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.
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.
Christoph,
Actually, your post was to Tom Fuller. Did a new thought occur to you? ☺
Gnomish
September 5, 2010 6:02 pm
Aliester Crowley, The Book of Lies, the chapter ‘Goldbricks’.
We know the score.
Christoph Dollis
September 5, 2010 6:05 pm
Yes, Smokey, I read your post and it occurred to me that Moore’s Law is profoundly affecting everybody, even the conservative and generally optimistic. 🙂
I’m pretty happy about my own life. However, when Earth’s computers (and other machines) are 10s of thousands of times more intelligent than us, I do wonder how our species will fare.
Of all the “doomsday scenarios”, this seems to me by far the most plausible. The others could happen, sure, but mathematically they are not likely to before the above one.
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
Smokey:
“And no unusual warming is occurring, as was incessantly predicted by the alarmist crowd.
Falsify that — or admit that a rise in carbon dioxide is a non-problem.”
1. the warming seen is not “unusual” ( a non mathematical word) But the warming seen does match the predictions made by GCMs. namely in the attribution studies ( chapter 9 of Ar4 I believe)
2. Further, if we assume No forcing from C02 ( that it has no effect) Then the warming seen is not what one would predict. ( again see chapter 9)
3. The notion of “unusual” is in dire need of quantification. The Cooling you see after a volcano ( a couple of 1/10ths) is not “unusual in the whole history of earth, YET we have a physical explanation of WHY this slight cooling occurs. So the measure we look at is not the “usualness” or “unusualness” of the change. BUT RATHER the predictability of the change.
4. Physics tells us, and the success of the attribution studies confirm, that C02 will warm the planet. That course of warming may “look” “ordinary” the same way a drop after a volcano “looks” ordinary. Calling these small dips or small secular increases “natural variation” is no explanation. Its anti science.
A warmer planet may be a good thing. for some. 100 degrees warmer would be a bad thing for all. So the question always comes back to: how much warmer? and what exactly is the damage mechanism ( sea level rise) and who exactly will win and who will lose.
That intractable calculus is the key question.
latitude
September 5, 2010 6:55 pm
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. 😉
H.R.
September 5, 2010 7:02 pm
Tom Fuller says:
September 5, 2010 at 5:31 pm “[…]For those of you who think I’m wasting Anthony’s space, […]”
Not me. I think you’re barking up the wrong tree most of the time, but I like seeing other viewpoints. I do not enjoy hearing the same hymns from the same choir day after day as appears to be the case on far too many other blogs.
I do respect your thick hide and ability to roll with the many punches thrown your way, all the while keeping good spirits and good humor. WUWT is a tough crowd to play.
Signed,
H.R., an over-50 male with more than one degree, working full-time while transitioning to retirement
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 old boy, but renewable energy is a JOKE and a CRUEL ONE at best.
I spent 20 years working in THE energy source which CAN propel the world, NUCLEAR. Forget all that WHINING about what to do with the waste.
When I was in Sweden, visiting my relatives during the ’70’s I visited the tomb of Gustavos Adulphos, the King who “Christianized” Sweden. It is in a Church in Upsula, and his bones have been undisturbed for almost 500 years.
Bury the high level waste from a nuclear plant for that amount of time, and the total “activity” of the waste is below that of the ore from which it was orginally derived. Grind it up and spread it about, and in actuallity you have “cleansed” the Earth of radioactivity. The concept that the waste “remains hazardous” for “millions of years” is a LIE.
Now, as to the utility of Nuclear power…If we had approximately 500 power plants of last generation size in the USA, we’d be 100% nuclear electric.
If we had 1500 plants, we’d be 100% ENEGY nuclear…
That’s NOT an infinite amount. And it is NOT a technical impossibility. In France, the AVERAGE 6th grader can walk to a chaulkboard and draw a basic nuclear power plant, and the basic nuclear fuel cycle and explain the functionality of both.
In the USA an average 6th grader can show you how to put a condom on a cucumber.
Therein lies the problem of “energy” in the USA. ALAS!
ImranCan
September 5, 2010 7:15 pm
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 !
Steven Mosher,
Surely you must know my position by now: that CO2 warms, but the effect is insignificant. By insignificant I mean less than 1°C from here. That would not cause major problems, and the health and agricultural benefits would be substantial.
But there is also a good probability that the planet will be significantly colder thirty years from now. It has happened over and over in the past.
Gail Combs
September 5, 2010 7:18 pm
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
Richard Patton
September 5, 2010 7:21 pm
Steve Mosher says: “Calling these small dips or small secular increases “natural variation” is no explanation. Its anti science.”
Almost all physical processes are self-similar and so have a wandering mean. Thus “natural variation” is a well understood concept and is not in any way “anti science”.
dp
September 5, 2010 7:22 pm
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.
Usually the comments are as good as the articles, this time were much better, I still read all comments before posting anything.
Maverick
September 5, 2010 7:31 pm
Mr Fuller,
I find your comments patronising and condescending. You come across like a schoolteacher telling the kids not to worry their little heads about things. I think that you will find (have found?) that the readership of this site is rather more educated than that. By all means have your say, but couching it in those terms only damages its credibility.
david
September 5, 2010 7:34 pm
Regarding Steven Mosher says:
September 5, 2010 at 6:52 pm
1. the warming seen is not “unusual” ( a non mathematical word) But the warming seen does match the predictions made by GCMs. namely in the attribution studies ( chapter 9 of Ar4 I believe)
Mr Mosher, did we not have a similar warming period up until about 1975, which also would have matched the trend? If there is an estimated 60 year trend do we not need to go from peak to peak, and throw in the error bars and disputed UHI as well?
Did you disagree with Luboš Motl stating no statistically significant warming since 1995? (If you read his post to that effect)
Thanks
dkkraft
September 5, 2010 7:38 pm
“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 🙂
Gnomish
September 5, 2010 7:39 pm
1. the warming seen is not “unusual” … But the warming seen does match the predictions made by GCMs. namely in the attribution studies …
2. Further, if we assume No forcing from C02 … Then the warming seen is not what one would predict. …
—————————————————————
That’s precisely the logic that convinced me of flying elephants. I could not see them, but once it was explained that they were invisible, that was all the proof needed.
u.k.(us)
September 5, 2010 7:42 pm
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?
Gnomish
September 5, 2010 7:45 pm
This reminds me of the scene in Peter Pan where we all have to say ‘I DO believe in the anthropogenic fingerprint fairy, I do!’
Warren in Minnesota
September 5, 2010 7:53 pm
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.
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.
Christoph,
Actually, your post was to Tom Fuller. Did a new thought occur to you? ☺
Aliester Crowley, The Book of Lies, the chapter ‘Goldbricks’.
We know the score.
Yes, Smokey, I read your post and it occurred to me that Moore’s Law is profoundly affecting everybody, even the conservative and generally optimistic. 🙂
I’m pretty happy about my own life. However, when Earth’s computers (and other machines) are 10s of thousands of times more intelligent than us, I do wonder how our species will fare.
Of all the “doomsday scenarios”, this seems to me by far the most plausible. The others could happen, sure, but mathematically they are not likely to before the above one.
It may have been posted before (I bet it has) but here is Austin Williams’ take on growth and sustainability:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/sustainable-were-a-lot-smarter-than-that/story-e6frg6zo-1225914025010
Another brilliant, glass-half-full thinker.
We might make it through in good shape if the guys who are good at forecasting here would set up a Watts Up With That Farm Weather? Since Storm x-change/weather and agriculture online have ceased to be, its some harder now for farmers to make agri-decisions.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/GDP_growth_1923-2009.jpg
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GDP_growth_1923-2009.jpg
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States?wasRedirected=true
We could probably stand a bit more GDP growth!
Don’t worry, we’ll get the people alright. Since this solar cycle got moving I’ve never had so many women try to pick me up in my life. Their pineal glands are re-activated.
It also helps if you look like Elvis.
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
Smokey:
“And no unusual warming is occurring, as was incessantly predicted by the alarmist crowd.
Falsify that — or admit that a rise in carbon dioxide is a non-problem.”
1. the warming seen is not “unusual” ( a non mathematical word) But the warming seen does match the predictions made by GCMs. namely in the attribution studies ( chapter 9 of Ar4 I believe)
2. Further, if we assume No forcing from C02 ( that it has no effect) Then the warming seen is not what one would predict. ( again see chapter 9)
3. The notion of “unusual” is in dire need of quantification. The Cooling you see after a volcano ( a couple of 1/10ths) is not “unusual in the whole history of earth, YET we have a physical explanation of WHY this slight cooling occurs. So the measure we look at is not the “usualness” or “unusualness” of the change. BUT RATHER the predictability of the change.
4. Physics tells us, and the success of the attribution studies confirm, that C02 will warm the planet. That course of warming may “look” “ordinary” the same way a drop after a volcano “looks” ordinary. Calling these small dips or small secular increases “natural variation” is no explanation. Its anti science.
A warmer planet may be a good thing. for some. 100 degrees warmer would be a bad thing for all. So the question always comes back to: how much warmer? and what exactly is the damage mechanism ( sea level rise) and who exactly will win and who will lose.
That intractable calculus is the key question.
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. 😉
Tom Fuller says:
September 5, 2010 at 5:31 pm
“[…]For those of you who think I’m wasting Anthony’s space, […]”
Not me. I think you’re barking up the wrong tree most of the time, but I like seeing other viewpoints. I do not enjoy hearing the same hymns from the same choir day after day as appears to be the case on far too many other blogs.
I do respect your thick hide and ability to roll with the many punches thrown your way, all the while keeping good spirits and good humor. WUWT is a tough crowd to play.
Signed,
H.R., an over-50 male with more than one degree, working full-time while transitioning to retirement
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 old boy, but renewable energy is a JOKE and a CRUEL ONE at best.
I spent 20 years working in THE energy source which CAN propel the world, NUCLEAR. Forget all that WHINING about what to do with the waste.
When I was in Sweden, visiting my relatives during the ’70’s I visited the tomb of Gustavos Adulphos, the King who “Christianized” Sweden. It is in a Church in Upsula, and his bones have been undisturbed for almost 500 years.
Bury the high level waste from a nuclear plant for that amount of time, and the total “activity” of the waste is below that of the ore from which it was orginally derived. Grind it up and spread it about, and in actuallity you have “cleansed” the Earth of radioactivity. The concept that the waste “remains hazardous” for “millions of years” is a LIE.
Now, as to the utility of Nuclear power…If we had approximately 500 power plants of last generation size in the USA, we’d be 100% nuclear electric.
If we had 1500 plants, we’d be 100% ENEGY nuclear…
That’s NOT an infinite amount. And it is NOT a technical impossibility. In France, the AVERAGE 6th grader can walk to a chaulkboard and draw a basic nuclear power plant, and the basic nuclear fuel cycle and explain the functionality of both.
In the USA an average 6th grader can show you how to put a condom on a cucumber.
Therein lies the problem of “energy” in the USA. ALAS!
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 !
Steven Mosher,
Surely you must know my position by now: that CO2 warms, but the effect is insignificant. By insignificant I mean less than 1°C from here. That would not cause major problems, and the health and agricultural benefits would be substantial.
But there is also a good probability that the planet will be significantly colder thirty years from now. It has happened over and over in the past.
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
Steve Mosher says: “Calling these small dips or small secular increases “natural variation” is no explanation. Its anti science.”
Almost all physical processes are self-similar and so have a wandering mean. Thus “natural variation” is a well understood concept and is not in any way “anti science”.
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.
Usually the comments are as good as the articles, this time were much better, I still read all comments before posting anything.
Mr Fuller,
I find your comments patronising and condescending. You come across like a schoolteacher telling the kids not to worry their little heads about things. I think that you will find (have found?) that the readership of this site is rather more educated than that. By all means have your say, but couching it in those terms only damages its credibility.
Regarding Steven Mosher says:
September 5, 2010 at 6:52 pm
1. the warming seen is not “unusual” ( a non mathematical word) But the warming seen does match the predictions made by GCMs. namely in the attribution studies ( chapter 9 of Ar4 I believe)
Mr Mosher, did we not have a similar warming period up until about 1975, which also would have matched the trend? If there is an estimated 60 year trend do we not need to go from peak to peak, and throw in the error bars and disputed UHI as well?
Did you disagree with Luboš Motl stating no statistically significant warming since 1995? (If you read his post to that effect)
Thanks
“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 🙂
1. the warming seen is not “unusual” … But the warming seen does match the predictions made by GCMs. namely in the attribution studies …
2. Further, if we assume No forcing from C02 … Then the warming seen is not what one would predict. …
—————————————————————
That’s precisely the logic that convinced me of flying elephants. I could not see them, but once it was explained that they were invisible, that was all the proof needed.
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?
This reminds me of the scene in Peter Pan where we all have to say ‘I DO believe in the anthropogenic fingerprint fairy, I do!’
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.