Climate Change Is Not a Forever Problem

“how to shepherd you through your fifties and early sixties and get you to your next ‘life-stage’ in good shape.”
pre-paid burial?

Mr Fuller, you still give no clues as to why us humans should find it desirable to ‘limit CO2’ – can you give a reason for this stricture, backed by empirical evidence?

this guy’s had enough column inches now.

I see nothing wrong with your philosophical approach. It is all based on predictions which we know from past experience will be totally wrong, but that’s OK. As I say, we all know they will be wrong.
Like you, Tom, I am optimistic, generally, although I believe that the convulsions following the falsification of the AGW theory will be dangerous and painful. The expectations pumped up by the likes of Gore, Soros, Hansen and Mann will have already reached such great heights that the crash will be frightening.
I also believe that the UN, like the EU, will continue it’s push to be an unelected world government and that will only be stopped by a courageous American president and not the current incumbent (and I nearly swore there). My disrespect for Obama verges on hatred for someone who can be so deceitful and hateful for ‘his own’ people.
Otherwise, well, I am totally convinced that the planet will have cooled somewhat from today’s high (whatever that might be for we cannot know what it is thanks to the mann-ipulation of global temps by all interested parties) by the time I die and much of the hype will have dissappeared along with the idiots that created it and once again all will be calm until the next idiot discovers that the world is warming again, and so on.

I agree, so get the hell out of the way and let the markets work to bring down our consumption of fossil fuels. We need the gov to stop incentivizing fossil fuel production, and the gov to allow green tech to work. We do not need cap and trade and the rest of it, markets work, let them.

“During the next 65 years the world’s energy consumption will skyrocket, both because of more people and because so many will be adopting western energy consumption patterns. It is going to be impressive, and scary, especially if coal turns out to be the fuel powering this growth.”
Yes that growth would be in China and India, Where coal, and things like Nuclear energy, are not buried forever in permitting.
Yes energy use in the US is going down, because it’s getting too expensive.
No one ever ran a steel plant on solar power.

Pace dear Onion, Pace. It’s as valid a point of view as any other I’ve read this year. Good on you Mr. Fuller and thank you for sharing it with us.

Despite the limitations and inherent biases, consider the preceding “century of progress”. In 1910, how well would we have predicted the world of 2010? Flying cars notwithstanding, the main “unpredictable” has been the exponential growth in information production, processing and use. The parochial has become the mundane. We know our fellow men better and share our most private moments with the world.
Aside from the rabbit-warren effect of increased population, our greater access to all manner of technology has eased the experience. Where is this leading? More of the same or something new and inviting? If information density is matched by energy availability, we will undoubtedly benefit and progress in ways unimaginable. Energy is the key and that is where we must invest our time and money. In the past, lack of resources was a greater instigator of instability than any other force. Depriving developing nations of the energy availability that has allowed us to enjoy the last century will certainly spur unrest and revolt. How we deal, share and enjoin our newly “discovered” brethren around the world is of greater importance than any single aspect of our internal societal concerns.
The world has been shrinking for some time now. Sharing is caring and the conversion of wanton consumption to willful conservation will certainly help make the available space a calmer and better place to be.

“The UN estimates that our population will peak at about 9.1 billion souls around 2075. They, and almost everyone else, estimates that our GDP will grow at roughly 3% per year during that time. This means that all except the very poorest of this 9 billion will be richer than we are today.”
This is not what I see happening today. Mr. Fuller, I wish I shared your optimism.

Sounds like you just finished reading Matt Ridley’s The Rational Optimist.

erm…. Sorry to disagree !! One thing IS certain Climate change IS forever – the earth’s climate, the solar system, and the universe it exists in will ALWAYS change until they cease existing.

Mini nukes as in Toshiba’s, fuel cells, Shale Gas which China has lots of ( so do we in the USA) The game’s changing .
Bill Gates thinks so: http://www.fastcompany.com/1594671/bill-gates-goes-nuclear-with-toshiba-tie-up
I don’t think he does anything without a reason.
“Split atoms, not Birds…”

I am a grandfather of children who may well live for another 200 years, if the predictions of others may be believed. I care about their future more than I care about my own since I probably have little time left to enjoy the good health that makes life worthwhile. I have no great desire for long life but I would hope for a good life and for others to enjoy the same. The world owes me nothing and I hope my contribution has been a positive one. Therefore maybe some would see it as a paradox that I would seemingly put the future at risk by questioning the orthordoxy of climate change. However the truth is that I fear the few who desire power more than the consequences to the environment of consumption by the many who desire the basics of living. I believe that science has gone the way of religion and medicine and what was once a vocation is now just a means of making money. There is little left to protect my grandchildren from the whims of the rich and powerful who control government and the media unless the real careing, thinking population stand up to be counted and resists the willful distortion of the truth for personal gain. I am optimistic but only while there are blogs like this and people willing and able to reason for themselves.
Where I also disagree with Thomas Fuller is in the parallel with the human lifespan. It is difficult to know where to start but if we take the point where we had evolved sufficiently to move out of Africa this might be considered our birth.
The next 60000 years were our childhood. Largely slave to the world around us with little capability to bend it to our will. The last 5000 years are like our teenage years where we are slightly disorientated and consumed with destructive and idealistic thoughts in equal measure. I do not see the next 100 years as long enough for anything really special to happen in this evolution. It is a pity because I would like my children and grandchildren to live through something special. Sure they will see and do amazing things and many problems of today will disappear like the horse shit of the 19th centuary. But great change will require people to change and that will take many generations. I believe it will be another 1000 years before a new phase in human existence will materialise. Pity. I would love to see it.

I have always had masculine tastes I suppose, so WUWT is another one. I am a granny with hordes of grandchildren and very interested in their future.
Why talk of cutting CO2 at all? If the level of CO2 had gone down by as much as it has gone up since 1850 we would now be within striking distance of a level below which plants can’t grow, and then how would you feed the 9 billion? The next ice age will no doubt see a further drop in CO2 as there seems to be some temperature sensitivity, so not only will the end of the Holocene bring advancing glaciers, but a reduction in essential plant food – i.e. CO2. Our descendants, looking back on the present misunderstandings about climate and CO2 will think that we must all have been very stupid and wish that we had burned more fossil fuel.

Thomas,
I agree that non-polluting energy sources are a something that we need to develop, but I do not agree that CO2 is a problem at all. In fact, I believe that history will prove that one of the greatest gifts that humanity gave our earth is the liberation of trapped carbon that was long ago sequestered in the earth in the form of coal and oil. Making this carbon freely available to the biosphere promotes plant growth and increases the total living biomass, which is historically very low right now compared to past epochs.

The one thing we do know about climate change is that, whilst there is still a climate to talk about, it will be changing. Whether that is, or ever will be, a problem is not clear however. Probably those who visit this site are, mostly, at least as concerned about energy efficiency and the future of the planet as you are, Mr Fuller. We are especially concerned about the massive, very probably unnecessary, bills being bequeathed to our children and grand-children as a result of absurd ‘climate-change’ mitigating measures, such as the Quixotic fascination with windmills – and the ridiculous mis-direction of effort, time and money away from dealing with real pollution and other environmental issues towards the mental-environist issue of CO2 reduction.

Whatever calculations were used in arriving at this optimism left out the most important factor – human folly.

Mr Fuller
I disagree with the second part of this statement:-
While I am probably a stronger advocate for renewable energy and energy efficiency than many of you reading this,
Anthony has posted several items on energy saving, all met with generally positive responses.

For those wishing to question why we need to consider CO2 reduction in this post, try to suspend disbelief for a while. The issues surrounding CO2 reductions are quite important and explain why some people doubt climate science but still think it’s okay to act as if CO2 is bad.
One of the great myths put about by AGW theorists is that we only have to cut back our consumption a bit and invest in new technologies and we will be able to replace carbon based fuels. Any suffering caused by CO2 reduction will be temporary. Isn’t it worth a few hardships now, just in case CO2 is really bad? Myth. If CO2 has to be reduced it will be very, very hard.
At the moment we can forget renewables. Every time Obama points out a successful project running in another country a report comes out to prove the success is exaggerated. They just don’t provide reliable energy at a suitable volume. Nuclear is good but has ‘issues’. So what about new energy sources?
Research into fusion began in the 40s but I still can’t buy the Mr Fusion reactor for my DeLorean. Even if they came up with a workable design tomorrow, it would be decades before a working power station was up and running and decades after that before there were enough power stations to make a difference. Can we speed up the process? Sure and we can have huge accidents too. And how long will it be before rich countries trust poor countries with the technology?
We may be blessed and a fantastic energy source may pop up to save us but don’t hold your breath.
So if the gist of your article is to suffer a bit now so it will be okay later, you might want to reconsider if ‘later’ is in your lifetime.

How is Tom Fuller getting these guest posts? Has something changed at WUWT? With Tom’s occasional ‘Good on ya.’ supporters it sound like an orchestrated propaganda attack.

But it won’t be permanent. Here in the US, our energy consumption per capita is already declining, and it is declining or very stable in most of the richer countries of the world. About 20 years after world population peaks, shortly before 2100, the world’s energy consumption will peak as well, and both will start to decline.
At that point …, our impact on this planet and its atmosphere will begin to slowly decrease
I’m all in favour of optimism, but it is more productive when grounded in reality. Green house forcing is determined by the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, which reflects cumulative emissions. A reduction in energy consumption just means that the concentration increases more slowly. Only once emissions have been greatly reduced, will the concentration stabilise and then start to decline. This decline will be slow, as mixing CO2 enriched surface waters into the deep ocean takes time. Transition to more carbon intensive fuels such as coal and tar sands could decouple the relationship between energy use and emissions, greatly worsening the problem, and extending the time period.
But forever is a long time.

.Oh, and btw, optimism or pessimism is a state of mind, not a reliable predictor of future performance.

“Climate Change Is Not a Forever Problem”
Actually changing climate is forever and it isn’t currently a problem. It will be when the sun takes a holiday and I would quite like all the CO2 obsessed warmists to volunteer to take a walk out in the snow when the time comes… It won’t solve my problem keeping warm but it will make me feel better and there’ll be some frozen meat to eat… It’s only a theory but I’m thinking warmists are only poisonous while they’re alive…
From the title downwards, this article contains one incorrect assumption after another. As a well educated male of 50-many I’d call this an insult to my intelligence…

“At that point (and maybe long before, if technology does what technology normally does), our impact on this planet and its atmosphere will begin to slowly decrease. ”
Thomas, you are coming along a bit from an earlier post. “We” don’t decide to switch from this to that, it is and has been done by technological change driven by economics – even in socialist countries these days since the grandest of all such experiments crashed 25 years ago or so because of its government managed economy. Although the latter are playing catch-up, they will catch up quickly with the model out in front of them.
Mike says:
September 5, 2010 at 12:40 pm
“Extinction is forever. Those species that we wipe out – by whatever means – are unlikely to return. Ocean acidification will likely last tens of thousands of years.”
Mike don’t be the last to abandon this nonsense. Many of those who cooked this idea up are already looking for an exit strategy after climategate (note the softer tones and the fact that only graduate students and not so many tenured scientists are coming out with all the AGW fire and brimstone these days) and the continuing stream of revelations of bad science and bad behaviour. Note that the Inter-Academy Council – an international council of scientists and engineers have called for massive changes in how the IPCC operates after all the revelations of misrepresentation of science and the political activism (Most skeptics believed this group, which in the past has been in the warming camp were going to do another whitewash of climate science status quo – but we were taken by surprise):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/30/iac-slams-ipcc-process-suggests-removal-of-top-officials/
Please tell me that you, like Ozimandius of Egypt (poem by Shelley) are a little bit disappointed that the gods were found to have feet of clay.

I know its too late to change this now that everyone uses it but “renewable energy” is an oxymoron.
Energy once expended is for ever lost as work done and heat. It’s not “renewable” otherwise we would have perpetual motion machines.
Sustainable energy sources Yes but renewable No. Even “renewable” sources doesn’t make sense either.

Never forget the fundamental truth, that “global warming” is simply a gigantic fraud. “Global Warming” is a malicious lie, a criminal enterprise promoted by greedy con-artists like Gore and Pachauri to suck money out of people’s pockets without providing anything of value in return. [snip]
Surely it’s obvious that the world is controlled by vast, interacting cosmic forces that man can’t even measure, much less predict. Human beings can do nothing to change global climate. As of now, the world is not warming, it is cooling. Warm is better – higher crop yields. Might be wise to plan for the alternative.
Since we cannot control our global environment, and since that environment is dangerous and volatile, humanity’s best course is to give ourselves the option of leaving Planet Earth to colonize the stars.

Pointless, Tom.
Go away, you have exhausted my limited supply of patience, which I have to conserve for my grandchildren

On the stock market there is the boom and then there is the bust. The world is littered with the corpses of civilsations who did not make it through the bust.
Anyone here see the latest stock market bust coming AND took effective action. Did some one tell you there was a problem and what do do about it, but you ~snip~ the need to take action.
I am optimistic but only if action can be taken.

Anthony,
Thomas Fuller’s posts are weak and lack serious content. It’s not worth the effort to log in for something like this. If you wish to maintain the dedicated readership that this blog has enjoyed you need to provide us with more substance than the musings of Mr. Fuller. It’s time for him to “transition” to the next phase in his life.
A loyal but disapointed follower of WUWT
[before condemning, suggest you read the announcements made on Monday ~mod]

Thanks again Mr. Fuller,
I understand some of the criticism to your post, but I like the respondents that reply to your theme better than those focusing on single points.

I’m thinking that Anthony thinks we get along way too nicely. He wants us to have something worthy to punch. Maybe it’s Anthony’s sock puppet to see how we all react to being talked down to.
I am passionately averse to any argument that invokes grandchildren or further posterity. Every generation has found a way to solve its problems. Every generation will face problems we have not faced. They too will solve them. My main problem with this argument is that if we give up something for our grandchildren, the government will tell them they have to give it up for their grandchildren. On and on forever. I am not going to surrender my liberty to accept political promises that won’t be kept. When I was a child in the 50s and 60s, each sales tax increase was going to be “temporary” and rolled back after they paid for the thing they installed it for. Never happened. Social Security same thing. Ponzi schemes are illegal for all except the U.S. government. In order to rule us, they have to take our power away, literally. We need to draw the line in the sand and say NO.

In some ways I think the Precautionary Principle approach that Tom is hinting at is the worst of all options for three reasons.
1) If CO2 isn’t a big problem the solution is a huge waste of money and raw materials including energy. It erodes public support for any future crisis mobilisation. Windmills will be monumental structures of human stupidity. Waste is waste even for a good cause.
2) If CO2 is a big problem, the solutions aren’t anywhere near effective enough to make a difference. It’s the frog in the slowly heating pan of water. People will think that changing a light bulb is enough to save the planet. 10 years from now when the scientists say ‘now we really have the proof’, people won’t care. Billions will have been wasted on pointless activities that could have been focused where it would be needed.
3) It doesn’t give the authorities the kick up the backside needed to get the science sorted one way or the other. One of the major reasons I’m very pro sceptic is the hope we annoy The Powers That Be enough to prove to us that CO2 is really bad. Until they do I’m assuming the problem is minimal.
Now I’m all for minimising waste and only using what I need. I’ve mastered the art of CO2 reduction (hence the pseudonym) and I can honestly say it’s bloody difficult. It requires a huge change in lifestyle from the norm. To believe that society can change enough to reduce CO2 significantly I would need to see the captains of the good ship Anthropogenic Warming first change their lives. It’s not going to happen because they think it’s us who will make all the changes.

Philip Thomas says:
September 5, 2010 at 2:46 pm
How is Tom Fuller getting these guest posts? Has something changed at WUWT? With Tom’s occasional ‘Good on ya.’ supporters it sound like an orchestrated propaganda attack.
Yep, his entourage. Onion, dude please, peace, love and tranquility. LOL.

Commercial greenhouses operate at about 1,200 ppm of CO2 to grow more food faster.
Currently the Earth’s measured CO2 ppm is about 390. So we have a ways to go to get to commercial greenhouse levels which we might very well need to feed us all in the case we grow a population of 9 billion human beings.
From 1980 to 1999 the Earth greened by 6% as measured by satellite, since then it’s leveled off a bit, but the point is that as more and more CO2 enters the atmosphere plants will grow more faster (given that they have the other nutrients they need) and that is a very good thing for feeding people.
CO2 doesn’t get toxic will well above commercial greenhouse levels of 1,200ppm (0.12%): “Due to the health risks associated with carbon dioxide exposure, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration says that average exposure for healthy adults during an eight-hour work day should not exceed 5,000 ppm (0.5%).” – wikipedia.
With the Girma Orsenaggo’s and Steve Goddard’s analysis (published here on WUWT) it’s clear that no Temperature increases caused by CO2 have shown up since CO2 levels started rising just after WWII which clearly shows no correlation between temperature and CO2. In addition based upon first principles with Ferenc Miskolczi’s “Saturated Greenhouse Effect Theory” it’s clear that “C02 Cannot Cause Any More Global Warming”: http://pathstoknowledge.net/2010/01/13/ferenc-miskolczi%E2%80%99s-saturated-greenhouse-effect-theory-c02-cannot-cause-any-more-global-warming.
So the future with CO2 is green, as in a Greener Earth! Personally I welcome a “commercial greenhouse” Earth since it would provide additional crop production to feed the masses.
It’s very important to keep in mind when “projecting” or “soothsaying” the future that you’ll not get one possible future but MANY possible futures. All projections that assume only one future are deficient.
The other problem with projecting the future is that many “processes” in Nature are inherently chaotic and have their own built in randomness (see chapter two of A New Kind of Science by Stephen Wolfram for the math proof) which means that you can’t predict them at all, you must actually observe them in real time to find out what will happen. Climate aka long term weather certainly qualifies. This non-predictability is a hard fact of life in the objective reality of Nature that can’t be avoided but which many need to learn.

*sigh* How long do I have before my wife starts reading these books and starts ushering me to my dotage?
Excellent post, but I must disagree on one point: U.S. energy use is not declining at all – we’ve exported energy-intensive industry, but we haven’t stopped using the fruits of that industry. I see no reason to think that global energy use will decline unless global energy prices increase.

Thomas Fuller,
I think you’re deluding yourself. The big problem is Moore’s Law.

Lots of people here have already pointed out flaws in your assumptions.
For my part I’m all for reducing our enviromental impact. What I object to is people waving the science banner to give their lies credibility. I am (was) a scientist (or reaserch engineer to be precise) and it offends me when people recruit science (pseudo science) to pursue an agenda. Science is digital, it either is or it isn’t. Demand belief and that’s not science, not never ever. Show me the data, and your methodology, and if your lucky I might agree with you.
One of the great lies of the enviromentalist movement is the notion that “we must start doing something”. We have been doing something since the industrial revolution and some here will be old enough to remember the smog and acid rain of the late 70’s that hung over so many large cities. All those cities are bigger now than they were then, yet most are LESS polluted, no thanks to fundraising organisations masquerading as enviromental advocates to attract donations.
Anyway, I read this blog to the exclusion of many others precisely because it’s “fair and balanced” 😀 Make your posts but please don’t assume we’re all enviromental terrorists out to slash and burn all in sight…

tom –
do not presume anything about those of us visiting WUWT. as a pedestrian who has never even turned a car engine on, who rarely burns a light bulb, and who picks up other people’s trash as a matter of course, i find it offensive that sceptics of CAGW and CO2 remedies are presumed to be uncaring of the environment.
however, renewables need to stand up on their own financial merit, not through taxpayer subsidies of one sort or another:
6 Sept: Bloomberg: Brian Parkin and Nicholas Comfort : Merkel Plans Nuclear Power Extension in Return for Alternative Energy Fund
Merkel has championed a revival of nuclear power saying that industry and consumers need affordable electricity until renewable energy prices fall and grid and storage capacity for the power source expands. Germans pay the third-highest rate for power in the 27-state European Union after Denmark and Italy, according to the Energy.EU Web site…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-05/merkel-coalition-proposes-12-year-nuclear-reactor-extension-for-germany.html
add “carbon border tax” to all the other mad schemes:
5 Sept: UK Financial Times: Dieter Helm: A carbon border tax can curb climate change
The writer is professor of energy policy at the University of Oxford
Kyoto’s failed targets remain popular in part because they make Europe look good. But this is mostly because, under the system, carbon consumption is ignored. As Europe continues to de-industrialise relative to emerging economies such as China and India its production of carbon falls, displaced by carbon imports.
All of this looks fine, until you admit that energy intensive industries have been emigrating elsewhere…
But a carbon tax – initially as a floor price to the trading scheme – would be an improvement. The tax could start low and rise over time. It could also begin “upstream” by taxing coal, gas and oil, instead of finished goods. A cross-party agreement never to lower it would be even better…
The latter is more serious: it is practically impossible to work out the carbon content of each and every import. Some approximations are obviously required…
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a68bfc80-b915-11df-99be-00144feabdc0.html

My comment above (“I think you’re deluding yourself. The big problem is Moore’s Law.”) was directed not just at Thomas Fuller, but even more at the rest of you. All the Smokeys and who have you.
The alleged CO2 ‘threat’ is overblown. But our species is at the top of the world as its apex predator par excellence precisely because we are the most intelligent. Soon, our machines will vastly surpass us in intelligence.
That will be interesting.

Mr. Fuller, I am afraid I have to agree with Harry Bergeron but add human greed for power and money to human folly.
Like you, Mr husband was a cheerful optimist and disagreed with my pessimism. Unfortunately after the last few years untangling the criminal deceit behind the “food safety issues” ; watching US President after President sign off on bills that export more and more of our industry and wealth overseas, and wealth into the pockets of the bankers; he turned to me last week and said, I am afraid I finally have to agree with you, we are watching the coming death of the United States if people do not wake up soon.
If you bother to look at the international concentration of power and wealth into fewer and fewer hands it is down right frightening. For example ten corporations, many privately held, control up to 80% of the world’s seed, agricultural and pharmaceutical products. What is worse is the decreased genetic diversity and the increased size of industrial farms not to mention the grain traders convincing governments to do away with national grain reserves.
ENERGY:
The PE’s and scientists have shown biofuel, wind and solar use more energy in “construction” than they produce. I am all for nuclear but at least in the USA the fear factor has been played up to much. so I doubt that is a near term option.
When the cost of energy skyrockets, food prices will have to follow. Without local farmers to compete with the corporations the prices will be jacked up even further so you will see a repeats of 2008. Food prices soaring, corporate profits soaring, food riots and death. It has already started again this year.
If you bother to at least skim this articles you will see why I am not optimistic about the near future. International Ag Cartel controlled food supply, government enforced idiotic “green energy policies” and predatory bankers engineering economic collapses do not give me the warm fuzzies.
The Purpose Behind Engineered Economic Collapse
http://stocksthatpay.com/?p=10775
History
http://www.opednews.com/articles/History-HACCP-and-the-Foo-by-Nicole-Johnson-090906-229.html
Food safety scam
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/contributors/nicole-johnson/
http://www.marlerblog.com/lawyer-oped/cattle-feces-and-hamburger-do-not-mix/
http://www.mfu.org/node/276
Threats of corporate concentration in agriculture:
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/susagri/susagri066.htm
the World Food Crisis
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto_and_the_World_Food_Crisis
Death of farmers
http://www.countercurrents.org/glo-shiva050404.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=5030
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/savePolishCountryside.php
Global Food Cartel: Instrument for Starvation
http://www.whale.to/b/freeman.html
Financial Speculators Reap Profits From Global Hunger
http://www.countercurrents.org/steinberg280408.htm
I hope this list of articles opens at least some eyes.

Aliester Crowley, The Book of Lies, the chapter ‘Goldbricks’.
We know the score.

Mr. Fuller,
My work is posted at nationalforestlawblog.com. Oct. News letter under my name.
This is my perspective on our future and I wish to share it with you.
The big problem???
There will be wars and rumor of wars.
We have more nuclear countries with irresponsible governments.
We have 30 years of cold winters ahead and 30 years of drought due to the lack of sunspot activity. This will greatly reduce the amount of crops. We also have committed a lion’s share of our crops to bio-fuels.
Our government and its people in power believe in man-made global warming. They are searching a “dark cave” in vein for the answers. They will not find the cure to their self-created lies and hysteria. The children in our public schools have been brain-washed into believing they can stop global warming. They have already been swallowed up in the following.
The American government and its liberal want to tax our farms and ranches and their livestock out of existence for the sake of reduced carbon.
The American government has allowed our atomic plants to age without replacement and the present administration is blocking new power plants and breaching dams.
Our manufacturing industry has been given away to other nations. We have open borders.
Why are we fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan?
The USA is only interested in self and its toys. As long as it has that, who cares what is going on around them.
The USA believes in the burden of tax should fall on the producers and the others to live off of them. This is creating an unbalanced tax base.
The present spending will be payed for by printing inflationary and deflationary dollars. The USA hasn’t paid for its wars or the $600 million tax rebate or the trillions approved by our government in the last two years of both administrations.
With the coming 30 years of cold, stagnant workers, lost of crops, unbalanced tax base, and unpayable debt, we have in place the formula for the French Revolution.
That said, these are varibles you might want to consider in your work.
Most Sincerely,
Paul Pierett

Tom Fuller says:
September 5, 2010 at 5:31 pm
For those of you standing up for me here, thanks–but don’t worry! I get ten times worse when I try and post on ‘warmist’ sites–you guys at least make sense, you’re always far more polite than the other guys, and some of your criticism is hitting home. So keep banging away
================================
That’s because we enjoy what we do Tom. 😉

Christoph Dollis says:
September 5, 2010 at 5:14 pm
“Thomas Fuller,
I think you’re deluding yourself. The big problem is Moore’s Law.”
Christopher, that does not seem to be a logical conclusion. Your statement is far more cryptic than Thomas Fuller’s, perhaps because it is so very much more terse. Could you add just enough explanations to make your statement intelligible?
1. Why is Thomas Fuller deluding himself, and with respect to what? Do you feel that everything Thomas stated is wrong?
Do you disagree with the premise of the polemic, “Climate Change Is Not a Forever Problem,” or do you disagree with any of the elaborations Thomas provided to expand his premise? If the latter, which one?
Even from a very negative point of view, not all of what Thomas speculates on can possibly be wrong. For one thing, his statement is not sufficiently specific to enable anyone to refute all of the points made in it.
2. Why is Moore’ Law a big problem?
3. How does Moore’s Law relate to anything or all that Thomas Fuller stated?

Sorry … but this is a very disappointing post …. typical of the philosophical archair ramblings that have become so common in the Guardian opinion pages. One of the best things about WUWT is that almost all the articles are factual, or scientifically oriented or highlighting interesting media angles etc etc. I would urge you to please steer clear of this kind of self indulgent, opinionated, philosophical crap. Human race growing pains ??? Pleeeeeze !

Paul Pierett says:
September 5, 2010 at 6:22 pm
Mr. Fuller,
My work is posted at nationalforestlawblog.com. Oct. News letter under my name….
____________________________________
Paul, I skimmed your work and thought you might be interested in this article:
NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=1319

This business of what we do for our grandkids and beyond is nutter-speak. We have no foundation on which to believe anything we decide today will be followed for any significant time period let alone remaining funded. We have elections – rules come, rules go. It is absurd to propose we create budget items for future generations. Especially large budget items for which we have no proof of benefit. Altruism is not a multi-generational motivation.

“those who are trying to push apocalyptic scenarios for political reasons need to keep their story lines straighter than they have so far. There are far more reasons for optimism than pessimism.”
I am optimistic for different reasons. Specifically, but not only, because there is a good chance that pretty soon observations will really diverge from theory on the CAGW thesis.
The big risk is when this thing falls apart, what desperate actions will the true believers take?
*****Warning **** Ridiculous content follows*****
Some of the CAGW crowd reminds me of the mutants in Beneath the Planet of the Apes. They worship catastrophe and if they don’t get their way, they might blow the whole thing up !
http://planetoftheapes.wikia.com/wiki/Mendez_XXVI
http://planetoftheapes.wikia.com/wiki/Fellowship_of_the_Holy_Fallout
Hey moderators – no offense taken if you snip this…. but… you know, apparently the reference fits reader demographics 🙂

Thomas,
A not insignificant proportion of mankind, could care less about global warming/climate change, they are still busy trying to find food and shelter.
You say: “But I do believe we’ll get there, and without having the revolutionary upheaval so many think is the only way to get through this.”
—-
Where is “there”?
How will we know, when we are “there”.
Who will decide the definition of “there”.
“there”, as a perception?

Thomas Fuller’s posts seem as tiresome to read as those posted by Dr. Jerome Ravetz on post normal science. I prefer Lord Monckton’s presentations. Lord Monckton’s writing is more logical and detailed with facts although his writing can go on to great lengths. To me Thomas Fuller’s post is not logical or organized with related facts. It was very slow: “…stick with me to the end here.” I was unable.

Thomas Fuller I appreciate your attempt at reason here and even more your evolved “anti-amygdala” approach to being polite and reasonable and objective.
I think the whole of the CAGW argument can be seen in this flaw….inciting riots on both sides of the argument:
There are two separate arguments here:
One is “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”. (There is no data to support this.)
The other is “catastrophic anthropogenic global pollution.”
Plenty of real time data.
From China’s coal dust blackening the Arctic…to the overfishing of the oceans….to Monsanto.
Two completely separate arguments, though like oil and water. Yet they are treated as one in the same.
I’m an optimist too, though.
As one of the most evolved species that the universe has ever produced–especially because we have frontal lobe reasoning powers and a conscience–we can fix the problems that WE created.
Otherwise we are just another opportunistic species like poison ivy, fire ants, and locusts.
I would agree with the other posters that you implied [not on purpose, I am now sure!] a “better than thou” attitude about caring for posterity just because of your convictions, and as if others did not….and that it was a little insulting.
I am reminded of a Sting song from the Cold War era: “Even the Russian mothers, love their children, too.”
It is all about finding that common ground of purpose and working symbiotically to leave this planet, better than we found it.
Thanks for your efforts…and to that end, I join you.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

“Climate Change Is Not a Forever Problem”
That’s true, 10% of the time Chicago does not have a mile of ice sitting on it.

There seems to be a presumption that because you genuinely care about future generations your predictions are somehow more accurate and valid.
I would say that if your underlying science and logic are flakey it really doesn’t matter where your heart is.

Several good posts on this thread, especially the one by Max Hugoson:
Nuclear is indeed the long-term energy self-sufficiency answer; especially if we want to back off burning coal and oil while moving to electric cars on a large scale.
Given the huge array of important products that come from oil, burning it is in fact the LAST thing you would like to do with it, long-term; i.e.:
From petroleum resources we get: Lubricants, plastics, fertilizer, pharmaceuticals, etcetera.
The Generation-III+ nuclear plant designs are ready to go; and in fact several are in the approval cycle at the NRC. Naturally occuring uranium ore is still so cheap that designs for Generation-IV fast-neutron reactors to burn up what is now referred to as ”spent” nuclear fuel rods may not be economically viable on a large scale for a while yet, but eventually they will be. Remember that the 104 current Generation-II nuclear plants around the U.S. only ”burn up” about FIVE percent of the total energy in the fuel rods. After reprocessing, ultimately Gen-IV fast neutron reactors should be able to extract close to NINETY percent of the total energy in said fuel rods.

Someone upthread wrote: “Many of the improvements in efficiency have been swallowed up by more consumer stuff using electricity”
I doubt this very much. Most of the electrical appliances from the past were energy hogs. Nearly every consumer gadget uses far less electricity than its roughly equivalent ancester gadgets. The old luggable analog cellphones tethered to 12volt bricks could power a large number of iPhones today.
I miss the smell of ozone and the risk of shock from my grandmothers kitchen appliances. Also how they dimmed the lights when she used them. Fun times.

If you read and agree to the principles contained in the book The Singularity is Near When Humans Transcend Biology: By Ray Kurzweil.
Y’all wont care one way or the other.

The post by Thomas Fuller raises some very good and valid questions and that is a good thing I think.
Humanity grows and evolves in stages, the struggle at the beginning of the industrial revolution has many lessons for us if we care to examine them. We are seeing a fear of the future combined with a lack of self confidence and this happens just before great change in our social/political/economic structures takes place.
Just as a child is sometimes frightened of taking the next step in the journey to adulthood so society exhibits similar traits, now we see uncertainty tainted with fear and we see cynical exploitation of that fear and uncertainty show its ugly face and like the overwhelming mother who seeks the eternal baby to comfort.
The future could be a wonderful and bright place filled with hope and we only have to reach out and strive for that future and it can be ours to enjoy but first we must put aside our childish fears and the excuses we hide behind to justify that clinging to that fear.
We cannot know for sure what the future holds for us, we cannot know what our descendents will or will not think of us just as our ancestors could not know how we would judge them, they will hold different values to our own and we cannot know what those values will be, all we can do build and grow as fast as we can and hope we are fast enough to avoid the fate of all species so far.
Let me put it this way, its time to put aside our childish fears and the childish self justifications of those fears and its time to jump into the lake of our future, yes it may be cold and it may hurt a bit but jump we must if we are to face the future without fear and its fear that is the killer. If we turn away now then history will not be kind to us, we have a duty to put aside our fears and we owe to those who follow to build the foundations of strong industrial capitalist free trade economy, we evolve or we wither and die and the choice is ours to make right now.
Dont let the Luddites spread their silky lies, there is no ideal planetary and social stasis and if that dream is chased it will only lead to decay and misery, our only hope is full spectrum evolution, its a race to grow and survive folks whether we realise it or not the clock of the evolutionary clock is ticking and our time and place in the chain is limited, we either grow ASAP and with all the tools at our disposal or we go the way of millions of other failed species.
We have but two simple choices in reality, we grow or we die, we either strive to colonize and inhabit a million worlds or we end up with none, we are predators not grazers and the sooner we come to terms with that the better.

Walter Scheider, as far as Earth’s population and energy usage stabilizing, I agree with Thomas Fuller.

“… I am an optimist at heart. I am truly confident that we have the system in place to find the solutions that we need and to put them in place.” [for energy usage, sure — Christoph]
“… as our generation’s contribution to a future that is almost in sight already. 90 years? Kids being born today will see it.”

As far as everything being hunky dory for our ancestors in 90 years, I am doubtful. Certainly I don’t see how they could be in 190. Not if computer processing power and AI increases at present rates, well, continues to increase exponentially.
Will our species maintain control of this intelligence and capability forever?
Maybe. But I doubt it.

Tom,
You are correct in one assumption – I am a caucasian male in his early 60s.
However, I would not trust any information that the UN sees fit to divulge.
On what criteria is the estimation that Earth’s population will peak at 9.1 billion?
Until such time as the so-called environmentalists see sense, advancing technology will be hampered; e.g., in the UK we have the wherewithal for useless wind powered generators, but not for thorium based nuclear plants, even though we are importing French nuclear powered electricity on a daily basis.
On my assumption that the green movement will never be reasonable (which includes compromise), in the UK we will inevitably have to endure future power failures, resulting in reduced industrial output.
3% p.a. growth? Poppycock!

While reading through these comments I flashed on an idea. If you were to graph the average life expectancy from 100 years ago to today and drew a trend line through it you might be convinced that in another 50 years the average life expectancy will be 150 years. Intuitively we know this is not possible because even in the healthiest of human specimens the physical body simply wears out after the age of 90 even if all other diseases are avoided. I feel the same way about global warming. We might be getting a little warmer after coming out of the LIA and we might get a little warmer still. But what goes up invariably go down again or at least levels off. History has taught us this much.
The goal of “saving the planet” is purely propaganda. The real goal is controlling energy and thereby controlling the population. Sadly, this is an all too common human trait among some people. Demonizing CO2 is actually silly and in about 10 years it will be remembered as being even sillier. At least 85% of mankind’s energy is derived from the combustion of hydrocarbons (even more if you count biologic metabolism of food). At the present time there is no suitable substitute. I have little doubt there will be a better alternative one day, but these things take time. The best thing we can do in the interim is to resist governmental control of CO2 or energy. Let the free market and non-government funded innovation lead to new discoveries.
The reality is that it is impossible to get the entire human population on the same page. Even if we were somehow able to cut global CO2 emissions by 50% within a decade it wouldn’t make a lick of difference in terms of global warming. We do, however, know a lot about electricity. We know that in countries that have electricity we have seen a drastic increase in life expectancy, improvements in standard of living, greater innovation and an improvement in environmental conditions. The free market is the best arbiter of how energy should be used and allocated. Some argue that the USA uses a disproportionate amount of the world’s resources. Perhaps, but the USA has also contributed a disproportionate number of advances to mankind.

Mr Fuller, while I found your previous posts interesting if rather converse (nothing wrong with an alternative and polite point of view), your latest post reads like one of those tiresome Guardian opinion pieces. I visit WUWT to try and get a handle on the major contributing factors responsible for our chaotic climate system. If I wanted utopian/distopian predictions I’d consult professionals such as Mr Romm, Mr Hansen, Mr Pachauri, the UN, the Met Office and Gypsy Petulengro.
As for the title of this piece – Climate Change is Not a Forever Problem. Apologies for being pedantic but I beg to differ. Climate change is with us constantly. It will always be with us right up until the time our sun becomes a post main sequence star and expands to swallow the Earth. Climate is not something you can attach an on/off switch to even if our politicians think they can. The only people who have achieved global ambitions of this magnitude are the likes of Asimov or Heinlein. Personally I prefer my science fiction to be entertaining and not gratuitously taxing.
BTW I’m not part of the demographic mentioned in your opening paragraph. I’m a well educated female in my fifties so what are the chances of that?

Tom, do you actually read (or at least skim) all the articles on WUWT?
I can’t understand how anybody can be au fait with the posts here and still believe the modelled predictions could possibly be accurate.
“I think that emitting CO2 in the same fashion we are today will bite us in the hind end”
on what evidence base?

Mike Jonas,
“amount of sunlight reaching the planet is something like 100 million gigawatts (from memory, correct me if I am out by a factor of 10^n), and economically tapping into a small fraction of that would do wonders for the world’s energy needs.”
Mike, did you ever stop and think that that solar radiation reaching Earth might be needed by the biosphere?

Like many posts here I think the only way to guarantee the future of our ( in my case g-grand children) children is to educate our children to think for themselves.
Consider what would happen if a CME blew out national grids and transformers and every computer and computer controlled vehicle and device, or even a few neutron bombs that would have a more limited geographical effect. Big transformers are one off, and take months to build.
Scary if you think it through, slide rules and log tables to the fore, if there was time before chaos ensued. All services down for months if not a year or two.
Only the military have some fully hardened equipment to guard against a neutron blast, and once their fuel runs out? CO2 is a non problem.

It is always a good idea to look at the underlying, ‘hidden’ narrative of a posting.
The underlying narrative here is that Fuller is so smart and knowledgeable that he can predict climate and human behavior over a century, while most of the readers are so incompetent, the efforts to keep them in good health by those around them are not even shared with them.
Yes you, most of the readers of this blog, you must be treated like children who are not even told what is done for their own good.
The implication: What do you think you are doing here, thinking for yourself and attributing to this blog. Better you listen to the superior people who guide you. And Thomas Fuller is capable and willing to magnanimously and verbosely do just that.
In my experience, people like him love hearing themselves so much, they will go on and on until you make them stop or walk away.
Prepare for many more installments of this posting.

You can’t predict which technologies will be required to make the next generation of renewable energy, and the current generation are so inefficient they will be a liablity. scientic research has to be broad based, not specific as it will be an unrelated field which will give the breakthrough. They are using large amounts of rare earth metals and the like, and will be very difficult to recycle. In effect the price signal tells us that we are using rare stuff to replace abundant stuff.
The current solution appears to be to use large amounts of rare and difficult to recycle materials in order to infinitessimally reduce consumption of one of the most abundant materials on the planet – the byproduct of which is the easiest to recycle. This is done by hiring armies of beaurocrats to make sure it is done in the most inefficient and intrusive way imaginable.
It would make far more sense to spend the money on big ticket improvements to public transport, and potentially infrastructure. That way we get something for the money and the savings are more effective, and it doesn’t really matter whether the science is right or wrong.

Mr. Fuller:
Thanks very much for your posts.
But…..what is the reason you have not yet answered at least some of the many questions asked to you in this post and in the “We Talk About Politics Because The Science Is Uncertain” post?.
Regards

K~Bob Yes, old equipment were energy hogs but :-
First people didn’t have a TV at all.
Then they had one which everyone watched (concentrating lighting and heating in one room). Sometimes even the neighbours came round.
The TV was only on for a short while because there was little on to watch.
Then there was more tv to watch and most people got their own set.
Then they got colour TV.
Then there were tv programmes for all the family on multiple channels.
Then they had a few small tvs around the house.
Then there was standby so that TVs never get turned off.
Then there was 24 hour TV.
Then there were video players, then DVD, then Blue Ray, etc. Many of these are powered 24/7, just in case you need them.
Now they’ve got many TVs including widescreen.
Then Add satellite and digi boxes.
There are multiple remotes that need batteries.
And finally, people aren’t just watching TV in multiple rooms using multiple sources of light and heat or cooling, they’re playing computer games and surfing the net.
Now tell me that watching the TV uses less energy than it used to. You can do similar time lines for other items and get a familiar pattern of energy inflation.
The phone is another good example, it’s not the energy that is used by a single item but the new options we now consider essential; mobile internal phones, mobile external phones, phones for all family members, modems, TV hook ups, fax, added network capacity, etc.

Moore’s law has held for about 40 years and states something like processing power doubles every 18months. i.e. irrespective of the amount of money spent in semiconductor research you can expect procesing power to double every 18 months. Clearly research dollars are required, but it would strongly suggest that there is a limit to the effectiveness of that research, because if you wish to go faster than that you also need to speed up the advancement of other technologies.
Renewables are not a technology in their own right, they are interesting applications of a more general field. When you read about new technology in this area it is always application of something else. The breakthrough to make renewables cost effective is not predictable, it is likely to be a product of the interesting properties of an unknown compound, and no amount of research dollars focussed on renewables will find that compound.
To take it to an extreme example, if in roman times mankind had decided the only research it was interested in was a computer, we would not have a computer today we would have complex abacuses. The research required to develop the silicon chip would have been cut at birth. All that funds in research to renewables will do is hasten the application of current technology, and we are such a long way from break even that that is not money well spent.

Max Hugoson says:
September 5, 2010 at 7:10 pm
Sorry old boy, but renewable energy is a JOKE and a CRUEL ONE at best…..
_______________________________
Well said.
“Enemies” of the USA and commercial interests nave not want to see the conversion of the USA to all nuclear. Nuclear is by far the cheapest source of power therefore industry would have stayed in the USA giving the US a great advantage. This would have upset “the balance of power”
Consider: the three mile Island “accident” had a high probability of being sabotage. Investigators suspected sabotage at Three Mile Island
Consider: the Boston Globe in the mid eighties ran want ads for nuclear protesters at $10/hr (I was job hunting and probably have some of those ads stashed in the attic)
Consider: in April 1994 on a back page the Wall Street Journal had an article stating papers in the Kremlin showed activists groups in the USA were not only funded by but were lead by the KGB this is backed up by.
http://www.savethemales.ca/150801.html
and The ‘Innocents’ Clubs’
“….During the 1920’s and most of the 1930’s Münzenberg played a leading role in the Comintern, Lenin’s front for world-wide co-ordination of the left under Russian control. Under Münzenberg’s direction, hundreds of groups, committees and publications cynically used and manipulated the devout radicals of the West.
Most of this army of workers in what Münzenberg called ‘Innocents’ Clubs’ had no idea they were working for Stalin. They were led to believe that they were advancing the cause of a sort of socialist humanism. The descendents of the ‘Innocents’ Clubs’ are still hard at work in our universities and colleges. Every year a new cohort of impressionable students join groups like the Anti-Nazi League believing them to be benign opponents of oppression, rather than the Trotskyite fronts they really are….”
More: http://www.sunray22b.net/antonio_gramsci.htm
The whole idea of hamstringing US development was even written up in a textbook by none other than John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar and the Ehrlichs. In their 1973 book: Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions they ” called for “a massive campaign … to de-develop the United States” and other Western nations in order to conserve energy and facilitate growth in underdeveloped countries. “De-development,” they said, “means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” “By de-development,” they elaborated, “we mean lower per-capita energy consumption, fewer gadgets, and the abolition of planned obsolescence.” The authors added:
“The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.”
Look at the timing:
1972: UN first Earth Summit: Maurice Strong “warned urgently about global warming, the devastation of forests, the loss of biodiversity, polluted oceans, the population time bomb. Then as now, he invited to the conference the brand-new environmental NGOs [non-governmental organizations]: he gave them money to come; they were invited to raise hell at home. After Stockholm, environment issues became part of the administrative framework in Canada, the U.S., Britain, and Europe.”
1973: textbook: Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions calling for “de-development of the USA.
1979: The Three Mile Island accident started at exactly 4:00:37am on March 28, 1979.
The “de-development of the USA, is shown by the US census figures.
1970 – 24.0% of the labor force
1996 – 10.2% of the labor force
As of June 2010 – 7.58% we lost 1,962,000 manufacturing jobs since 1996 and the ratification of the World Trade Organization.
Is it any wonder I think the US nuclear program (and industry) was deliberately sabotaged by traitors?

The heart of the problem is as you point out – too many people trying to live sombody else’s life for them – for their future own good.
Had our forefathers worried about future generations they would have prevented development of steam power and thus the Industrial revolution. Their forefathers would have prevented the Iron Age, their forefathers prevented development of the use of fire and the wheel.
We ensure the existence of future generations by our own survival and by thriving. We have no way of knowing if our “contribution to the Planet” will be good, bad or be of no consequence to future generations.
Let the future take care of itself.

Well, Mr Fuller, if you are one of those eccentrics/open minded souls who would consider what astrology would say, you would no doubt read that planet earth is coming to the end of the era of Pisces and soon to enter the age of aquarius.
Now you can argue when that is, but my interpretation of astrology (you’ll note I’m not an astrologist nor a person of that faith) is that the Age of Aquarius was fertilised some time ago and the emergence of the internet was akin to the laying down of the neural network that grows within each gestating foetus.
The characteristics of Pisces? Faith, deference to authority, occasional dissembling, a great belief in institutions.
The characteristics of Aquarius? Eccentricity, rationalism, scientific, opinionated, logical.
Right now the two are fighting each other.
But sooner or later, humanity will realise the role that faith played in earth’s journey and integrate that with the knowledge that comes from science.
I’m optimistic like you.
But I don’t expect to benefit from saying so.
Because society trashes those who challenge authority, despite it being justified when authority has failed………

This is an awful thing to say, but I suspect that WUWT scepticism is
not primarily about climate change. More about anti-environmentalism
and all about Paranoid Ultra Conservative Fever. The catastrophic PUCF
religion.
Smokey says:
September 5, 2010 at 4:50 pm
“The thieving, suffocating monster [ government]..”
——-
H.R. says:
September 5, 2010 at 12:49 pm
“The energy issue you raise is important. Unfortunately, I fear you may be looking for government solutions and I ‘fear’ government solutions. (Name one successful government solution: social security? medicare? medicaid? food stamps? welfare? Anyone of those programs would be outperformed by a scheme unencumbered by the economic drag of the accompanying administrative waste.)”
—————–
can you provide examples of such ‘outperforming schemes’?
Gareth says:
September 5, 2010 at 3:06 pm
“The global economy works largely despite national and supra-national authorities not because of them.”
——
The whole history of Man is an interaction between private and public, between
individual and society, between tribe and state. There is no point in entertaining
some counterfactual dream image of a totally FREE man.

Dear Moderator,
I did read the Monday announcement, and I am completely sympathetic to Mr. Watt’s need to deal with the health crisis in his family! I wish the very best for all concerned.
I continue to be a loyal admirer of this excellent blog. But I still feel that Thomas Fuller’s posts have been thin on content and condescending.

Tom Fuller,
Thank you for another of your posts. You are stimulating key points of discussion. Anthony, thanks for hosting all this great intellectual discourse. : )
You are starting your post at the end of a long previous philosophical analysis. It is that prior missing philosophical analysis that requires your post’s theme to be false. Why did you omit the analysis that falsifies your post’s theme? I find your post’s theme to be that there is a deterministic pre-ordained historical requirement that the human population now must perform self-sacrifice for the sake of the future. A future which you argue is doomed by overpopulation and AGW.
Your historical imperative argument is in the same form and on a similar concept as the essential Hegelian thinking is. It was Hegelian thinking that essentially influenced Marx’s view of the deterministic historical necessity of capitalism’s doom and the end of the prosperous middle class. Living humans were told to sacrifice now for the utopian paradise of the future because the historical imperative says you must. It said that it is the inevitable march of predetermined history. They cloaked their arguments in pseudo-scientific terminology to gain credibility in the free western countries and were quite successful in misleading the west for a while. Resistance, they said was futile. History, it was trumpeted, will win no matter what the capitalists and affluent middle classes do.
However, we all know that the self-sacrificial philosophy failed in the form of the failure of every country that took the philosophy seriously. They sacrificed themselves eventually for nothing as those countries collapsed without the historically necessary utopia occurring. They sacrificed for nothing.
Mr. Fuller, now you argue in the same vein. You set up a politely stated (low key / introductory) hysterical spectre of overpopulation apocalypse and also of AGW apocalypse as the motivating factor for self-sacrifice to the future. Your argument is hinged on what you say is accepted science about AGW and population. You say that it is accepted science, yet such so-called accepted science have been shown to be independent of the actual discussions occurring in the open/public ongoing scientific process. Whether your accepted science is pseudo-science is open now (finally) to public scientific debate and it doesn’t look good regarding your accepted science. Based on that you argue mankind now must sacrifice for the future. Now is the key operative word of your post.
If you think human self-sacrifice is pre-ordained, why tell us about it. You would not need to convince us if it is an historical necessity that we must perform self-sacrifice. Your actions invalidate your argument.
Note: There is another fundamental philosophical concept fatal to your argument; it is related to the nature of human beings. It falsifies your argument about self-sacrifice at an even more fundamental level than your Hegelian type argument.
John

Bruce Cobb says:
September 6, 2010 at 7:31 am

mikael pihlström says:
September 6, 2010 at 6:27 am
This is an awful thing to say, but I suspect that WUWT scepticism is
not primarily about climate change. More about anti-environmentalism
and all about Paranoid Ultra Conservative Fever. The catastrophic PUCF
religion.

If you knew anything at all about this site, its commenters, and posters, including Anthony, and by extension its readers you would know that your “suspicion” is completely false. Giving a few “examples” of your so-called PUCF theory proves absolutely nothing. My suspicion is you already know this, and thus are simply being disingenuous. Nice try.

I don’t think you can discount the PUCF completely, I’ve certainly seen some of it here. But to generalize is just incorrect. There are many ultra-liberals here. Myself, I don’t classify myself as anything. I just don’t like secret science. And it seems as if the “facts” aren’t as factual when you have all the data.

Actually, this post is very valuable. It depicts the very weak argument for CO2 reduction. Thomas, you lost the majority of voters for your cause here in the US with just this one post. It was milk toast at its best.
If there is one thing I adhere to, it is survival of the fittest, meaning those with the biggest canine’s (and I am talking about all omnivores here, including humans) along with those with the most offspring (and I am talking about insects here). CO2 benefits omnivores and insects. It does not destroy them.

Pamela Gray says:
September 6, 2010 at 8:11 am
…..If there is one thing I adhere to, it is survival of the fittest, meaning those with the biggest canine’s…
_____________________________
Welcome back Pam.
That is the one lesson our molly coddled, middle class supermarket browsers have never had. A year on a farm, preferably and Amish or Mennonite farm at the age of ten or so would be a real eye opener. Mucking out barns, weeding gardens, wringing the necks of tomorrows dinner… It gives you a real appreciation of what work is, where your food comes from, and a deep thankfulness for our energy using technological wonders.
I got that lesson in college while visiting my roommate’s farm for vacation. Chasing an escaped sow with piglets gets rid of the “bambi complex” real quick, if it does not get you killed. It left me with a high regard for those who grow our food.
For the rest of you city folk, a 400 pound sow with razor sharp teeth can be dangerous especially when her piglets squeal. There’s a saying that the difference between an inexperienced and experienced pig farmer is a few scars.

Gail Combs,
“wringing the necks of tomorrows dinner… “.
So that’s how you get your beef steak on the table. I’m impressed!

If you’re reading this, the chances are better than even that you are a well-educated male
Oi, how about us women out here?????? Discrimination! You’re lucky I’m English and not American and therefore likely to take you to court! (Only kidding.)

alan says:
September 6, 2010 at 6:53 am
Dear Moderator,
“I did read the Monday announcement, and I am completely sympathetic to Mr. Watt’s need to deal with the health crisis in his family! I wish the very best for all concerned.
I continue to be a loyal admirer of this excellent blog. But I still feel that Thomas Fuller’s posts have been thin on content and condescending.”
Seconded!

Bruce Cobb says:
September 6, 2010 at 7:31 am
mikael pihlström says:
September 6, 2010 at 6:27 am
This is an awful thing to say, but I suspect that WUWT scepticism is
not primarily about climate change. More about anti-environmentalism
and all about Paranoid Ultra Conservative Fever. The catastrophic PUCF
religion.
If you knew anything at all about this site, its commenters, and posters, including Anthony, and by extension its readers you would know that your “suspicion” is completely false. Giving a few “examples” of your so-called PUCF theory proves absolutely nothing. My suspicion is you already know this, and thus are simply being disingenuous. Nice try.
Jeff Alberts says:
September 6, 2010 at 8:07 am
I don’t think you can discount the PUCF completely, I’ve certainly seen some of it here. But to generalize is just incorrect. There are many ultra-liberals here. Myself, I don’t classify myself as anything. I just don’t like secret science. And it seems as if the “facts” aren’t as factual when you have all the data.
——————–
Granted, a blog or a movement will have different components and
viewpoints, but still there is some common denominator. In this case:
scepticism concerning AGW. Without the political explanation I gave
it is hard to understand the recalcitrance of many posters here. Seems to
me that the Fullers & Moshers of this world are trying to renew the platform
of scepticism by throwing out ideas that have been disproved by science and
time itself.

Mikael Pihlström says:
September 6, 2010 at 12:08 pm
“Seems to
me that the Fullers & Moshers of this world are trying to renew the platform
of scepticism by throwing out ideas that have been disproved by science and
time itself.”
Like what, exactly?
Note, I already criticized Mr Mosher on this thread for positing the assertion that CO2 forcing must be true because models cannot hindcast the 20th century warming without it. And you call that science?

Bart Verheggen says:
September 6, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Climate change may very well be a (practically) “forever” problem: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100206

Bart,
It is nice to see you playing around in these woods. : ) I haven’t been much to your place since the redoubtable VS departed.
I think it is more accurate to say that climate change has been forever wrt to the history of the earth and forever will be. OK, no problem there and I agree except . . . . for the future you aren’t talking about anything but man so we don’t really agree.
You are implying man is forever a problem. I think you have an unimaginably bigger problem with man than you realize. I am and many others are actively advocating, au contraire, to ensure man will achieve the stars and spread the problem you have with him across the known and unknown universe. To me and many others there never was nor will be a problem with man. : )
I my view you have a universal problem in mankind, not an earthly one. It is unimaginably worse than you thought. So, you better try to “fix” mankind before he spreads the disease you perceive he has (due to his very existence) beyond earth to blight the universe. I can see the current environmentalists blocking the spread of man, as a disease, from escaping earth itself, in order to protect the universe. Yup, a “protect the universe from man foundation” will spring up at my very mention of it. : ) Entire blogs will spring instantly into action to block space travel. Millions of dollars will be donate to the cause . . . . whole industries will spring up to block space travel.
Be aware, you and I may be protagonists in a Greek tragedy or comedy. I will promote mankind’s every effort to spread himself across the universe.
Bloggers like you, if some equivalent to bloggers exist a million years from now, will be at it still trying to limit (population and domain) of mankind across the known universe into other dimensions via parallel universes. coooool.
I say have at it mankind. Be prosperous and multiply into the vast universe . . . .
John

The UN estimates that our population will peak at about 9.1 billion souls around 2075. They, and almost everyone else, estimates that our GDP will grow at roughly 3% per year during that time. This means that all except the very poorest of this 9 billion will be richer than we are today. The textile workers in Vietnam making $84 a month? Their grandchildren will be making more than our national average today.
LOL
We all know how good UN predictions are…
Right, simply facts: Our population will expand to the carrying capacity of the planet. Every animal’s population expands the carrying capacity of its environment, we will be no different. For every group that thinks it will be different, and will limit its fertility, there will be a group who will not limit its fertility, and render the previous group’s activities futile.
This will mean a life of borderline starvation for the vast majority of people. There will of course be the elite (whether they shaman, priests, kings, presidents or whatever) who will have a happier life, but these will alway be a tiny minority.
Now for most other populations of animal, predation at peak population becomes overwhelming, as the predated population is only barely hanging on, and the pack of lions (for example) is not a help. You could argue that we have no real predators – rather like elephants in national parks – in which case we’d be looking for an outside agency to ship us off somewhere and reduce our numbers. That’s unlikely to happen, but it won’t stop people looking for little grey men with their “probes”.
Personally, I think we self-predate. Which means, that the populations of hoi polloi will reduce, and reduce drastically, as the the population of green “camouflage” people (you know – the ones with guns) take everything away from them. Then the population of the green “camouflage” people will crash as there will be no one left to feed and water them.
And then we start all over again…
You may notice I’ve not said what is the final carrying capacity of the planet. That’s because I have no idea. We may be able to grow from 7 billion now to maybe 12 billion or, in the absense of fossil fuels, our population may measure a whole 1 billion. Personally I think with nuclear power, the answer will probably lie somewhere between the two.
The numbers really matter either way – you’re either part of the live population, or you’re not. Try to be one of the live ones…
In the meanwhile, the earth will continue its dance across the cosmos, and what will our trials and tribulations matter? They will matter not a jot.