let’s hold people responsible above all for what they did NOT say. That is the tried and true Stalinist way!!

  96. Family planning is what two people do, not some faceless organization. It’s another phrase taken from old common language and given some new fangled “modern” definition.

    You can plan poorly or you can plan wisely. But trust me, men don’t have to worry too much about the planning part, or the 9 months part, or the child care part, or the call from the school part, or the home sick part. Some rare individual men do all that. Which is amazing.

  97. What Al Gore is actually saying to women is that if they have children beyond some alleged ‘planet saving’ criteria set by ideological environmentalists (IEs) then there is only one of three possible alternative reasons for each childbearing instance. It would be only one reason for any given childbearing instance.

    The first reason the IEs would give that a woman had children beyond the alleged ‘planet saving’ criteria set by the IEs is she was uneducated.

    The second reason the IEs would give that a woman had children beyond the alleged ‘planet saving’ criteria set by the IEs is she is educated and judges that the IEs science and sociology is wrong..

    The third reason the IEs would give that a woman had children beyond the alleged ‘planet saving’ criteria set by the IEs is she belongs to the ‘saving the planet’ EI high priesthood or sainthood, so the EI childbearing criteria should not apply to her.

    Al Gore and the IEs want to provide their kind of social and scientific education (probably something like a PNS style education system) to women whom the IEs consider uneducated by the IEs own criteria. Al Gore and the EIs consider these easy pickings.

    Al Gore and the IEs know they cannot succeed well in educating women from in certain objective educational situations and individual freedom social situations. But Al Gore and the IEs can do their negative PR regards those women.

    On another thought track, I find it disgusting that the EIs assume women are some kind of social childbearing resource who can be molded at societies’ will. It does not occur to the EIs that they profoundly demean women categorically by saying women, whether uneducated or educated, do not have the capacity to independently and critically think for themselves on the issue of childbearing.

    John

  98. Lichanos comment above at 11:27 notwithstanding, I think one can get a better grasp of what Gore means if one substitutes the word “indoctrinated” every time Gore says “educated”.

  99. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    REPLY Thank you, Deborah, that was a useful and illustrative exercise!

    I cannot take credit for the original equation, Katlab did that. I just put in a more comfortable square footage per person to make the point.

    The matter really comes down to this: People live where they like to live. Some like hot weather and some like cold. Who would decide where everyone lives if it were to be assigned? I don’t like any ideas that dictate where or how someone is going to live. Several governments in recent history have tried to do that and it never ends well for the individual human life.

  100. Al gore got it right on educating girls.

    In the late 1970’s/early 80’s the US Government extracted universal education of woman from the Saudi Government in exchange for some tanks and the Saudi fertility rate has since declined rapidly…still higher then the world average…but considerably lower then the ‘uneducated Muslim world’ average.

  101. The best way to control birth rates is to have a picture of Al gore on your bedroom ceiling.

  102. “Aunty Freeze says: June 22, 2011 at 1:06 pm
    The best way to control birth rates is to have a picture of Al gore on your bedroom ceiling.”

    Good for weight loss too……. bleh!

  103. If someones is gullible enough to think Al Gore knows all, they should not have kids anyways. lol

  104. “Artiifical birth control, and not abortion have caused birth rates to fall regardless of a nation’s religion, race, or politics.”

    I guess there is a first time for everything. I can’t think of a single country where the introduction of condoms has resulted in a drop in birth rate.

  105. Generally speaking, areas with high infant mortality correlate with higher birth rates.

    Societies with better shelter and transportation (fueled by hydrocarbons) tend toward low infant mortality for obvious reasons.

    It appears that in the most developed societies the human population is growing very little, if at all.

    Raising the cost of fossil fuels, as Mr Gore proposes, would make energy less affordable worldwide, perpetuating higher birthrates in less civilized societies.

    Gore is arguing against his own argument here.

  106. Well it sure seems that neo-malthusian or simply being a malthusian is making a comeback from the days of the 60’s and 70’s and well the 1770’s. I’m sure sure what bothers me more, that ideas like this are being entertained, or that people still blindly refuse that there is no shortage of agricultural land to support another 2-3B with current farming methods. If anything people like Norman Borlaug have proven that given the ability, time, and forethought you can solve food issues.

  107. Deborah says:

    June 22, 2011 at 12:59 pm
    The matter really comes down to this: People live where they like to live. Some like hot weather and some like cold. Who would decide where everyone lives if it were to be assigned? I don’t like any ideas that dictate where or how someone is going to live. Several governments in recent history have tried to do that and it never ends well for the individual human life.

    I’ve made my own choices on how and where to live; rebember “the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence” but it still needs to be mowed

  108. Huh, population control for Gore, recently divorced, well, that’s a hard nut to crack, I mean I would suggest a condom, but then again it has a 50% failure chance for certain types of people.

  109. Well, I think reasons for enviros using bottled water include:
    – they are yuppies
    – in the past they’ve got people scared about city water (it is crazy for people in cities Seattle WA, Vancouver BC, and Victoria BC to be spending money for bottled water at home
    – drinking fountains aren’t sanitary
    – people are drinking more liquid during the day
    Sure is hypocrisy for types like alGore to be using plastis.

  110. Chaiten volcano blew in May, 2008 and the south central U.S. including Texas got a LOT of rain that summer. Now that Puyehue-Cordón Caull blew it appears that is going to happen again.

  111. Algore to the 3rd world; Please abort your babies because Al baby likes to run the air conditioners in his several palatial estates on full blast.

  112. Keith Sketchley says:
    June 22, 2011 at 5:20 pm

    Well, I think reasons for enviros using bottled water include:

    – drinking fountains aren’t sanitary
    – people are drinking more liquid during the day

    I’ve always found that one weird. The water stream doesn’t have dog germs that swam against the flow and got into the pipes! Maybe the handle is germy, but the water is unaffected.

    And the “more liquid” is the result yet another health hoax. That famous “8 glasses of water a day” that so enriched the bottled water industry has no source; pure urban legend. There are some vague refs to estimates of the total water content of all foods and liquids consumed in a day, but whether it’s from the tap, coffee, or celery is immaterial.

  113. Many time in politics when an agenda, campaign etc. flames out you have moments like this. AGW is on death watch already, the stars will liklely never line up again certainly in the Teams or Captain Al’s lifetime. Likely this is going to sink back to the university crank levels with the Population Bomb and the diehard Zero Growth crowd.

    So this is part of the struggle to stay relevant and allow the usual suspects to make supportive claims and blame others for the failure to reach the goal line. Then another obscure period will begin and the MSM will put in life support but second and third shelf as the election will be operative priority #1. AGW is a clear loser for democrats so it will go silent or backshelf at least until 2013. As Kyoto washes out and ar5 ramps up they will try hard again but it will likely start to look like Peter, Paul and Mary Revival Concert with pathetic looking boomers trying to be hip. The cool of agw is gone and the lame name calling thrill is a dog that doesn’t so well. All the energy is going to go into saving the Messiah and he will repackaged for the duration like Ronald Reagan’s lost twin brother if required.

    Like all bad ideas it will return. Hopefully the IPCC and investigations will be further developed in the mean time. The crushing burden of wild claims and phony doctrine aren’t going to age like fine wine either. Here are some wise words on PRIDE from Marsellus Wallace for the Team and Chairman Gore;

    The morf from AGW to some new bogus regulatory agenda is well underway. For some of course they will never let go, consider the old women walking around Red Square carrying pictures of Stalin;

    How”s that for rationalizing your politics?

  114. Lichanos says:
    June 22, 2011 at 11:27 am
    This is positively wonderful. Extreme bonkers conspiratorial Right meets extreme conspiratorial Left. Yes, by all means, let’s hold people responsible above all for what they did NOT say. That is the tried and true Stalinist way!!
    Take a chill pill. There’s nothing extreme, no conspiracy, and nothing “Stalinist” (did you just break Godwin’s law?). Gore’s reputation precedes him. He has an agenda and everything he says is in service to that agenda. It takes someone with extremely thick blinders on not to see that.

  115. @Cobb:

    Gore’s reputation precedes him. He has an agenda and everything he says is in service to that agenda.

    This is so obvious, it’s trivial. The same could be said for many of the people at this blog. It’s a neutral comment. People just assume that they ‘know’ the agenda, then they riff on their assumptions about it and consider this to be incisive commentary.

    Watts’ posts are usually very productively focused on the controversies over the science of determining climate change, but this post is typical of the worst sort of ‘advocacy’ rhetoric that is the staple of both sides.

  116. Right, Lichanos, the idea that Chairman Gore would say one thing and do another is simply unthinkable, unless thought by a whacko! /sarc Maybe more to the point is that you have to understand the concept of “word games”, especially when used in Propaganda Ops.. No word “carries meaning around on its back.” After all, words themselves are only appearances, sounds, sensations, and anything else that can be made to function towards the communication of some initially nonspecifc idea to an audience. Therefore you have to look at the way an “author” uses his/her words – what they mean in practice within the author’s own system of words and how the words are translated into actions, which is often not what a listener might otherwise assume, and something a deluding “preception is reality” Propaganda Op. where the idea is simply to achieve a certain desired effect, say, to profit or “win” by whatever means necessary, relies upon.

  117. @ JPeden June 23, 2011 – 6:36am
    …After all, words themselves are only appearances, sounds, sensations, and anything else that can be made to function towards the communication of some initially nonspecifc idea…

    Lo, semiotics comes to WattsUpWithThat:

    Signifier and Signified

    The signifier and signified, whilst superficially simple, form a core element of semiotics…

    The relationship between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary (Saussure called this ‘unmotivated’). A real object need not actually exist ‘out there’. Whilst the letters ‘c-a-t’ spell cat, they do not embody ‘catness’. The French ‘chat’ is not identical to the English ‘cat’ in the signified that it creates (to the French, ‘chat’ has differences of meaning). In French, ‘mouton’ means both ‘mutton’ and a living ‘sheep’, whilst the English does not differentiate.

    Saussure inverts the usual reflectionist view that the signifier reflects the signified: the signifier creates the signified in terms of the meaning it triggers for us. The meaning of a sign needs both the signifier and the signified as created by an interpreter. A signifier without a signified is noise. A signified without a signifier is impossible.

    Language is a series of ‘negative’ values in that each sign marks a divergence of meaning betweens signs. Words have meaning in the difference and relationships with other words.

    The language forms a ‘conceptual grid’, as defined by structural anthropologist Edmund Leach, which we impose on the world in order to make sense.

    Lacan defined the unconscious as being structured like language and dealing with a shifting set of signifiers. When we think in words and images, these still signify: they are not the final signified, which appears as a more abstract sensation. In that we can never know the Real, the external signified can neither be truly known.

    Jaques Derrida criticized the neat simplicity of signs. The signifier-signified is stable only if one term is final and incapable of referring beyond itself, which is not true. Meaning is deferred as you slide between signs.

    Run, don’t walk to: http://changingminds.org/explanations/critical_theory/concepts/signifier_signified.htm

  118. “I don’t like any ideas that dictate where or how someone is going to live.”

    You mean like borders? So… what’s you position on Mexican immigration?

    Gore: “You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children to have, the spacing of the children. You have to lift child-survival rates so that parents feel comfortable having small families. And most important, you have to educate girls and empower women.”

    How is this controversial? I’m stunned that anybody would come out against this position. Look at yourself and ask whether you’re attacking Gore just because you’re used to attacking Gore, or whether you actually disagree with this sentiment. If you disagree with this statement, then tell me why, specifically, you don’t want women to be able to make their own choices about fertility.

  119. >>>Sean Peake says: June 21, 2011 at 2:48 pm
    >>>Not surprised. AGW solutions are linked with eugenics. Always have been.

    Unfortunately not.

    I contacted Greenpeace about population controls, and they said that have never and will never campaign on population issues.

    Amazing. The biggest impact on and threat to the environment is the increasing pressure by overpopulation – and on that issue Greenpeace absolves itself of responsibility and ducks the subject. Anying to do with cuddly animals, they are there in an instant. A political hot potato like population control, and they run for the hills.

    Political cowards, more interested in fleecing the gullible than saving the planet.

    .

  120. >>>Dave Worley says: June 22, 2011 at 3:43 pm
    >>>Generally speaking, areas with high infant mortality correlate with higher birth rates.

    Not exactly. If you look at the figures it becomes: “Generally speaking, areas with certain religious sects correlate with higher birth rates.”

    That, is the problem we need to address. The high infant mortality is merely a symptom of the poverty, which is a symptom of the unsustainable birth rate, which is a symptom of the teachings of that religious sect.

    .

  121. @ Lichanos
    People just assume that they ‘know’ the agenda, then they riff on their assumptions about it and consider this to be incisive commentary.
    Unless wearing exceedingly thick Warmist blinkers, anyone would know what Gore’s agenda is. He doesn’t care about women, or indeed about humanity. His brand of ideology, in fact, is most harmful to women and children in poorer nations. He is a liar and hypocrite of the highest order.

  122. Seraphim Hanisch says:
    June 21, 2011 at 7:37 pm

    Oh yeah! I’ve thought about that a LOT! I totally agree with you. In fact, what you say about eugenics is one of my soapbox subjects. Don’t get me started…!

  123. Voluntary population control is impractical in the long run because it will progressively deselect those genetically prone to follow this policy and favor those genetically prone to ignore it in the following generations.

  124. This is one of my favorite websites, and it’s really disappointing to see how crazy many of the commentators are here. What in heck was Anthony thinking in joining the crazy-conservative bandwagon on this meaninglessly harmless quote from Gore? I mean, honestly, Gore has said many stupid things in his life, but this isn’t one of them. Parents being able to decide what size family to have and when – this is what we should all be afraid of? Tall about baseless alarmism…

  125. “Voluntary population control is impractical in the long run because it will progressively deselect those genetically prone to follow this policy and favor those genetically prone to ignore it in the following generations.”

    Not so. People who have fewer kids have a greater chance of them surviving, prospering, and passing on their genes. Furthermore, people who have a lot of kids have a greater risk that most of them won’t make it far, but that those who do will be genetically superior. Only people who have no kids drop the ball, but what makes you think such people are genetically superior to begin with?

  126. Condrag,

    The problem is Gore’s amazing hypocrisy. He’s got his kids and now he’s lecturing others to abstain. Also, Gore is not a population control expert. The Pope has more credibility.

  127. Smokey,

    I don’t see anything in that clip where Gore lectures anyone to abstain. He’s merely saying that by increasing women’s general educational and economic status, they naturally end up having fewer children, and the world benefits from that. It sounds like he’s lecturing governments and societies to help women achieve better educational and economic status, and great freedom to make their own reproductive choices, and that everyone will benefit from that. He’s basically saying we don’t need to lecture anyone about “population control”, we just need to improve their lives and they will naturally make choices the benefit society in general. What is so nefarious about this “agenda”? I’m in favor of it, and I’m not sure who wouldn’t be. Why does everything from Gore’s mouth have to be turned into some secret “evil” plan for world dominance?

  128. @Conradg :Why does everything from Gore’s mouth have to be turned into some secret “evil” plan for world dominance?

    Excellent question! The answer, however, is quite simpler. The ranting is not about Gore’s ideas, good or bad as they may be. It’s about the ranter’s ideas and obsses sions.

    cf. my comment of June 22, 2011 at 6:45 am where I made more or less the same point.

  129. Your criticisms of Gore lose their credibility when applied indiscriminantly. It makes even the valid criticisms look dogmatic and thus easily dismissed. Show a little discipline, and the effect of your valid criticisms will be multiplied.

  130. The introduction of women’s education, combined with birth control, world-wide, has consistently led to a drop in birth rates. A *VOLUNTARY* drop in birth rates.

    Why? Because the primary reason folks choose to have large families in the undeveloped world is: INFANT MORTALITY.

    Why? Because when people have larger families, they are doing so in order that more children will survive. When three or four out of your seven children die before the age of twelve, you will want to have more children, thus maximizing the chance that you’ll come out ahead.

    Why? Because in the undeveloped world, where most people are living on subsistence farming, people cannot afford even the cost of labor, and children are free labor. They also cannot afford nursing homes and/or in-home care when they become infirm. So, they have more children. More children = insurance.

    *Consistently*, folks, when a combination of A) easy access to birth control, B) better education and C) have been introduced into poorer countries, the birth rate drops, because people’s children aren’t dying left and right anymore; they become less worried about their childrens’ survival; they have fewer children to begin with.

    This is what Gore is saying. This is ALL he is saying. He is not talking about forced sterilization, or abortion, [snip]. It happens to be a goddam fact. Man-made global warming also happens to be a very true thing, according to 90% of respondents in a very large survey of around 11,000 of the world’s actual climate scientists. Reducing the population would reduce global carbon emissions.

    But HEY! YOU know better, don’t you? YOU know more about this whole “agenda” Al Gore and those eeevil scientists have, don’t you? YOU [snip] know more than *all those scientists*! Wow! I’m impressed, and I think you should be too. How many of you are PhD’s who publish in peer-reviewed papers? What’s that? Sorry I couldn’t hear you over the sound of that pin dropping.

    [snip]

    [Reply: Many gratuitous insults snipped. Strike one. ~dbs, mod.]

  131. RR,

    That 90% survey figure is in relation to two extremely softball questions, such as “is the earth warming?” and “Have human beings had a significant contribution to that warming?” Most of the skeptics here would probably answer yes to those questions as well. What’s fascinating, is that 10% of surveyed scientists don’t even agree with this. Are you saying that those 10% are not real scientists, and that their opinion doesn’t matter? If the survey were worded more decisively as to their being an urgent problem that human beings must dramatically change their CO2 output to stave off, the numbers might even be reversed.

    So yes, a lot of people here are indeed saying that they are smarter, at least on the evidence concerning this issue, than the people who are sounding the alarm. It happens, you know. Even scientists get a lot of things wrong, even for decades, before the “consensus” dissolves and reconstitutes itself on the other side. The key is the evidence, not who declares what to be true. IF you can argue the actual evidence, you might be able to sustain a conversation here. Most likely you can’t, however, and will just call everyone here “deniers”. That’s politics, not science.

  132. RE: Conradg: (June 25, 2011 at 12:34 pm)
    “’Voluntary population control is impractical …’
    Not so. People who have fewer kids have a greater chance of them surviving, prospering, and passing on their genes.”

    That latter comment is only true if an overall *involuntary* population control mechanism is in force. At the current state of general abundance and pax Americana, I believe world population has doubled between 1960 and 2000.

    World Population “Hockey Stick”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

  133. Let us know when he decides which two of his four children to send prematurely to the Soylent Green factory. Geez what an incredible hypocrite.

  134. Spector;
    Not happening. It’s actually an S-shaped growth pattern: plateau, growth, plateau. Indeed, the most historically accurate prediction band of the UN Population projection, which is the lower edge of the lowest band, has population peaking at about 8bn in about 2030, then slowly declining. Mostly due to improved living standards and increased lifespan.

    A completely non-functional hockey stick, believe me. You’d be laughed off the ice if you attempted to use it.

  135. Brian H is quite right. As people become better educated and economically freer to make their own choices, they have fewer children, as is evidenced not just in every western industrialized nation, but in almost all developing nations, where birthrates decline as their economies improve, contrary to malthusian theory. This is in part due to an emphasis on raising fewer but more productive offspring, which is also a darwinian adaptation to changing environmental pressures and competition. It’s not going against darwinian principles, but adapting them to a very new cultural climate.

  136. Conradg;
    It’s interesting that it’s also happening in Russia, very drastically, but not in response to better living standards. By all accounts, it’s refusal to inflict Russia on another generation.

  137. RE: Brian H: (June 29, 2011 at 5:38 am)
    “… A completely non-functional hockey stick, believe me. You’d be laughed off the ice if you attempted to use it.

    So far, like the CO2 concentration curve, the global human population curve has a basic hockey stick shape. The ‘S’ or ramp shapes you mention include estimated *future* projections.

  138. Spector;
    Learn some demographics. Age, fertility rates, earnings expectations, and many factors go into real world population trends. And, as I said, the “low band” has been right on for decades. The others are both error and propaganda.

  139. Spector,

    You’re making things up. The population curve in most countries, and the world at large, is already an “S” curve. It was a hockey stick at one point, but that’s changed, and now it’s a very pronounced “S”. No infinite exponential growth, but logarithmic growth set to actually decline before the end of the century. Every growth curve looks like a hockey stick at some point, before it slows and crests.

  140. Mr. Gore was giving a very nuanced speech on a complicated subject. It’s not wonder conservatives didn’t understand it. Of course, that was not his audience. If it was, I’m sure he would have spoken in very short sentences using very small words so they could keep up…

  141. RE: Conradg: (July 1, 2011 at 2:28 pm )
    “Spector, You’re making things up.

    The Wikipedia site curve for World (Global) Population including estimated and actual data from 1800 to about 2004 does have that (“Hockey Stick”) shape. This is the only basis for the descriptive claim that I made.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

  142. Spector,

    Population growth has been slowing for decades, and more importantly, fertility rates have been slowing even more dramatically. Current population growth is driven by the demographic bulge created in previous generations, but even within this bulge of young fertile women, the birth rates are dramatically lower. This means the “projections” are not fantasy numbers, but based on the simple math of declining birth rates in what is now an aging population. There is no indication whatsoever of rising fertility rates, and as the demographic bulge from previous generations ages past fertility, the population has no choice but to level off and even decline. Unless an immortality drug is invented, in which case fertility rates will plunge even further.

    The “S-shape” is indeed already present in the graphs, but not as easy to see when recent decades are compressed so tightly. Stretch them out a bit to take into account recent trends, and you will see the S-shape already there. It’s very much evident in the more developed nations, and as the rest of the world develops, it becomes more and more evident. Endless population growth on an exponential hockey stick is a myth that only the hard core fanatics still hold onto.

  143. RE: Conradg: (July 3, 2011 at 2:07 pm)
    ” Endless population growth on an exponential hockey stick is a myth that only the hard core fanatics still hold onto.”

    I have made no claim of “endless exponential population growth.” My description was limited to the appearance of the graphic on the Wikipedia World Population Page and intended to apply only over the specific time period of 1800 to 2004. I assumed this would be obvious to anyone who viewed that graphic.

    Endless exponential population growth at a forty-year doubling rate will, in a relatively short time, require the conversion of the entire mass of the known universe to human beings.

  144. Your claim is that population growth is a hockey stick, which is of endless upward exponential growth (until catastrophic collapse). This is clearly false in all developed nations already, and it is clearly false in all rational future projections of even the developing world. Since we are talking about the threat of future population growth, the only trends that matter in the 1800-2004 period are those of the last few decades, since women who are either dead or past their fertility period cannot have children. And those trends are all of an S-shaped growth pattern. Where they are on the “S” depends mostly upon their stage of economic and educational development. You can backtrack and limit your claims all you like in order to try to save face, but you are losing the argument.

  145. One factor exacerbating the potential population collapse is the infamous Chinese ‘one boy/no girls’ de facto policy. Aside from the extreme inconvenience to the surplus boys, there are simply far fewer wombs available than would otherwise have been the case. Let’s just do a quick back-of-envelope here: Assume 50% of the population is still young enough to breed (generous, I think). Composed, IIRC, of about 28% males, 22% females. By the time they reach menopause, say 40 years, almost all the non-breeding 50% will be dead, and the next generation (assuming 1 child each) will comprise 22% + 50% of the current population, or a drop of 28%, plus their grandchildren, who will be about 44% of the 22%, or about another 10% of the starting level.

    So 40 yrs from now China can expect to have 78% + 10% = 88% of its current population, of whom about 44% of 10% will be fertile females. 4.4%.
    Again, Stein’s Law will have kicked in: “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” Clearly, things won’t progress that far before some kind of revolution occurs. But China has a demographic dragon or two by the tail, and is going to suffer the consequences.

    As usual, the Green position is 180° wrong; we are going to be desperately short of both CO2 and people if their dominance and nonsense continues.

  146. Small clarification to above: the 44% of 10% will be the remaining females who haven’t “used up” their one-child quota.

  147. It has occurred to me that one interim pseudo-solution for the Chinese would be legalized polyandry, with the 1-child licensed issued to the husbands. Attractive fertile women could have quite a prominent role in such a society …
    ;)

  148. RE: Conradg says: (July 4, 2011 at 12:15 am)
    “Your claim is that population growth is a hockey stick, …”

    Once again, I have made no such claim! That description only applies to the graphic depiction of world population from 1800 to 2004 on the Wikipedia World Population Page. I believe this curve depicts a response to a net increase of abundance in modern times due to scientific advances and the tapping of stored energy resources.

    Eventually, the per capita abundance will decrease with increasing population and expiring resources. This will force a population decrease or stabilization by *non-voluntary* population pressure effects. Some new technical advance, such as the development of a cheap, safe fusion power technology may delay, but not prevent this issue.

    I believe that individual voluntary birth limitation drives will only result in the increased propagation of those less altruistic individuals not disposed to volunteer in the succeeding generations.

    Government population control is the likely unacceptable and dangerous dark elephant in the room.

  149. Spector,

    Even the graph in question is not a hockey stick. It is clearly beginning to level out, especially if you decompress the last three decades of the graph. It is well on the way to forming an “S”, as every population scientist knows, and as all projections based on current fertility rates show.

    Eventually, meaning rather soon, population growth will level off and begin to fall, as it already has begun to in the developed world (immigrants aside). All the rational projections follow that “S” shape very clearly. This means government control will not be necessary, nor will resource depletion be the cause. Prosperity and education are the cause

  150. Resource depletion will not happen, either. Recovery and re-use technology will complement discovery and extraction, and substitution with new substances will occur. There are graphene structures now coming out of the lab which are more rigid and lighter than any metal. For one of them, a stretched sheet would support the weight of an elephant on the point of a pencil without serious deformation, much less penetration.

    Made from coal, long before iron and aluminum, which are major fractions of the Earth’s crust, “run out”.

    And so it goes.

  151. RE: Brian H says: (July 7, 2011 at 1:39 am)
    “Resource depletion will not happen, either.”
    Resource depletion, per se, may not occur, but I suspect that most of the non-renewing ‘easy pickings’ may be gone in a few generations, especially as regards vital energy resources.

  152. What you “suspect” is your own concern, and not evidence of anything.

    You evidence zero comprehension of the economics or physics or history of the evolution of resource needs and fulfillment thereof.

    Here’s the simple version for energy: frak gas is sufficient for centuries, and fusion and other plentiful sources are much closer in the pipeline than most think — certainly much closer than exhaustion of conventional sources.

  153. The exploitation of all *non-renewing* resources should be subject to laws of diminishing returns as they become progressively harder to find and extract. Once all the easily found deposits of a given resource has been found and exhausted, we must go after the progressively more difficult to find and less productive sites.

    Except for sites disallowed for environmental considerations, I think we are already extracting petroleum from the last of the easily found and easily accessed deposits. The future will probably see increasing focus on the more difficult offshore sites.

    Eventually, we are going to have to find way to use our vast coal deposits, a less desirable temporary substitute for petroleum. Frak gas, as far as I can tell, involves a controversial method of recovering energy from a substandard deposit–by no means an ‘easy picking.’

    Fusion power might make up for the energy extraction decline, but after over 50 years of research, it still seems to remain rather elusive.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_Power

  154. There are so many things in error in that last post that I’ll just leave you with this: as the percentage of proven reserves of non-renewables as of a given date are used, the net remaining proven reserves rises by about that same percentage. From discoveries to improved extraction tech, the resource increase forces have about double the strength of the depletion ones.

    Peak resource arguments are failing everywhere. As for those “environmental reasons”, they are mainly rationalizations for policies aimed at hobbling growth. The current US Administration is providing an almost caricaturish demonstration of that.

  155. RE: Brian H: (July 15, 2011 at 12:59 pm)
    “There are so many things in error in that last post that I’ll just leave you with this: as the percentage of proven reserves of non-renewables as of a given date are used, the net remaining proven reserves rises by about that same percentage.”

    My reference is to total accessible non-renewing (exhaustible) resources, not just those we have discovered so far. Eventually, if mankind continues to exist, these resources will be gone and people will have to find a way to live without them. It is as simple as that. I think any such exhaustion must impact the natural limits on global population.

    Of course, some of these resources may still remain available in inexhaustible, dilute proportions that require much more effort (expense) to recover.

    As recycling never recovers 100 percent of a used resource, it cannot prevent the eventual exhaustion or dilution of a resource that is no longer available in concentrated form.

    As long as these resources just gradually trail out, they will only become progressively more expensive and we will have time to adjust to their loss with minimal dislocation. If the price of gasoline continues to rise, you may see a time when people start switching their investments from General Motors to Schwinn.

  156. Uh-huh. So at some unknown time in the future your model (assumptions with no arithmetic) says we might run out of X before we don’t need it any more because we’ve switched to Y, so we should slow down our use of X so that unknown possibly but not necessarily problematic eventuality will occur somewhat later.

    Good luck with that.

  157. RE: Brian H: (July 17, 2011 at 9:52 am)
    “Uh-huh. So at some unknown time in the future your model (assumptions with no arithmetic) says we might run out of X before we don’t need it any more because we’ve switched to Y, so we should slow down our use of X so that unknown possibly but not necessarily problematic eventuality will occur somewhat later.”

    Yes, if we find an alternative, Y, to exhaustible resource X, we may stop using X provided that Y is cheaper to use than the remaining X. Otherwise, slowing down the use of X cannot prevent the ultimate exhaustion of that resource. Sooner or later it will all be gone. As X becomes harder to find and extract, it will become progressively more expensive and this of and by itself will force a gradual reduction of the use of the resource being exhausted and motivate a search for a Y alternative.

    I think the only reason for intentionally reducing the usage of a given exhausting resource would be to minimize an anticipated population reduction shock as the resource expires.

  158. Again, insistently assuming facts not in evidence. Never in history has mankind failed to find a new source of energy, at lower cost. Horsepower, wind, water wheels, steam, coal gas, kerosene, gasoline, nuclear, etc.
    So your claim is simply a silly tautology. “If we run out of cheap energy, we’ll be sorry!” Uh, yeah. But no sign of that happening yet. Or ever. Once we break Obama’s and the EPA’s fingers, and thus their grip on the throats of finders and users of energy, frak gas and oil will be available for centuries. And fusion will be in place within a decade or two, anyway.

    So, “NO”, we will not cripple our present to avoid an implausible imagined boogie-man in the future. Your request is denied.

  159. RE: Brian Hall: (July 19, 2011 at 8:12 am)
    “… assuming facts not in evidence. Never in history has mankind failed to find a new source of energy, at lower cost. Horsepower, wind, water wheels, steam, coal gas, kerosene, gasoline, nuclear, etc.”

    There is a first time for everything. We are now rapidly exploiting energy resources that were slowly built up over multiple thousands of years of geologic time. Once all the petroleum and coal have been used up, man will have to get by on whatever we have left. That may or may not support the current world population.

    This is not a matter of being sorry. It is what will happen if we do not find an alternative replacement energy source. Crippling the present will only delay the inevitable. It seems logical to suppose that man will eventually have to get used to living in a world devoid of geologically concentrated natural resources.

  160. @Spector:

    Oh Paaleeeze… Not that old tired “running out” canard again!

    We have about 400 years of coal, proven. We’ve got somewhere around the same amount of tar sands, shale oil, et. all. Recovery all proven technically, just oil is too cheap to count it as ‘reserves’. We have over 10,000 years from the Uranium on land alone. Add in the Thorium, it’s about 30,000 years. Add in the PROVEN RECOVERABLE from the sea and it’s effectively ‘the life of the planet’. (It’s just that at about $140 / lb it costs a bit more than land based so we don’t do it yet – still vastly cheaper than oil and coal per BTU though).

    There is NO energy shortage. There never has been, and there never will be. There is only a shortage of willingness to exploit particular sources.

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/everything-from-mud/

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/there-is-no-energy-shortage/

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/ulum-ultra-large-uranium-miner-ship/

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/there-is-no-shortage-of-stuff/

    Please, lose the paranoia, lose the fear. Learn that all that is needed is imagination and realize that EVERYTHING is a resource. We never “run out” as it never goes away.

  161. RE: E.M.Smith: (July 19, 2011 at 3:34 pm)
    “@Spector: Oh Paaleeeze… Not that old tired “running out” canard again!”

    Be that as it may, we do appear to be expending our petroleum resources. The follow-on replacements may or may not support a population as large as we have now. My comments apply specifically to those easy to get (cheap) expendable resources (from ancient geologically concentrated deposits) that we are now exploiting.

    There is nothing to fear. It’s just the way it is. Either we will develop a new low-cost, long-term source or alternative for each expiring resource deposit or this will prove to be impossible. In either case, man will adapt to each situation.

    In some cases, we may indeed be reduced to getting it all from mud or seawater; it will just be more expensive and energy intensive that way.

  162. There is a first time for everything.

    Nope, no first time for things that never happen. Like unicorns, free lunches, affordable dispatchable renewables, and energy depletion.

Comments are closed.