The Thirteen Worst Graphs in the World

10billionCaptureGuest essay by Geoff Chambers

“Ten Billion” by Stephen Emmott – a 120-page paperback Ehrlich-style Doomfest – is due out in the next few days, published by Vintage in the USA and Penguin in the UK. German, Italian and Dutch translations are also due. Publication was brought forward hurriedly because of the appearance in Britain of a spoiler – “Population: Ten Billion” by Danny Dorling.

Very briefly: Emmott argues that a combination of population growth, rising consumption, climate change, species loss and environmental depredation will lead us to catastrophe by the year 2100, and there’s nothing we can do about it. In his inimitable catch phrase: “We’re f*cked”. Dorling agrees with Emmott’s basic thesis but adds: “Yes we can”.

Both agree that massive behaviour change on the part of the citizens of the rich West is a necessary condition for saving the planet , change which no democratically elected government could implement. You’re left to draw your own conclusions. The conclusion Emmott draws is contained in an anecdote which is mentioned in practically every discussion of the book. Confronted with the dire predictions emanating from the work done by Emmott and his team of forty scientists at the Microsoft Laboratory in Cambridge, England, the reaction of one of the team was that the only thing to do was “teach your child to use a gun”.

The simultaneous publication of both books means that the conditions have been realised for a phony debate in Britain between “optimists” and “pessimists” over what to do, or whether anything can be done – a debate from which sceptics are excluded, since both sides implicitly accept the worst expert predictions found in official sources- a population of 10 billion and a 6°C rise in global temperature.

Emmott’s book is based on a one-man-show performed by Emmott himself at the Royal Court theatre in London in July 2012 – a show which got rave reviews from the green-leaning British press. Emmott is no actor and a very poor public speaker, but his position as Professor of Computational Science at Microsoft’s Cambridge Lab, plus visiting professorships at Oxford and London Universities, lent authority to his views, which were swallowed unquestioningly by the British press. Interviews in the Observer and the Financial Times established Emmott as an expert to be reckoned with, and there was talk of a TV series or a TED talk. The final format chosen for getting his thesis out to a wider public was a popular paperback.

The original playscript was never published, but Alex Cull and I gathered as much material from the play as we could find from interviews and critics and analysed Emmott’s thesis in a blog post at

http://www.climate-resistance.org/2012/08/it’s-a-fct-we’re-fcked.html

As more information became available, we followed up with a series of posts at

http://geoffchambers.wordpress.com/category/stephen-emmott/

Wherever we could check Emmott’s claims, they turned out to be false or exaggerated. His claim that a Google search uses as much electricity as boiling a kettle was the subject of a retraction at New Scientist, following a complaint from Google that the claim was out by a factor of a hundred. His claim in a talk that species lost is running at more than a thousand times the natural rate was based on a 20-year-old source which estimated loss at “a hundred to a thousand times the natural rate”. Emmott simply took the upper estimate and added “more than”. It’s true that there is an official UN estimate of a population of ten billion by the year 2100 (in a 2010 online update to the last official report in 2004) but Emmott fails to mention that the report has population flatlining by this time, and declining thereafter.

We haven’t read the book yet, but an extensive extract published by the Observer at

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jun/30/population-growth-wipe-out-life-earth

makes it clear that his basic thesis hasn’t changed. Nor have his two key catch-phrases, since “We’re f*cked” and “Teach my son how to use a gun” appeared at the top and bottom of publicity material issued by Penguin Books a couple of days ago at a number of news sites, for example at

http://www.buzzfeed.com/lukelewis/13-graphs-that-suggest-the-planet-might-be-totally-screwed

The publicity handout is a collection of thirteen graphs, which I’ve analysed very briefly at

http://geoffchambers.wordpress.com/2013/07/04/the-emmott-penguin-graphs-in-detail/

They are, quite simply, terrible. They’d be a disgrace in an essay by a first year university student. In at least two cases, the timescale on the x axis changes half way along with no indication. They appear to have been drawn by hand by someone who can’t use a ruler. Decadal changes appear to happen roughly every 12-15 years. Scales are deliberately chosen to create hockeysticks. Future population growth is represented as a vertical line, instead of the S-shaped curve which every serious demographic study supports.

Since first putting up these graphs, Buzzfeed have added footnotes giving sources. In every case the graphs are “adapted from..” or “compiled from…”. In other words, they are the responsibility of the author.

In response to a comment on my article that I was “nit-picking”, I acknowledged that the graphs were probably the work of some hard-pressed intern at Penguin Books with an impossible deadline to meet. Since then, I’ve seen a paywalled interview with Emmott in the Times

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/life/article3805225.ece

in which the interviewer says:

“…all the graphs in his book, which you suspect he carries around in his head as well – graphs for world population, CO2 parts per million, global ocean heat content and loss of tropical rainforest and woodland, for instance – are lurching upward in ways they never have before.

‘It’s precisely because of those graphs that I think we are in trouble,’ he says.”

… which makes it pretty clear that the graphs belong to Emmott, the Microsoft Professor of Computational Science who, in a recent speech to a government-funded innovation thinktank, spoke of the need for:

“…an entirely new generation of  entirely new kinds of scientists, of scientists … who are computationally first rate, and I don’t mean people who know where the on button is on their Macintosh, I mean conceptually and mathematically computationally first rate.”

I invite WUWT readers to amuse themselves by going through the graphs with a ruler and a fine tooth comb. It may be nit-picking, but there are an awful lot of nits, and it’s best to comb them out now before they hatch and we’re all scratching ourselves to death.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Just Steve

Oh great, Paul Erlich redux. In the liberal world, nothing succeeds like failure.

Gunga Din

Very briefly: Emmott argues that a combination of population growth, rising consumption, climate change, species loss and environmental depredation will lead us to catastrophe by the year 2100,

===================================================================
Maybe he’s right … if the proposed “solutions” are implemented.

People have been saying that population will get too large for the planet to sustain since the Brits in 1750

Latitude

I’m getting sick and tired of saving the planet………

björn from sweden

Where is the graph showing the number of self proclaimed prophets/esperts who claim the end is near?

DC Cowboy

Just Steve says:
July 7, 2013 at 12:09 pm
Oh great, Paul Erlich redux. In the liberal world, nothing succeeds like failure.
===============================
There are folks who like nothing better than to tell you the 100 reasons why it can’t be done. If we listened to them, we’d still be using flint to start fires.

Réaumur

I agree with Just Steve, but that should be “Ehrlich” – Paul Erlich is a is a guitarist and music theorist. (I only know beacuse I couldn’t place the name and looked it up.)

M Courtney

Species Extinction
He really needs to have some detailed explanation of the methodology that leads to that.
He plots 50000BC and now on the same graph. Can it be the same methodology?
And then he draws a vertical line at 2050. Yes, I’ve checked again. It is really there.
Is this truly his work and not a libellous misattribution?
The graph is artwork, not science.
The book is clearly science fiction for that graph alone.
Sceptics should promote this book left right and centre. That particular graph is so laughably flawed that it can only harm his stated cause.

Darrin

I see enough hockey sticks to supply a professional team.

Henry Galt

Latest figures say we will peak below 9 billion. Plenty of room, plenty of food (already, as we throw away 50% currently) and plenty of energy for the next 200 years. Distribution and fairness is what needs upping.
If the green, terminally stupid advocates don’t get us first.

Gunga Din

Latitude says:
July 7, 2013 at 12:20 pm
I’m getting sick and tired of saving the planet………

===================================================================
😎 The “Earth First” types want to see Man become extinct.
It would be okay for humans to disappear.

“Aids is not a malediction, but the welcome and natural remedy to reduce the population of the planet…should human beings disappear, I surely wouldn’t mind.”
Source: Set Up and Sold Out, by Holly Swanson, 1995, page 171.
Hardcopy: Copy of page 171 from Swanson’s book.
Contributor: AIM.
Eradicate 98 percent of humankind.
“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness with its full complement of species returning throughout the world.”
Source: Set Up and Sold Out, by Holly Swanson, 1995, page 171.
Hardcopy: Copy of page 171 from Swanson’s book.
Where: During an interview with Jerry Mason.
Contributor: AIM.
Phase out the human race.
“If you haven’t given voluntary human extinction much thought before, the idea of a world with no people in it may seem strange. But, if you give it a chance, I think you might agree that the extinction of Homo sapiens would mean survival for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species. . . . Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.”
Source: Wild Earth magazine, Summer 1991, page 72. Also: “Match the Quotes!” Resource Roundup, June 2005, page 8.
Hardcopy: Printout of 11-12-01 webpage with the quote.

You’d think such “Environmentalist” would be in favor of CAGW so we’d “do ourselves in”.

The concept of “mathematically and computationally first rate” scientists is not new at all. There are lots of them. The problem with many of them is that they have too little used and regard for experimental science.

Pathway

People who believe this drivel should have the courage of their convictions and just off themselves. We would all be better off.

DirkH

“…an entirely new generation of entirely new kinds of scientists, of scientists … who are computationally first rate, and I don’t mean people who know where the on button is on their Macintosh, I mean conceptually and mathematically computationally first rate.”
One could start with scientists who know how to graphically represent error bars. After that, one could improve on that by using scientists who give a source for the data.
America had one major fire per decade before 1970?
Oh scientists who give a legend would be great as well. The heat content of the oceans was -5E22 Joules before 1970? Sounds pretty cold.
All in all, one should use really computationally first rate scientists who know how to create really good graphs. Hmm, why does this sound like an advertisement for Björn Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist?…

I think it is time to read that science fiction classic, The marching Morons
The scary part is that the story contents is becoming more and more a reality as time goes by.

David in Michigan

I found the following statement more disturbing than the doomsaying:
“Both agree that massive behaviour change on the part of the citizens of the rich West is a necessary condition for saving the planet , change which no democratically elected government could implement.” Is that statement or it’s equivalent actually in the book(s)?

Hoser

Elaborating on the “Very briefly” above. Still very simplified….
Either: 0) Do what we are doing now.
1) Contain the third world to the third world, and maintain western civilization
2) Adopt ‘green’ tech leading to third world level of energy and resource usage for everyone
3) Share technology with the third world to elevate standard of living for all people
Result: 0) Third world overruns first world due our desire for cheap labor, controlled by lack of good education, resulting in growth of elites dying out slowly, unable to maintain high standards of living
1) We live (a little while longer), they suffer and die, rich tropical regions become like Haiti, mass extinctions, bad outcome for everyone but less hard on us, miss out on creativity of large sector of mankind, and may be overrun by large hungry populations anyway
2) Large reduction in human population by starvation and disease, possibly a catastrophic collapse, things that were easy become hard for everyone, cities become dangerous and unlivable
3) All humans do well, able to afford maintaining the environment, technology reduces pressure to maintain high birth rate in the (former) third world, stabilize world population at or below 10 billion, slowly falling afterwards
Option 3 requires willingness to develop high per capita energy infrastructure, very doable and affordable, but politically difficult now. Some tech development needed.

Randy Resor

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Here we go again!

Manniac

“Facts are meaningless. They can be used to prove anything.” – Homer (Simpson)

R. de Haan

Yes, let’s cull 6.5 billion people because a moron has written a stupid book.

Jarmo

“Both agree that massive behaviour change on the part of the citizens of the rich West is a necessary condition for saving the planet , change which no democratically elected government could implement”.
Funnily enough, in these same rich countries population growth has stopped, state of environment is improving and countryside has been emptying with urbanization while food overproduction is sometimes a problem and farmers are paid not to produce food.
Population grows in poor countries and will continue so until people reach a decent standard of living.

David in Michigan

@ sunsettommy: The Marching Morons – a deeply cynical SF short story written by C.M. Kornbluth in the 50’s. A con man from the 20th century helps the powers that be convince the citizens (morons) of a future time to move to Venus…… (which is not inhabitable).

DirkH

David in Michigan says:
July 7, 2013 at 12:49 pm
“I found the following statement more disturbing than the doomsaying:
“Both agree that massive behaviour change on the part of the citizens of the rich West is a necessary condition for saving the planet , change which no democratically elected government could implement.” Is that statement or it’s equivalent actually in the book(s)?”
Well it’s govrnment scientist consensus, at least in Germany.
WBGU Schellnhuber PIK Transformation
http://www.wbgu.de/fileadmin/templates/dateien/veroeffentlichungen/hauptgutachten/jg2011/wbgu_jg2011_kurz_en.pdf
(The WBGU is the highest ranking scientific advisory council in Germany. It is populated exclusively with Schellnhuber’s goons.)
And a column about it:
“The great transformation will require that “The world citizenry agree to … surrender spontaneous and persistent desires” – i.e., citizens will need to accept that their lifestyles are unsustainable and collectively accept the need for government to make decisions on their behalf, without the public having a veto over government decisions that could “impede the transition to a sustainable society.”
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/05/30/lawrence-solomon-better-red-than-dead-better-green-than-free/

Mayor of Venus

At 1.3 billion people, China is currently the most populus country, but their government has been implementing a “one child per couple” policy for some time now. That implies the population will be reduced by 50% each generation. There are about 3 generations per century, so if this policy is coutinued until 2100, China’s population will then only be about 200 million, or 2% of the authors’ projected 10 billion for the world total. Do the authors include this projection for China’s population, or do they have inside information about when the “one child” policy will be discontinued?

adam

The facts:
World population growth rate is 1.1%, half of what it was in 1960, and dropping fast.
Median global female age has exceeded 30 for the first time, and rising fast.
Total fertility rate is around 2.45, barely above replacement (which, globally, is around 2.2 rather than the commonly cited developed country 2.1 rate). When adjusted for skewed male/female birth numbers, adjusted TFR is closer to 2.3. In other words, we’ll be at replacement in a couple of years’ time.

Jimbo

Whenever doom mongers make claims about the future, take a look at their track record. Almost every single doom ladened prediction has failed. Badly.

Great moments in failed predictions
……..In 1885, the US Geological Survey announced that there was “little or no chance” of oil being discovered in California.
………..
In 1939 the US Department of the Interior said that American oil supplies would last only another 13 years.
…………..
Claim: “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” Paul Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.
Claim: Ehrlich wrote in 1968, “I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks India will be self-sufficient in food by 1971, if ever.”
Data: Yet in a only few years India was exporting food………..

Take a look at this shocking hockey still on world fertility rates. We are doomed.
http://www.krusekronicle.com/kruse_kronicle/2013/05/world-total-fertility-rate-1960-2010.html

M Courtney (July 7, 2013 at 12:27 pm)
On the Species Extinction graph, he doesn’t explain what the “extinction rate” label on the y axis means. Whatever it is, (number of species going extinct per – ?) it suddenly spurts up an unknown number of units on an apparently logarithmic scale about 53,000BC. Then there’s a break in the x axis around 48,000BC, and we start again on a much enlarged timescale around 1850 AD. In his talk to the government sponsored thinktank NESTA Emmott says the sixth great extinction has already begun. On his graph it’s due in 2050.
The source is given as
S. Pimm and P. Raven, Biodiversity: Extinction by
numbers, Nature, 403 (2000); A. barnosky et al. Has the Earth’s sixth mass
extinction already arrived?, Nature, 471 (2011)
which can be found at
http://rewilding.org/rewildit/images/Barnosky-6th-Great-Extinction-copy.pdf
Alex Cull, in a comment at
http://geoffchambers.wordpress.com/2013/07/04/the-emmott-penguin-graphs-in-detail/
says:
“What’s interesting is that Barnosky et al are writing about a possible mass extinction event but over the next few centuries, not decades. That near-vertical line just before the year 2050, in Emmott’s graph must, I think, come from the earlier paper (Pimm and Raven) which mentions the possibility of mass species die-off if the tropical forests were all cleared: ‘The extinction curve should accelerate rapidly to a peak by the middle of the twenty-first century if the rate of forest clearing remains constant.’
As we get further and further from the year 2000 and closer to 2050, it will be instructive to keep asking Willis Eschenbach’s question ‘Where are the corpses?’
I’m not sure that the graphs are “so laughably flawed that it can only harm his stated cause”. He’s got all the major British media on his side, and, as he says in the Times interview, only a few climate deniers with no science qualifications, like Alex and me, opposing him.

Rud Istvan

Some of the graphs are bad, others not so bad. The conclusions in the book are wrong for the time frame, and wrong with respect to key underlying drivers. But some of the comments on them above reflect nearly as little understanding of the factual situation in general as this successor to Ehrlich’s wrong prophesy, The Population Bomb.
A detailed factual review of the underlying forces at work, amply referenced for sceptics to fact check themselves, is contained in the recent ebook Gaia’s Limits. It speaks for itself.

and thirteen maybe most baffling graphs in the world
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Igitur.htm

Essentially the book is being published both places by Pearson which works hand in hand with MS globally pushing those very ed practices designed to get radical behavioral changes. What Paul Ehrlich called Newmindedness and I shorthand as eliminating the Axemaker Mind playing off James Burke’s statement of a similar intention. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/10152247/Penguin-and-Random-House-complete-merger.html shows the publishing link.
This is all consistent with what the UN’s Education for Sustainability seeks to do. Which is about far more than education. As I have mentioned consistently, the docs from the 80s and 90s say that AGW is just a theory designed to get the desired social, economic, and political changes and individual behavioral changes that people would refuse to go along with absent a crisis.
ATC21S–the global 21st Century skills movement using technology and no transmission of knowledge is just one example of the MS/Pearson global collaboration. All the basic concepts from the 90s are getting spun back out under new authors with editors pretending these are new ideas. Rebecca Costa’s The Watchman’s Rattle: Thinking Our Way Out of Extinction is yet another redo of these basic themes of eliminating the rational mind as the appropriate means of preventing unauthorized technological advances in the future.
No one left capable of disputing the official models is another way of seeing it.

Jimbo

adam says:
July 7, 2013 at 1:09 pm
The facts:
World population growth rate is 1.1%, half of what it was in 1960, and dropping fast…..

Thanks adam. What these doomsters like to ignore is that fertility rates are tumbling around the world. 1960s doomers would not believe what is happening today.

The Economist – 2009
Now, something similar is happening in developing countries. Fertility is falling and families are shrinking in places— such as Brazil, Indonesia, and even parts of India—that people think of as teeming with children. As our briefing shows, the fertility rate of half the world is now 2.1 or less—the magic number that is consistent with a stable population and is usually called “the replacement rate of fertility”. Sometime between 2020 and 2050 the world’s fertility rate will fall below the global replacement rate………
Today’s fall in fertility is both very large and very fast. Poor countries are racing through the same demographic transition as rich ones,……
http://www.economist.com/node/14744915

By the way we are not f**ked.

Mike Jowsey

Rud Istvan : your comment is replete with lofty arrogance and devoid of actual content.

Remember Dow 36,000! ?
Well, it did sell a lot of books…
…before the Dow crashed.
This is just more sensationalism:
THE END IS NIGH!!
…Not.

Anthony Scalzi

My gut feeling upon seeing the wild fire graph was that it was bunk, and a cursory look at the wikipedia(of all places) wildfire page seems to confirm that. Not only are there many wildfires in the 50’s (none in the 60’s though, hmmm), but the count in recent decades is inflated by the inclusion of much smaller fires, some only a couple square miles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wildfires#North_America

M Courtney

geoffchambers says at July 7, 2013 at 1:13 pm…
Don’t be so downhearted. If “all the major British media on his side” want to pin themselves to supporting that graph then let them.
The vertical line in just-a-little-after-tomorrow is so ludicrous that the defence would take up more column inches than any editor could provide. It is only a blogosphere trap that will attract alarmists like wasps to a rubbish bin. Let them hover there; they won’t cause any trouble with each other. The main political debate cannot stand behind such folly. It hasn’t got time to explain it to those who are merely mildly interested.
You seem concerned that appeals to authority will be the ‘get out of jail free’ card for defenders of this fear-mongering. But this graph is not the political equivalent of Mann’s Hockey-stick. The uptick is not an observation (real or otherwise). It is not in the past. The uptick is a guess about the future.
Let’s hear them try and explain that faith.
I say again, this is battle we sceptics should welcome. Let us fight on ground of our choosing. Choose this battle.
And let us hope that they do expose the weapon of “authority from scientific job titles” in this battle.

milodonharlani

Gunga Din says:
July 7, 2013 at 12:42 pm
The phaseout should start with Holly.
Think she’ll volunteer?

DirkH

Mayor of Venus says:
July 7, 2013 at 1:06 pm
“At 1.3 billion people, China is currently the most populus country, but their government has been implementing a “one child per couple” policy for some time now. That implies the population will be reduced by 50% each generation.”
As predominantly females are aborted it would happen faster. On the other hand, there are millions of illegal children. When a mother refuses to have her child murdered and the local Chicoms lack the brutality to enforce it there’s an illegal birth. No papers are issued. The child becomes an illegal citizen with no rights and no legal existence. A new slave / underworld class.
And another complication: The one child rule is only enforced for the Han chinese, not for the “ethnic minorities” – which are in fact the majority in their respective provinces…

skizzle

The best plan is to do nothing. If overpopulation becomes a problem, nature will make an adjustment as it always has. The Agenda 21ers however, have there own plan.

Latitude

Jimbo says:
July 7, 2013 at 1:12 pm
Take a look at this shocking hockey still on world fertility rates. We are doomed.
http://www.krusekronicle.com/kruse_kronicle/2013/05/world-total-fertility-rate-1960-2010.html
=================
……don’t drink the water

Willis Eschenbach

M Courtney says:
July 7, 2013 at 12:27 pm

Species Extinction
He really needs to have some detailed explanation of the methodology that leads to that.
He plots 50000BC and now on the same graph. Can it be the same methodology?
And then he draws a vertical line at 2050. Yes, I’ve checked again. It is really there.
Is this truly his work and not a libellous misattribution?
The graph is artwork, not science.
The book is clearly science fiction for that graph alone.
Sceptics should promote this book left right and centre. That particular graph is so laughably flawed that it can only harm his stated cause.

That graph alone deserves a chapter in a book on “What’s Wrong With Climate Alarmism”. It is not just wrong, it is ludicrously wrong, stunningly wrong. Among many other things, it says there should be about 3,500 extinctions since 1835, the time when their modern data starts … and the Red List says 206 extinctions …
w.

Rud Istvan is promoting his own book here. Yes, self-praise speaks for itself!

Mike McMillan

… since “We’re f*cked” and “Teach my son how to use a gun” appeared at the top and …
We’re fracked? Fracking’s a good thing, and I’ve always been in favor of teaching gun safety.

O Capitalista

I wonder if this guy is a betting man… I seem to recall a wager on similar predictions of doom 40 years ago.

Lil Fella from OZ

Here is the equation they use: sustainability (which requires eugenics), then bullying threats, with scare tactics if you don’t do it.
This is the general thread of these people’s ‘philosophy.’ Based on no facts! Of for that matter, common sense.
It is somewhat a no brainer of a person who predicts without knowledge.

Mikeyj

Pathway says:
July 7, 2013 at 12:42 pm
“People who believe this drivel should have the courage of their convictions and just off themselves. We would all be better off.”
“Kill yourself to save the planet”. So far no takers, but I keep hoping.

rogerknights

If Rossi’s partner puts his E Cat gadget on sale in a year, all this alarmism will be moot.
The decline in tropical forests is due to the growth of palm oil plantations, which is due to the greenie push for biofuels.

I asked a new Microsoft employee with a new Ph.D. if he had run into Emmott, but all I got was crickets.
http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/Hi-from-Microsoft-Research-Cambridge

M Courtney

Willis Eschenbach says at July 7, 2013 at 2:02 pm

That graph alone deserves a chapter in a book on “What’s Wrong With Climate Alarmism”. It is not just wrong, it is ludicrously wrong, stunningly wrong.

I know. It was so bad that my concern was that it was a fraud. How can anyone be so incompetent?
It may still be a false-flag operation.
And you are right that the Species Extinction graph is already proven to be incredible.
But that is why we should publicise this poop.
This is something I want to see the ‘Environmental Correspondents’ pin their reputations on.
Then, maybe, we could have more airtime for ‘Science Correspondents’.

Julian in Wales

What’s the betting that they spend their profits from these lucrative books on expensive restaurants, holidays in Tuscany, and the good things of life.

Jay

With Climate Change falling apart because of lack of warming the green movement dusts off its population bomb distraction..
http://www.omg-facts.com/Other/The-Entire-World-Population-Could-Fit-In/55348