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.
Tom, I now realise your skewed view of reality stems partly from your poor reading skills. My name is Alexander; your mis-spelling is for the female version of the name, which is not offensive to me but quite incorrect. I also find your assertions about the kind of folk who frequent WUWT to be slightly weird and Big-Brotherish.
Your oddly avuncular post-modern stream-of-consciousness writing technoique, which seems aimed at giving the reader an impression of you as a kindly and slightly doddery old chap who was quite sharp once, but means well, is beginning to become a little tiresome.
You have continually, and I suspect intentionally, failed to quote proper, empirical evidence as to why you are so concerned that we all should ‘reduce CO2’.
Answering a specific question with waffle about your feelings about the future is not good enough; you made the statement, so it is up to you to provide proper evidence for that statement.
Regards,
Alexander
John
September 6, 2010 5:43 am
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.
Enneagram
September 6, 2010 5:46 am
Some facts to remember:
CO2 follows temperature, not the other way. Open a coke and you´ll see it: The more you have it in your warm hand the more gas will go out when you open it.
CO2 is the transparent gas we all exhale (SOOT is black=Carbon dust) and plants breath with delight, to give us back what they exhale instead= Oxygen we breath in.
CO2 is a TRACE GAS in the atmosphere, it is the 0.038% of it.
There is no such a thing as “greenhouse effect”, “greenhouse gases are gases IN a greenhouse”, where heated gases are trapped and relatively isolated not to lose its heat so rapidly. If greenhouse effect were to be true, as Svante Arrhenius figured it out: CO2 “like the window panes in a greenhouse”, but…the trouble is that those panes would be only 3.8 panes out of 10000, there would be 9996.2 HOLES.
See: http://www.scribd.com/doc/28018819/Greenhouse-Niels-Bohr
CO2 is a gas essential to life. All carbohydrates are made of it. The sugar you eat, the bread you have eaten in your breakfast this morning, even the jeans you wear (these are made from 100% cotton, a polymer of glucose, made of CO2…you didn´t know it, did you?)
You and I, we are made of CARBON and WATER.
CO2 is heavier than Air, so it can not go up, up and away to cover the earth.
The atmosphere, the air can not hold heat, its volumetric heat capacity, per cubic cemtimeter is 0.00192 joules, while water is 4.186, i.e., 3227 times.
This is the reason why people used hot water bottles to warm their feet and not hot air bottles.
Global Warmers models (a la Hansen) expected a kind of heated CO2 piggy bank to form in the tropical atmosphere, it never happened simply because it can not.
If global warmers were to succeed in achieving their SUPPOSED goal of lowering CO2 level to nothing, life would disappear from the face of the earth.
So, if no CO2 NO YOU!
Rhys Jaggar
September 6, 2010 6:08 am
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………
Gail Combs
September 6, 2010 6:19 am
Mike says:
“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.”
________________
Frank says:
Ocean acidification is the fallback scare should the catastrophic global warming fail to manifest itself. It’s scientific base is even less substansial than the CAGW one.
Did a quick search on animal extinsion in the last century, there are no extinsions in the last century that can be attributed to changes in climate, none, nada, zip.
__________________________
Willis did the search it is in: Where Are The Corpses? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/04/where-are-the-corpses/
mikael pihlström
September 6, 2010 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.
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.
Pascvaks
September 6, 2010 6:31 am
People are capable of every dream and nightmare under the Sun. Looking ‘forward’ in this manner is like the modern psyence of Etamilcology (some say ‘climateology’ but, as it is so new and infantile at this time, I prefer it spelled backwards). Beyond a few days, the ‘future of anything’ is as questionable as the ‘climate to come’. It is always interesting to read what someone thinks about either; indeed, some are actually more sane and compelling than others. Such is life.
Dreaming usually, normally, for most of us, is a pleasant –though quickly forgotten– experience. Some, however, have various chemical imbalances and find pleasant dreaming difficult; they are more inclined in the opposite direction –the same is true in Etamilcology.
Daydreaming is not healthy. Some have a chemical imbalance in this direction as well. Whenever we daydream about something we really want, we usually end up disappointed with any result except the one we daydreamed of achieving. Best not to dwell on the particulars and pleasures of grandiose daydreams –reality and life are so much more satisfying that way.
To hear another’s dream, or their reasoned thoughts, is enlightening. Thank you for a little more information to add to my experience for the day. Best to you!
alan
September 6, 2010 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.
mikael pihlström says:
“There is no point in entertaining some counterfactual dream image of a totally FREE man.”
mikael enjoys the cozy feeling of being part of the CAGW crowd. But in his post above he recalls Eric Hoffer’s observation: We join a mass movement to escape individual responsibility, or, in the words of the ardent young Nazi, “to be free from freedom.”
Give me freedom any time over statist watermelon groups.
Bruce Cobb
September 6, 2010 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.
simpleseekeraftertruth
September 6, 2010 7:41 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 care to look you will find a reasonable signal-to-noise ratio at WUWT. Whereas at RC etc you will only get signal, noise having been filtered. I prefer actual over homegenised data myself. It is usually found at WUWT but can be absent elsewhere proxies aside.
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
TinyCO2
September 6, 2010 7:48 am
mikael pihlström says:
“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.”
Like many you confuse anti-environmentalism with anti-anti-capitalism. Governmental solutions are often clumsy, misdirected and expensive.
Eg If the main problem on Earth is CO2 then CO2 is what you tackle. However getting Joe Bloggs to insulate his loft won’t stop deforestation. Joe Bloggs getting a windmill won’t help a cyclone victim in China. Joe Bloggs composting his leftovers won’t stop a gorilla from being killed for bush meat. Joe Bloggs buying carbon offsets won’t get electricity to the third world. Putting biofuels in his car won’t prevent starvation in Ethiopia.
If people want to see a reduction in consumerism then it has to stand or fall as an issue by itself. Too many are using CO2 as a way to pass judgement on other people’s lifestyle.
Jeff Alberts
September 6, 2010 8:07 am
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.
H.R.
September 6, 2010 8:10 am
mikael pihlström says:
September 6, 2010 at 6:27 am
——- “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’?”
One scheme that takes care of the needs of people in poverty is the religious and secular-social charities with zero overhead. You give the volunteers $1.00 and $1.00 is spent on the goods needed by the beneficiaries. All overhead is absorbed by the members and volunteers of the organization. (NB there are “charitable” organizations where 80% or more of donations go to the overhead; boo, hiss, boo!.) Contrast this with the US government which collects a tax “donation” which is encumbered by the cost of collection (IRS); a portion of that amount is sent to a federal agency (all overhead cost so far; no one in need has seen a penny yet), which then send some of the funds to a state agency (all overhead cost so far; no one in need has seen a penny yet), which then sends funds to a county agency (all overhead cost so far; no one in need has seen a penny yet), which is charged with the task of disbursing it to someone who may or may not need the funds, depending on the honesty of the applicant, after all of the appropriate paperwork has been filled out.
Which scheme is more efficient, direct action or layers of government? Rinse and repeat for any federal program. The most efficient and lowest cost action takes place at the lowest level necessary to effect the action.
Social Security is a government-sanctioned Ponzi scheme. That’s not opinion. The government takes money from current “investors” (hahahahahahaha!) to pay earlier “investors” (again; hahahahahahaha!). Worse yet, people who were never “investors” in the first place are eligible for payouts. There have been many more efficient and effective replacement schemes for S.S., but unfortunately there are too many people left holding the bag of the current scheme for the U.S. to easily get away from S.S. Yes, S.S. is only supposed to be a safety net but like any net, it’s full of holes. The most efficient and lowest cost action takes place at the lowest level necessary to effect the action.
Medicare/Medicaid: If the government is so successful with running those schemes, why are Dr.s refusing to take new patients and dropping those they already have? Why is medicaid and medicare bankrupting the states? If they are such efficient schemes, why is the new healthcare scheme depending so heavily for success on the revenue they hope to get from cutting the fraud and waste in the existing system? How much extra will it cost to cut fraud in the new system? If I give a Dr. $40 to determine if I have a minor fracture or a sprain, where’s the potential for fraud? The most efficient and lowest cost action takes place at the lowest level necessary to effect the action.
A more efficient scheme being tried right now is patient/Dr. co-ops. A group of Dr.s is paid by a pool of patients for run-of-the-mill heealthcare. The patients carry only catastrophic healthcre insurance, which is cheap. No one else is involved. I’m sure other schemes will be tried, but the upshot is that all of the emerging private schemes are trying to cut out the costs of overhead (insurance and/or government) to deliver affordable healthcare.
Pamela Gray
September 6, 2010 8:11 am
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.
H.R.
September 6, 2010 8:15 am
hmmmm… I spent a fair amount of time answering mikael pihlström @ur momisugly September 6, 2010 at 6:27 am and when I hit submit, the usual, “your comment is awaiting moderation” didn’t pop up.
Spam bin, maybe?
Gail Combs
September 6, 2010 8:52 am
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.
Larry
September 6, 2010 8:56 am
The writer should also have more respect for the law of diminishing returns.
The UK government recently increased the efficiency standards for Gas boilers, making the new boilers 4% more efficient than the old ones. Unfortunately the new boilers are more complex, and have approximately half the lifespan of the old ones. A large proportion of the energy savings probably disappears in the manufacturer and recycling of the boiler.
The cost of replacing the boiler and maintenance has also made electric boilers a lot more desirable.
The simplistic calculations used by the people pushing this stuff means most of the resources used to reduce resource usage end up chasing their tail.
Vince Causey
September 6, 2010 9:25 am
Gail Combs,
“wringing the necks of tomorrows dinner… “.
So that’s how you get your beef steak on the table. I’m impressed!
Vince Causey
September 6, 2010 9:29 am
Larry,
“The cost of replacing the boiler and maintenance has also made electric boilers a lot more desirable.”
You are quite right. I have an old gas boiler. It has no moving parts, no computer circuits and consists of nothing more than the gas jets. Inefficient, maybe. But it never needs servicing, and has never gone wrong is the 15 years I have lived here. On the other hand, a friend bought a state of the art gas boiler. Annual servicing costs are around £70 and it went wrong after a few years.
Sonya Porter
September 6, 2010 9:41 am
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.)
Layne Blanchard
September 6, 2010 9:48 am
mikael pihlström says:
September 6, 2010 at 6:27 am
Mikael, for those of us who have studied this issue extensively for years, we’ve seen the arguments and counter arguments. I’m not “skeptical” of climate change (AGW). I’ve concluded it’s not a danger to humanity or Earth. I don’t believe in the Easter Bunny either. But along the way, it became apparent that “science” wasn’t the motive for the AGW obsessed. The masses who follow the AGW narrative are simply fooled. The true motivators of AGW are Money, Marxism, and Religion. AGW has very powerful followers, and as a religious political machine, it is very malevolent toward humanity and freedom. This conclusion comes from extensive study, not Paranoia as you imagine. We’re not anti-Environment at all. But Environmentalism has become anti-human, anti-industrialization, anti-capitalist, and anti-American. We defend against that hatred.
Philip Thomas
September 6, 2010 10:06 am
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!
Mikael Pihlström
September 6, 2010 10:10 am
Smokey says:
September 6, 2010 at 6:58 am
mikael pihlström says:
“There is no point in entertaining some counterfactual dream image of a totally FREE man.”
mikael enjoys the cozy feeling of being part of the CAGW crowd. But in his post above he recalls Eric Hoffer’s observation:
We join a mass movement to escape individual responsibility, or, in the words of the ardent young Nazi, “to be free from freedom.”
Give me freedom any time over statist watermelon groups.
————————-
Between John Wayne and the Hitler Jugend trainee Pihlstrom there are no
intermediate stages?
BTW, John Wayne was out there on the prairie, because he was playing
a role in the State-Big Business blueprint for the West. He, like Smokey,
only thought they were free, protecting the women & children.
Tom, I now realise your skewed view of reality stems partly from your poor reading skills. My name is Alexander; your mis-spelling is for the female version of the name, which is not offensive to me but quite incorrect. I also find your assertions about the kind of folk who frequent WUWT to be slightly weird and Big-Brotherish.
Your oddly avuncular post-modern stream-of-consciousness writing technoique, which seems aimed at giving the reader an impression of you as a kindly and slightly doddery old chap who was quite sharp once, but means well, is beginning to become a little tiresome.
You have continually, and I suspect intentionally, failed to quote proper, empirical evidence as to why you are so concerned that we all should ‘reduce CO2’.
Answering a specific question with waffle about your feelings about the future is not good enough; you made the statement, so it is up to you to provide proper evidence for that statement.
Regards,
Alexander
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.
Some facts to remember:
CO2 follows temperature, not the other way. Open a coke and you´ll see it: The more you have it in your warm hand the more gas will go out when you open it.
CO2 is the transparent gas we all exhale (SOOT is black=Carbon dust) and plants breath with delight, to give us back what they exhale instead= Oxygen we breath in.
CO2 is a TRACE GAS in the atmosphere, it is the 0.038% of it.
There is no such a thing as “greenhouse effect”, “greenhouse gases are gases IN a greenhouse”, where heated gases are trapped and relatively isolated not to lose its heat so rapidly. If greenhouse effect were to be true, as Svante Arrhenius figured it out: CO2 “like the window panes in a greenhouse”, but…the trouble is that those panes would be only 3.8 panes out of 10000, there would be 9996.2 HOLES.
See:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28018819/Greenhouse-Niels-Bohr
CO2 is a gas essential to life. All carbohydrates are made of it. The sugar you eat, the bread you have eaten in your breakfast this morning, even the jeans you wear (these are made from 100% cotton, a polymer of glucose, made of CO2…you didn´t know it, did you?)
You and I, we are made of CARBON and WATER.
CO2 is heavier than Air, so it can not go up, up and away to cover the earth.
The atmosphere, the air can not hold heat, its volumetric heat capacity, per cubic cemtimeter is 0.00192 joules, while water is 4.186, i.e., 3227 times.
This is the reason why people used hot water bottles to warm their feet and not hot air bottles.
Global Warmers models (a la Hansen) expected a kind of heated CO2 piggy bank to form in the tropical atmosphere, it never happened simply because it can not.
If global warmers were to succeed in achieving their SUPPOSED goal of lowering CO2 level to nothing, life would disappear from the face of the earth.
So, if no CO2 NO YOU!
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………
Mike says:
“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.”
________________
Frank says:
Ocean acidification is the fallback scare should the catastrophic global warming fail to manifest itself. It’s scientific base is even less substansial than the CAGW one.
Did a quick search on animal extinsion in the last century, there are no extinsions in the last century that can be attributed to changes in climate, none, nada, zip.
__________________________
Willis did the search it is in: Where Are The Corpses? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/04/where-are-the-corpses/
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.
People are capable of every dream and nightmare under the Sun. Looking ‘forward’ in this manner is like the modern psyence of Etamilcology (some say ‘climateology’ but, as it is so new and infantile at this time, I prefer it spelled backwards). Beyond a few days, the ‘future of anything’ is as questionable as the ‘climate to come’. It is always interesting to read what someone thinks about either; indeed, some are actually more sane and compelling than others. Such is life.
Dreaming usually, normally, for most of us, is a pleasant –though quickly forgotten– experience. Some, however, have various chemical imbalances and find pleasant dreaming difficult; they are more inclined in the opposite direction –the same is true in Etamilcology.
Daydreaming is not healthy. Some have a chemical imbalance in this direction as well. Whenever we daydream about something we really want, we usually end up disappointed with any result except the one we daydreamed of achieving. Best not to dwell on the particulars and pleasures of grandiose daydreams –reality and life are so much more satisfying that way.
To hear another’s dream, or their reasoned thoughts, is enlightening. Thank you for a little more information to add to my experience for the day. Best to you!
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.
mikael pihlström says:
“There is no point in entertaining some counterfactual dream image of a totally FREE man.”
mikael enjoys the cozy feeling of being part of the CAGW crowd. But in his post above he recalls Eric Hoffer’s observation:
We join a mass movement to escape individual responsibility, or, in the words of the ardent young Nazi, “to be free from freedom.”
Give me freedom any time over statist watermelon groups.
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.
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 care to look you will find a reasonable signal-to-noise ratio at WUWT. Whereas at RC etc you will only get signal, noise having been filtered. I prefer actual over homegenised data myself. It is usually found at WUWT but can be absent elsewhere proxies aside.
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
mikael pihlström says:
“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.”
Like many you confuse anti-environmentalism with anti-anti-capitalism. Governmental solutions are often clumsy, misdirected and expensive.
Eg If the main problem on Earth is CO2 then CO2 is what you tackle. However getting Joe Bloggs to insulate his loft won’t stop deforestation. Joe Bloggs getting a windmill won’t help a cyclone victim in China. Joe Bloggs composting his leftovers won’t stop a gorilla from being killed for bush meat. Joe Bloggs buying carbon offsets won’t get electricity to the third world. Putting biofuels in his car won’t prevent starvation in Ethiopia.
If people want to see a reduction in consumerism then it has to stand or fall as an issue by itself. Too many are using CO2 as a way to pass judgement on other people’s lifestyle.
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.
mikael pihlström says:
September 6, 2010 at 6:27 am
——-
“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’?”
One scheme that takes care of the needs of people in poverty is the religious and secular-social charities with zero overhead. You give the volunteers $1.00 and $1.00 is spent on the goods needed by the beneficiaries. All overhead is absorbed by the members and volunteers of the organization. (NB there are “charitable” organizations where 80% or more of donations go to the overhead; boo, hiss, boo!.) Contrast this with the US government which collects a tax “donation” which is encumbered by the cost of collection (IRS); a portion of that amount is sent to a federal agency (all overhead cost so far; no one in need has seen a penny yet), which then send some of the funds to a state agency (all overhead cost so far; no one in need has seen a penny yet), which then sends funds to a county agency (all overhead cost so far; no one in need has seen a penny yet), which is charged with the task of disbursing it to someone who may or may not need the funds, depending on the honesty of the applicant, after all of the appropriate paperwork has been filled out.
Which scheme is more efficient, direct action or layers of government? Rinse and repeat for any federal program. The most efficient and lowest cost action takes place at the lowest level necessary to effect the action.
Social Security is a government-sanctioned Ponzi scheme. That’s not opinion. The government takes money from current “investors” (hahahahahahaha!) to pay earlier “investors” (again; hahahahahahaha!). Worse yet, people who were never “investors” in the first place are eligible for payouts. There have been many more efficient and effective replacement schemes for S.S., but unfortunately there are too many people left holding the bag of the current scheme for the U.S. to easily get away from S.S. Yes, S.S. is only supposed to be a safety net but like any net, it’s full of holes. The most efficient and lowest cost action takes place at the lowest level necessary to effect the action.
Medicare/Medicaid: If the government is so successful with running those schemes, why are Dr.s refusing to take new patients and dropping those they already have? Why is medicaid and medicare bankrupting the states? If they are such efficient schemes, why is the new healthcare scheme depending so heavily for success on the revenue they hope to get from cutting the fraud and waste in the existing system? How much extra will it cost to cut fraud in the new system? If I give a Dr. $40 to determine if I have a minor fracture or a sprain, where’s the potential for fraud? The most efficient and lowest cost action takes place at the lowest level necessary to effect the action.
A more efficient scheme being tried right now is patient/Dr. co-ops. A group of Dr.s is paid by a pool of patients for run-of-the-mill heealthcare. The patients carry only catastrophic healthcre insurance, which is cheap. No one else is involved. I’m sure other schemes will be tried, but the upshot is that all of the emerging private schemes are trying to cut out the costs of overhead (insurance and/or government) to deliver affordable healthcare.
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.
hmmmm… I spent a fair amount of time answering mikael pihlström @ur momisugly September 6, 2010 at 6:27 am and when I hit submit, the usual, “your comment is awaiting moderation” didn’t pop up.
Spam bin, maybe?
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.
The writer should also have more respect for the law of diminishing returns.
The UK government recently increased the efficiency standards for Gas boilers, making the new boilers 4% more efficient than the old ones. Unfortunately the new boilers are more complex, and have approximately half the lifespan of the old ones. A large proportion of the energy savings probably disappears in the manufacturer and recycling of the boiler.
The cost of replacing the boiler and maintenance has also made electric boilers a lot more desirable.
The simplistic calculations used by the people pushing this stuff means most of the resources used to reduce resource usage end up chasing their tail.
Gail Combs,
“wringing the necks of tomorrows dinner… “.
So that’s how you get your beef steak on the table. I’m impressed!
Larry,
“The cost of replacing the boiler and maintenance has also made electric boilers a lot more desirable.”
You are quite right. I have an old gas boiler. It has no moving parts, no computer circuits and consists of nothing more than the gas jets. Inefficient, maybe. But it never needs servicing, and has never gone wrong is the 15 years I have lived here. On the other hand, a friend bought a state of the art gas boiler. Annual servicing costs are around £70 and it went wrong after a few years.
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.)
mikael pihlström says:
September 6, 2010 at 6:27 am
Mikael, for those of us who have studied this issue extensively for years, we’ve seen the arguments and counter arguments. I’m not “skeptical” of climate change (AGW). I’ve concluded it’s not a danger to humanity or Earth. I don’t believe in the Easter Bunny either. But along the way, it became apparent that “science” wasn’t the motive for the AGW obsessed. The masses who follow the AGW narrative are simply fooled. The true motivators of AGW are Money, Marxism, and Religion. AGW has very powerful followers, and as a religious political machine, it is very malevolent toward humanity and freedom. This conclusion comes from extensive study, not Paranoia as you imagine. We’re not anti-Environment at all. But Environmentalism has become anti-human, anti-industrialization, anti-capitalist, and anti-American. We defend against that hatred.
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!
Smokey says:
September 6, 2010 at 6:58 am
mikael pihlström says:
“There is no point in entertaining some counterfactual dream image of a totally FREE man.”
mikael enjoys the cozy feeling of being part of the CAGW crowd. But in his post above he recalls Eric Hoffer’s observation:
We join a mass movement to escape individual responsibility, or, in the words of the ardent young Nazi, “to be free from freedom.”
Give me freedom any time over statist watermelon groups.
————————-
Between John Wayne and the Hitler Jugend trainee Pihlstrom there are no
intermediate stages?
BTW, John Wayne was out there on the prairie, because he was playing
a role in the State-Big Business blueprint for the West. He, like Smokey,
only thought they were free, protecting the women & children.