Andrew Revkin Loses The Plot, Episode XXXVIII

Bravo Dr. Tim Ball!
http://drtimball.com/2014/overpopulation-the-fallacy-behind-the-fallacy-of-global-warming/
Could it be that the IPCC was set up to dampen or reduce the world’s population? I have said in the past that it was to de-industrialize the west but maybe I was only half right. You see progressives can’t come out openly and say we need to cut the world’s population. They mask it as an attempt to deal with industrialised nations’ externalities when in fact it is an attack on the poorest most vulnerable peoples in the Third World. Indirect genocide based on the trace gas co2.

Willis: Revkin was quoting David Victor who in turn was talking of Kerry’s talk in the Philippines. Victor also contributed to a seminar at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography titled “Global Warming Denialism: What science has to say.” There was no science there, just warmists trying to find the best way to propagandize and turn the public against “denialism.” I wrote the comment below to put them in their place. This is what I said:
“First, there is absolutely no science in this, just another seminar promoting the public relations of the global warming pseudo-science. Victor talks derogatorily of ‘denialist chatter’ and opines that it is not even denialism but that ‘…what we are seeing is what psychologists call ‘motivated reasoning’ — people hear about something they abhor and they find reasons to justify their dissent.’ That perfectly defines his attitude. I happen to be a scientist and I prefer to talk about science, not propaganda. Global warming, so we are told, is anthropogenic because we are putting carbon dioxide into the air where it causes greenhouse warming. It does that by absorbing IR radiation that leaves the earth. But here is a conundrum. There is more carbon dioxide in the air now than ever before but there has been none of that greenhouse warming for the last 17 years. This extra high atmospheric carbon dioxide should warm the world but it doesn’t. True believers are so worried that they are looking for an imaginary ‘missing heat’ everywhere, including the ocean bottom, but our century is greenhouse free. Since there is no greenhouse warming now, and observations say so, we must consider the possibility that the entire greenhouse warming theory is false. Natural laws cannot be turned on or off. If the theory is false now it always has been false. But what about past warming? Very simple, use Ockham’s razor. They were misidentified by over-eager pseudo-scientists.”

richardscourtney says:
February 22, 2014 at 3:33 pm

Jimbo:
At February 22, 2014 at 3:23 pm you say
I predict that in 2100 the main worry about population will be a stagnant OR the start of a declining world population.

I disagree because I think it will be much earlier than that!
I predict that by 2050 the main worry about population will be the start of a declining world population.

I have suspected 2050 but I prefer to be conservative with my predictions. Lest I be attacked without mercy. 😉 All the signs so far do point THIS century being a defining moment for global population. To be very honest my biggest worry for humanity is not overpopulation but our eventual extinction (on planet Earth) within the next 2,000 years in our present form (conservative). I talk like this because I don’t know what is possible or will happen in 1,000 years time as regards technology, innovations, genetics, hybrids, etc.

No middle ground anymore.
That’s how wars start.
Wow.
Gotta leave an exit for the defeated foes, lest they fight to the death.

” Roger, it is just that unwillingness of you and other climate scientists to call a spade a spade that has left the field in such a shambles. Nobody is willing to say a bad word, even when people start breaking laws like Peter Gleick he just gets feted and invited to speak at the conferences. ”
there is more than one kind of toady, eh?
‘the way for evil to conquer is for good men to say nothing”
why should anybody have a problem with willis demonstrating that ‘good men DO call out the fraudsters’ and that anything less doesn’t measure up to being a ‘good man’ or maybe even a man at all?
stop feeding the beast would be more sensible, though.
hiring frauds is no less stupid. crying about getting what you paid for does what? dare to speak the name?

” It started when they all realized that their claims were built on sand … and the desperation kicked in”
i disagree, willis- i think it started when these individuals defined human beings as their prey and learned that the prey would only complain- even as they cooperate fully. this was never ever about science.
the idea of leaving a backdoor for predators is quite insane.
but that’s just one of the many insanities required for this madness to exist as it does.

INNUMERACY
a,n.ditchfield
Innumeracy is a new word, coined as a companion to illiteracy. To those afflicted by innumeracy, the dozens, thousands and millions are mere words. The Innumerate talk about billions and trillions with no concern for what they say and are prone to bad judgment when it comes to large quantities.
A sense of proportion is needed to address issues requiring insight into magnitude. One billion seconds add up to about 32 years. One billion minutes is close to 1900 years, a span of time that takes us back to the Roman Empire at the end of the century of Christ. These facts throw some light on the lack of perception of those not endowed with a mathematical background.
All grant that the planet is large, but how large is crucial in many issues. What is the content of the crust of the earth?
One cubic kilometre of the crust weighs 2.7 billion tonnes. A sphere with a circumference of 40 thousand km has a surface of 509 000 000 km². To a depth of 1000 m, the crust holds 1.366 billion billion tonnes:
1 366 000 000 000 000 000 tonnes
.Reckoning with a depth of 100 m, as readily accessible, only knocks off one zero from an astronomical number.
It is unlikely that mankind will ever assay the content of such a vast mass. Diehards will still hold as axiomatic that, ultimately, a finite planet cannot sustain infinite growth. But resources are so great that they may be regarded as infinite when compared to any conceivable human need. Does the innumerate talk about limited non-renewable resources make sense?
Common sense and mathematics make exhaustion of non-renewable resources a concept alien to mining businesses tuned into realities of supply, demand and cost. Consistent records of prices of commodities are maintained by a magazine, The Economist, since the middle of the 19th century. Far from rising in response to growing scarcity, all commodity prices have shown decline in response to abundance and falling costs. That is why feeding a human being costs, in real value, 1/8 of what it was in 1850.
An additional fact is that, ultimately, the planet is subject to the law of conservation of mass. Human consumption never subtracted one gram from the mass of the planet. All the stuff is still around in some form and may be recycled. The limit would be the availability and cost of energy, but with the advent of inexpensive fusion energy from deuterium this becomes possible. It may be claimed that controlled fusion energy has not yet become practical, but to assume that it never will be is an assumption that science and technology will henceforth remain frozen. Fusion energy is no physical impossibility on a par with perpetual energy; is an ongoing process in stars and mankind has made H bombs.
How much energy is available? Each cubic meter of seawater contains about 102.8 x 10 ²³ atoms of deuterium with a mass of 34.4 grams. It holds the equivalent to the heat combustion of 269 tonnes of coal, or of 1360 barrels of crude oil. The world resource of seawater’s deuterium is around a billion times greater than the known fossil fuel reserve.
Quantification reveals a clash of two mindsets set apart by a chasm of understanding. The innumerate camp resorts to acts of faith in experts – and soothsayers they are incapable of spotting. Those with background in hard science don’t care about beliefs. Engineers use Euclidean geometry because its propositions stand demonstrated, not because they believe in Euclid. Richard Feynman said that science is a belief – in the ignorance of experts. The hard science people are trained to mistrust all doctrines and think for themselves.
The innumerate depend on faith on what others say. When it suits them they quote a consensus in peer reviewed periodicals as the stamp of approval by higher authority. This hardens opposition to a suspect cause of propagandists. Consensus forming is a political process that has no place in science, always open to inquiry and addition of new layers of knowledge. Who peer-reviewed the work of Isaac Newton? Nobody: Newton has no peer. Einstein over fifty years wrote five hundred articles, none of them peer-reviewed. Is Relativity Theory invalid because it lacks approval by self-appointed authorities?
Getting mathematicians to believe in a consensus of soothsayers is akin to referring an obscure point of a theological dispute to an atheist.