Okay, all–this is a slow developing post. I hope you can stick with me to the end here.
If you’re reading this, the chances are better than even that you are a well-educated male who is either working full time or transitioning or in retirement. That’s if respondents to last year’s survey of WUWT visitors told the truth.
If it is true, it may surprise you to learn that there is a body of medical and sociological literature written specifically about you. The theme of the literature is how to shepherd you through your fifties and early sixties and get you to your next ‘life-stage’ in good shape.
It isn’t aimed directly at you, but at your wives, doctors and nurses, which is why you may never have heard of it. The literature is big on prevention–getting you to finally put down the cigarettes, lose the weight and lay off the hard liquor so you don’t keel over too soon.
Whatever man-made climate change turns out to be, it is not a permanent state. This is something that is not often discussed, but is very true. This is a ‘life stage’ the human race is going through–probably not late middle age, but late adolescent–but it is certainly a phase, not a permanent condition.
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.
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.
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 (and maybe long before, if technology does what technology normally does), our impact on this planet and its atmosphere will begin to slowly decrease. We will have passed the crisis point, and will be moving into–what? Adulthood? Middle age? I guess they’ll come up with a cute name for it.
The two points I’d like to make is, first, that whatever we do on behalf of the planet can be looked at as our generation’s contribution to a future that is almost in sight already. 90 years? Kids being born today will see it.
Second, 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.
While I am probably a stronger advocate for renewable energy and energy efficiency than many of you reading this, it may be because I’m looking at this as just part of our generational duty–a far lighter duty than previous generations had to shoulder.
Yes, I think we should commit more of our treasure and toil towards reducing pollution, including emissions of the non-polluting CO2. Yes, I believe that we should spend more of our money on researching energy efficiency and things like utility level storage of energy.
But like most of you, 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. If we’re wrangling about it now, it’s a combination of anger at those who have blown this out of proportion and sticker shock at what the solution may cost.
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.
Okay, all–this is a slow developing post. I hope you can stick with me to the end here.
If you’re reading this, the chances are better than even that you are a well-educated male who is either working full time or transitioning or in retirement. That’s if respondents to last year’s survey of WUWT visitors told the truth.
If it is true, it may surprise you to learn that there is a body of medical and sociological literature written specifically about you. The theme of the literature is how to shepherd you through your fifties and early sixties and get you to your next ‘life-stage’ in good shape.
It isn’t aimed directly at you, but at your wives, doctors and nurses, which is why you may never have heard of it. The literature is big on prevention–getting you to finally put down the cigarettes, lose the weight and lay off the hard liquor so you don’t keel over too soon.
Whatever man-made climate change turns out to be, it is not a permanent state. This is something that is not often discussed, but is very true. This is a ‘life stage’ the human race is going through–probably not late middle age, but late adolescent–but it is certainly a phase, not a permanent condition.
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.
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.
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 (and maybe long before, if technology does what technology normally does), our impact on this planet and its atmosphere will begin to slowly decrease. We will have passed the crisis point, and will be moving into–what? Adulthood? Middle age? I guess they’ll come up with a cute name for it.
The two points I’d like to make is, first, that whatever we do on behalf of the planet can be looked at as our generation’s contribution to a future that is almost in sight already. 90 years? Kids being born today will see it.
Second, 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.
While I am probably a stronger advocate for renewable energy and energy efficiency than many of you reading this, it may be because I’m looking at this as just part of our generational duty–a far lighter duty than previous generations had to shoulder.
Yes, I think we should commit more of our treasure and toil towards reducing pollution, including emissions of the non-polluting CO2. Yes, I believe that we should spend more of our money on researching energy efficiency and things like utility level storage of energy.
But like most of you, 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. If we’re wrangling about it now, it’s a combination of anger at those who have blown this out of proportion and sticker shock at what the solution may cost.
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.
We scientifically-oriented people are stuck in this time-wasting groundhog-day debate – through no fault of our own – while important issues pass by untouched. Thomas Fuller : I do not wish to denigrate your article as it contained food for thought and was a brave effort to contribute to the debate, but quite frankly your statement “we should commit more of our treasure and toil towards reducing pollution, including emissions of the non-polluting CO2” is absurd, and shows just how stuck we are.
huh
September 5, 2010 2:41 pm
I think the current series of science-free pure-opinion PR-managements posts by Tom Fuller are just a “stupid” phase in the growth og WUWT – some sort of reversion to romanticism and unprincipled pragmatiskm.
Let’s pray that this phase of WUWT’s life does not last very long and that Tom Fuller comes to realize that his dreams about designing and managing the future of humanity are just a manifestation of his highly immature stage of mental development.
Acting on behalf of the planet? Acting on behalf of the rest of humanity? What conceit!
Philip Thomas
September 5, 2010 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.
Curiousgeorge
September 5, 2010 2:57 pm
“Prediction is difficult, especially concerning the future” ( Niels Bohr ). Don’t get too wrapped up in the prognostications of all those “experts”, especially the UN. Their crystal ball is no better than mine or yours.
richard telford
September 5, 2010 2:59 pm
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.
DirkH
September 5, 2010 3:00 pm
Another word about energy consumption: Nations that have abundant electricity from renewable sources also tend to have the highest electricity consumption. Interesting table here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_consumption
My prediction is thus: When Germany is even more awash in wind power and solar power surges than now, our consumption will inevitably rise. Supply creates demand.
Curiousgeorge
September 5, 2010 3:03 pm
.Oh, and btw, optimism or pessimism is a state of mind, not a reliable predictor of future performance.
fenbeagle
September 5, 2010 3:03 pm
In Britain, the ‘solution’ as the Minister for Energy and Climate Changer Chris Huhne believes, is to carpet the country, in oversized wind mills….. But is this really the solution?
all is sketched out here…. http://libertygibbert.wordpress.com/2010/09/05/an-ill-wind/
John R. Walker
September 5, 2010 3:06 pm
“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…
Gareth
September 5, 2010 3:06 pm
Thank you for the article Mr. Fuller. A pragmatic approach to futurology! I’m not sure relying on the UN for predictions is a wise thing to do though.
“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.”
Everything is relative. Wages in the future being far higher than today would mean little if the cost of living is much higher too. That said, consumers and producers are very good at finding and exploiting efficiencies if only Governments would allow it. Do the UN make any estimates of how living costs will change? Do they account for inflation in those GDP growth figures?
For me, free trade is the way forward – developed nations would see falling living costs and developing nations would see increasing income levels. Any leveling up of wealth would be by choice rather than force. We already have a global economy of people trading with people. The interference of national Governments slows that down and a knock on effect of that is restricting the pace at which efficiencies are realised.
Unfortunately for us there are many powerful people who see the only solution to the above as being a global government with them somewhere in it pulling at the levers of power. I do not. There is no need. The global economy works largely despite national and supra-national authorities not because of them.
Gary Pearse
September 5, 2010 3:08 pm
“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.
Evan Jones
Editor
September 5, 2010 3:15 pm
I agree with the gist of this post. But without the resource depletion bit.
Other than that, is not unlike what I have been saying here since 2007 (and, before that, for 30 years).
Only I believe it in my head, not my heart.
FrankK
September 5, 2010 3:19 pm
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.
lrshultis
September 5, 2010 3:21 pm
Mr. Fuller said:
“…western energy consumption patterns. It is going to be impressive, and scary, especially if coal turns out to be the fuel powering this growth.”
Scary as compared to what? Maybe loss of liberty from government involvement, or maybe being killed on the highways or some other accident, or maybe the natural increase of a few more degrees and maybe another 100 feet of sea level rise leading into the next full ice age, or
maybe as scary as some really scary movie.
You also mention harming the Earth. Is that Earth one sans all life or just one sans humans who are an unnatural plague placed on the Earth by some god for a good sadistic laugh?
Tulsa Jack
September 5, 2010 3:22 pm
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.
Jim Barker
September 5, 2010 3:23 pm
While I am also generally optimistic, and I believe the future may be a better place, there is one human issue that needs to be overcome. GREED. Everything else will work itself out.
jlc
September 5, 2010 3:36 pm
Pointless, Tom.
Go away, you have exhausted my limited supply of patience, which I have to conserve for my grandchildren
Gnomish
September 5, 2010 3:39 pm
Mr. Fuller- futurism is fun – and especially in reference to the largest demographic in the usa- the boomers – is a very engaging topic and I’d love to read more about that.
CO2 fetishism is seriously [snip]. Suggestions about how others should distribute my income are threatening. If you can leave off that sauce, the meat and potatoes could make a lot of meals.
Objectivity is where you will find the unfilled demand.
Everybody is a wannabe keyboard- ‘air guitar’- demagogue. Most of us have read the same crap they think they can conjure with. We are not morons to be manipulated for milking, either for money or vanity. We know the score.
Respect for being a professional.
LazyTeenager
September 5, 2010 3:40 pm
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.
DirkH
September 5, 2010 3:46 pm
FrankK says:
September 5, 2010 at 3:19 pm
“[…]Energy once expended is for ever lost as work done and heat.[…]”
You can convert mass into energy and back but you cannot just lose it. Maybe GISS or the CRU could, but normally, you can’t.
alan
September 5, 2010 3:47 pm
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]
David, UK
September 5, 2010 3:50 pm
Sorry Thomas, but as reasonable and cool-headed as your post is, you’re still falling into the rather arrogant trap of predicting what society will be like a hundred years from now. This has never been possible in the past, and is not possible now, and never shall it be. It is nonsensical to make changes to our lives now for the sake of future generations when we have no idea what their society will be like.
Ask yourself – what would the average thinking man have considered he should do in the late 1800s to ensure he was not creating a hell for us now? Stop breeding horses maybe, to cut down on (very polluting) horse manure “emissions”? Well, people actually were discussing the alarming projections of horse over-population in the 1800s and early 1900s, and how we should solve the problem – until the motor engine was invented. Problem solved. No one legislated to invent the engine – it just happened, because where there is a demand, someone will invent. No one could see it coming, partly because no one had a fully working crystal ball.
I must also echo the sentiments of others who take issue with your suggestion of finding “solutions” to what many here (including me) see as non-problems. The fact is, there is no hard evidence (only sloppy evidence based on “fudged” data and unproven assumptions about feedbacks) that “non-polluting” CO2 is a problem for the environment. Indeed there is much evidence to suggest more CO2 is beneficial (plants just love it).
We don’t need to actively look for solutions. We need to let society be free – FREE – to develop new technologies (which it will do perfectly well without any interference from Big Government, as it always has, thank you very much) which will continue to improve the lot of the whole world in the long run. The human ability to adapt and invent (when free to do so) has proven over the centuries to be the key to our success. Knowing this, and knowing some political history, we should be looking for solutions to the problem of ever-growing Government, not CO2.
Djozar
September 5, 2010 3:52 pm
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.
Matt G
September 5, 2010 3:52 pm
Not only is it a give away that AGW is a non problem by scientific evidence and the behaviour of the planet. If this was really a serious and life threatening issue then this so called problem can be fixed quickly and with little problems just by increasing nuclear plants around the world. The nuclear waste is a tiny price to pay if this hype was true. Though of course it isn’t true because firstly this is opposed (gotchya) and the true meaning for power and greed.
This can’t happen if we actually do solve this problem quite easily with little cost to human society. At worst spend millions of pounds launching nuclear waste into space on unmanned rockets if there was not anywhere on Earth to dipose of. Though it doesn’t end there with many not practicing what they preach. Yet some alarmed scientists and politicians can’t understand why others, including the public don’t take them seriously.
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.
We scientifically-oriented people are stuck in this time-wasting groundhog-day debate – through no fault of our own – while important issues pass by untouched. Thomas Fuller : I do not wish to denigrate your article as it contained food for thought and was a brave effort to contribute to the debate, but quite frankly your statement “we should commit more of our treasure and toil towards reducing pollution, including emissions of the non-polluting CO2” is absurd, and shows just how stuck we are.
I think the current series of science-free pure-opinion PR-managements posts by Tom Fuller are just a “stupid” phase in the growth og WUWT – some sort of reversion to romanticism and unprincipled pragmatiskm.
Let’s pray that this phase of WUWT’s life does not last very long and that Tom Fuller comes to realize that his dreams about designing and managing the future of humanity are just a manifestation of his highly immature stage of mental development.
Acting on behalf of the planet? Acting on behalf of the rest of humanity? What conceit!
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.
“Prediction is difficult, especially concerning the future” ( Niels Bohr ). Don’t get too wrapped up in the prognostications of all those “experts”, especially the UN. Their crystal ball is no better than mine or yours.
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.
Another word about energy consumption: Nations that have abundant electricity from renewable sources also tend to have the highest electricity consumption. Interesting table here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_consumption
My prediction is thus: When Germany is even more awash in wind power and solar power surges than now, our consumption will inevitably rise. Supply creates demand.
.Oh, and btw, optimism or pessimism is a state of mind, not a reliable predictor of future performance.
In Britain, the ‘solution’ as the Minister for Energy and Climate Changer Chris Huhne believes, is to carpet the country, in oversized wind mills….. But is this really the solution?
all is sketched out here….
http://libertygibbert.wordpress.com/2010/09/05/an-ill-wind/
“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…
Thank you for the article Mr. Fuller. A pragmatic approach to futurology! I’m not sure relying on the UN for predictions is a wise thing to do though.
“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.”
Everything is relative. Wages in the future being far higher than today would mean little if the cost of living is much higher too. That said, consumers and producers are very good at finding and exploiting efficiencies if only Governments would allow it. Do the UN make any estimates of how living costs will change? Do they account for inflation in those GDP growth figures?
For me, free trade is the way forward – developed nations would see falling living costs and developing nations would see increasing income levels. Any leveling up of wealth would be by choice rather than force. We already have a global economy of people trading with people. The interference of national Governments slows that down and a knock on effect of that is restricting the pace at which efficiencies are realised.
Unfortunately for us there are many powerful people who see the only solution to the above as being a global government with them somewhere in it pulling at the levers of power. I do not. There is no need. The global economy works largely despite national and supra-national authorities not because of them.
“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 agree with the gist of this post. But without the resource depletion bit.
Other than that, is not unlike what I have been saying here since 2007 (and, before that, for 30 years).
Only I believe it in my head, not my heart.
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.
Mr. Fuller said:
“…western energy consumption patterns. It is going to be impressive, and scary, especially if coal turns out to be the fuel powering this growth.”
Scary as compared to what? Maybe loss of liberty from government involvement, or maybe being killed on the highways or some other accident, or maybe the natural increase of a few more degrees and maybe another 100 feet of sea level rise leading into the next full ice age, or
maybe as scary as some really scary movie.
You also mention harming the Earth. Is that Earth one sans all life or just one sans humans who are an unnatural plague placed on the Earth by some god for a good sadistic laugh?
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.
While I am also generally optimistic, and I believe the future may be a better place, there is one human issue that needs to be overcome. GREED. Everything else will work itself out.
Pointless, Tom.
Go away, you have exhausted my limited supply of patience, which I have to conserve for my grandchildren
Mr. Fuller- futurism is fun – and especially in reference to the largest demographic in the usa- the boomers – is a very engaging topic and I’d love to read more about that.
CO2 fetishism is seriously [snip]. Suggestions about how others should distribute my income are threatening. If you can leave off that sauce, the meat and potatoes could make a lot of meals.
Objectivity is where you will find the unfilled demand.
Everybody is a wannabe keyboard- ‘air guitar’- demagogue. Most of us have read the same crap they think they can conjure with. We are not morons to be manipulated for milking, either for money or vanity. We know the score.
Respect for being a professional.
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.
FrankK says:
September 5, 2010 at 3:19 pm
“[…]Energy once expended is for ever lost as work done and heat.[…]”
You can convert mass into energy and back but you cannot just lose it. Maybe GISS or the CRU could, but normally, you can’t.
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]
Sorry Thomas, but as reasonable and cool-headed as your post is, you’re still falling into the rather arrogant trap of predicting what society will be like a hundred years from now. This has never been possible in the past, and is not possible now, and never shall it be. It is nonsensical to make changes to our lives now for the sake of future generations when we have no idea what their society will be like.
Ask yourself – what would the average thinking man have considered he should do in the late 1800s to ensure he was not creating a hell for us now? Stop breeding horses maybe, to cut down on (very polluting) horse manure “emissions”? Well, people actually were discussing the alarming projections of horse over-population in the 1800s and early 1900s, and how we should solve the problem – until the motor engine was invented. Problem solved. No one legislated to invent the engine – it just happened, because where there is a demand, someone will invent. No one could see it coming, partly because no one had a fully working crystal ball.
I must also echo the sentiments of others who take issue with your suggestion of finding “solutions” to what many here (including me) see as non-problems. The fact is, there is no hard evidence (only sloppy evidence based on “fudged” data and unproven assumptions about feedbacks) that “non-polluting” CO2 is a problem for the environment. Indeed there is much evidence to suggest more CO2 is beneficial (plants just love it).
We don’t need to actively look for solutions. We need to let society be free – FREE – to develop new technologies (which it will do perfectly well without any interference from Big Government, as it always has, thank you very much) which will continue to improve the lot of the whole world in the long run. The human ability to adapt and invent (when free to do so) has proven over the centuries to be the key to our success. Knowing this, and knowing some political history, we should be looking for solutions to the problem of ever-growing Government, not CO2.
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.
Not only is it a give away that AGW is a non problem by scientific evidence and the behaviour of the planet. If this was really a serious and life threatening issue then this so called problem can be fixed quickly and with little problems just by increasing nuclear plants around the world. The nuclear waste is a tiny price to pay if this hype was true. Though of course it isn’t true because firstly this is opposed (gotchya) and the true meaning for power and greed.
This can’t happen if we actually do solve this problem quite easily with little cost to human society. At worst spend millions of pounds launching nuclear waste into space on unmanned rockets if there was not anywhere on Earth to dipose of. Though it doesn’t end there with many not practicing what they preach. Yet some alarmed scientists and politicians can’t understand why others, including the public don’t take them seriously.
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.