Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
The world focus on CO2 is simply the end objective of a much larger political agenda. The Club of Rome (COR) and then UNEP’s Agenda 21 under Maurice Strong created a political agenda based on certain assumptions all related to overpopulation.
1. The world and all nations are overpopulated.
2. All population growth is at an unsustainable rate.
3. All nations are using up resources at an unsustainable rate.
4. Developed Nations use resources at a much greater rate than Developing Nations.
5. Developed Nations achieved wealth using fossil fuel driven industries.
6. Developed Nations must pay compensation to Developing Nations for benefits gained at their expense and for hardships and adaptation costs involved in dealing with climate change created by CO2.
7. Reducing activities of Developed Nations and slowing growth of Developing Nations requires a world government.
8. Once a world government is established population control can progress.
Global warming and climate change are simply the emotional threats used to confront overpopulation. The problem is the world is not overpopulated.
The current attack on Developed Nations includes punishment for their success, and for the redistribution of their ill-gotten wealth. It is ironic that they chose Thomas Malthus (1766 – 1834) and his ideas as the basis for their agenda because he argued that increased prosperity was hampered not by inequality of wealth but too many people unable or unwilling to create wealth. He didn’t want across the spectrum population reduction, just a reduction of those who were holding society back. His views and proposals are markedly different than the socialist solutions of Agenda 21. His major work, An Essay on the Principle of Population, proposed what today’s socialists would consider completely unacceptable reasoning and solutions. He wanted the government to end policies that encouraged people to have more children. Instead of reducing the population totally and taking from the wealthy to give to the poor, he wanted fewer poor people born.
The Club of Rome, under the facade of saving the planet, adopted and expanded the work of Thomas Malthus as an agenda for population control. As one group explains,
Malthus was a political economist who was concerned about, what he saw as, the decline of living conditions in nineteenth century England. He blamed this decline on three elements: The overproduction of young; the inability of resources to keep up with the rising human population; and the irresponsibility of the lower classes. To combat this, Malthus suggested the family size of the lower class ought to be regulated such that poor families do not produce more children than they can support.
This is important for the modern debate because overpopulation is still central and the driving force behind the use of climate change as a political vehicle.
Malthus blamed government social policy and charity for exacerbating the overpopulation problem by encouraging people to have more children. As he explained,
I entirely acquit Mr Pitt of any sinister intention in that clause of his Poor Bill which allows a shilling a week to every labourer for each child he has above three. I confess, that before the bill was brought into Parliament, and for some time after, I thought that such a regulation would be highly beneficial, but further reflection on the subject has convinced me that if its object be to better the condition of the poor, it is calculated to defeat the very purpose which it has in view. It has no tendency that I can discover to increase the produce of the country, and if it tend to increase the population, without increasing the produce, the necessary and inevitable consequence appears to be that the same produce must be divided among a greater number, and consequently that a day’s labour will purchase a smaller quantity of provisions, and the poor therefore in general must be more distressed.
Malthus’ objective was to reform or eliminate the Poor Laws and curtail charity. Unfortunately, his argument lacked hard evidence, and the examples he used were not relevant. For example, he used US population increase that more than doubled from 2 million in 1775 to 4.3 million in 1800. He failed to identify immigration as the major reason for the increase.
Malthus had a crucial influence on the theory of evolution, as Darwin acknowledged in his 1876 autobiography.
“In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long- continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The results of this would be the formation of a new species. Here, then I had at last got a theory by which to work”.
Darwin demanded evidence to support any theory but somehow overlooked it for Malthus. However, he clearly liked the idea of “favourable” (desirable) or “unfavourable” undesirable traits. It suited his acceptance and inclusion in the sixth edition of Origins of Species of Spencer’s phrase “survival of the fittest”. The problem is Malthus
Malthus and Darwin also ignored technology apparently because they were only interested in biological evolution. They didn’t include the Agricultural Revolution that preceded the Industrial Revolution. This omission still pervades society today as many assume evolution has stopped. It is also central to the underlying theme of environmentalism that technology is a dangerous anomaly in human development. It underscores creation of the meaningless term sustainable development.
Alarmism over population growth was central to the ideas of the Club of Rome. It received momentum through Paul Ehrlich’s even more egregious and incorrect book, “The Population Bomb.” The fact that every single prediction Ehrlich and John Holdren, advisor to President Obama for Science and Technology made, have proved completely wrong doesn’t stop extremists seeing the need for total control. Some believe people should not exist. Holdren thinks they should be limited and controlled as detailed in a list of his totalitarian proposals.
· Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
· The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
· Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
· People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
· A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.
Crucial to all alarmism is a mechanism to bypass public resistance to draconian controls, especially in the US with its constitutional guarantees. Holdren proposed a method for bypassing the Constitution by using the Constitution. He wrote,
Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.
It sounds very official, legal and plausible until you realize how it cedes control. He is the person who explains how the Constitution could be used in for this purpose. He is the one who decides when the crisis is sufficiently severe to endanger the society. This technique is applicable to any perceived threat, including climate change.
Holdren told his Senate confirmation hearing that he no longer held his views and refused to answer media questions about the views expressed in Human Ecology. His actions and support of global warming and climate change contradict the assertion. Certainly de-development, which is achieved by eliminating fossil fuels, is central. In a 2010 interview, he was asked to explain the thinking behind views expressed in Human Ecology.
CNSNews.com asked: “You wrote ‘a massive campaign must be launched to restore a high quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States’ in your book Human Ecology. Could you explain what you meant by de-develop the United States?”
Holdren responded: “What we meant by that was stopping the kinds of activities that are destroying the environment and replacing them with activities that would produce both prosperity and environmental quality. Thanks a lot.”
Sir John Houghton, the first co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and lead editor of the first three IPCC Reports, confronted the overpopulation issue differently. In an article for the Global Conversation in Lausanne in 2010;
First let me write a few words about God and science. A few prominent scientists are telling us that God does not exist and science is the only story there is to tell. To argue like that, however, is to demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is about. At the basis of all scientific work are the ‘laws’ of nature – for instance, the laws of gravity, thermodynamics and electromagnetism, and the puzzling concepts and mathematics of quantum mechanics. Where do these laws come from? Scientists don’t invent them; they are there to be discovered. With God as Creator, they are God’s laws and the science we do is God’s science.
The Earth is the Lord’s and everything in it (Psalm 24), and Jesus is the agent and redeemer of all creation (John 1:2; Colossians 1:16-20; Ephesians 1:16). As we, made in God’s image, explore the structure of the universe that God has made with all its fascination, wonder and potential, we are engaging in a God given activity. Many of the founders of modern science three or four hundred years ago were Christians pursuing science for the glory of God. I and many other scientists today are privileged to follow in their footsteps.
A special responsibility that God has given to humans, created in His image, is to look after and care for creation (Genesis 2:15). Today the impacts of unsustainable use of resources, rapidly increasing human population and the threat of climate change almost certainly add up to the largest and most urgent challenge the world has ever had to face – all of us are involved in the challenge, whether as scientists, policy makers, Christians or whoever we are.
The COR and its manifestation Agenda 21’s arguments are considered neo-Malthusian because they expand his hypothesis to say that the population will outgrow all resources. The threat was laid out in the COR book Limits To Growth. It became the format for all subsequent claims, including those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Based on totally inadequate data including on population and resource reserves, it was subjected to analysis using very restricted development mechanisms and forced through a computer model to a predetermined result. Economist Julian Simon challenged the hypothesis of The Limits with a bet that resulted in an empirical study. Simon won the battle but lost the war. It is 35 years since Simon made the bet, but still most believe the world is running out of resources.
So the resource and population predictions are wrong, which is not surprising because Malthus was wrong about both. However, many still want to control and limit population. A summary of their proposals is revealing.
- Malthus wanted population reduction, but he decides which group must decline, but he was a church minister.
- As an atheist Darwin says nature will limit numbers, but that’s confusing because humans are natural.
- Houghton wants numbers to decline but claims God gave him the authority to decide.
- Holdren wants numbers to decline but since he or the political party he supports is superior to everybody they will decide.
The insanity of it all is that none of what they think matters because there is no overpopulation, no shortage of resources or any connection between CO2 and climate change. It is a story of science without evidence or at best-concocted evidence from Malthus through the COR to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
When I read these essays about Agenda 21, population control, the role of the President (of the USA) and so on, invariably I get drawn back to the Stanley Kubrick movie Dr Strangelove. Here we have an extract of President Muffley (Peter Sellers) in the Pentagon’s War Room, with General Turgidson (George C Scott) and others. The world is minutes away from nuclear disaster …
(Note the excuses from Turgidson, they remind me of climate scientists whose results mismatch observations).
……………………
Turgidson:
General Ripper called Strategic Air Command headquarters shortly after he issued the go code. I have a partial transcript of that conversation if you’d like me to read it.
Muffley:
Read it.
Turgidson:
The duty officer asked General Ripper to confirm the fact the he had issued the go code and he said, “Yes gentlemen, they are on their way in and no one can bring them back. For the sake of our country and our way of life, I suggest you get the rest of SAC in after them, otherwise we will be totally destroyed by red retaliation. My boys will give you the best kind of start, fourteen hundred megatons worth, and you sure as hell won’t stop them now. So let’s get going. There’s no other choice. God willing, we will prevail in peace and freedom from fear and in true health through the purity and essence of our natural fluids. God bless you all.” Then he hung up. We’re still trying to figure out the meaning of that last phrase, sir.
Muffley: There’s nothing to figure out General Turgidson. This man is obviously a psychotic.
Turgidson:
Well, I’d like to hold off judgment on a thing like that, sir, until all the facts are in.
Muffley: (anger rising) General Turgidson, when you instituted the human reliability tests, you assured me there was no possibility of such a thing ever occurring.
Turgidson: Well I don’t think it’s quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip up sir.
……………….
Strangelove: (Executes an about face from the big board to face the camera). Mr. President, I would not rule out the chance to preserve a nucleus of human specimens. It would be quite easy… heh heh… (rolls forward into the light) at the bottom of ah … some of our deeper mineshafts. The radioactivity would never penetrate a mine some thousands of feet deep. And in a matter of weeks, sufficient improvements in dwelling space could easily be provided.
Muffley: How long would you have to stay down there?
Strangelove: Well let’s see now ah, searches within his lapel cobalt thorium G. notices circular slide rule in his gloved hand aa… nn… Radioactive halflife of uh,… hmm.. I would think that uh… possibly uh… one hundred years. On finishing his calculations, he pulls the slide rule roughly from his gloved hand, and returns it to within his jacket.
Muffley: You mean, people could actually stay down there for a hundred years?
Strangelove: It would not be difficult mein Fuhrer! Nuclear reactors could, heh… I’m sorry. Mr. President. Nuclear reactors could provide power almost indefinitely. Greenhouses could maintain plant life. Animals could be bred and slaughtered. A quick survey would have to be made of all the available mine sites in the country. But I would guess… that ah, dwelling space for several hundred thousands of our people could easily be provided.
Muffley: Well I… I would hate to have to decide.. who stays up and.. who goes down.
Strangelove: Well, that would not be necessary Mr. President. It could easily be accomplished with a computer. And a computer could be set and programmed to accept factors from youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross section of necessary skills. Of course it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included to foster and impart the required principles of leadership and tradition. (Slams down left fist. Right arm rises in stiff Nazi salute). Arrrrr! (Restrains right arm with left). Naturally, they would breed prodigiously, eh? There would be much time, and little to do. But ah with the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present gross national product within say, twenty years.
Muffley: But look here doctor, wouldn’t this nucleus of survivors be so grief stricken and anguished that they’d, well, envy the dead and not want to go on living?
Strangelove: No sir… (Right arm rolls his wheelchair backwards). Excuse me. (Struggles with wayward right arm, ultimately subduing it with a beating from his left).
Also when… when they go down into the mine everyone would still be alive. There would be no shocking memories, and the prevailing emotion will be one of nostalgia for those left behind, combined with a spirit of bold curiosity for the adventure ahead! Ahhhh! (Right are reflexes into Nazi salute. He pulls it back into his lap and beats it again. Gloved hand attempts to strangle him).
Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ration of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn’t that necessitate the abandonment of the so called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?
Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious… service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.
…….
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0055.html
geoff….So this is the conversation you visualize when you see Holdren and Obama together?
Yep, fossilsage. The parallels are quite flexible and can fit a number of silly walks people. Geoff.
Very little of the planet is populated to any significant degree.
Nearly all problems can be solved with cheap limitless energy. If the energy problem is cracked, I see no reaon why Earth’s human apopulation can not rise 10 fold (or more).
For example, some talk about lack of water in Africa, but heck the planet is a water world. It is just a question of de-salination to provide water for drinking and crops, and a pipeline from the coast. It is just an issue of energy, but if this was cheap and plentiful, there would be no bar to the engineering diffiulties in providing all the water that humans need delivered to the place where it is needed..
The same with raw materials. Raw materials can be created given limitless cheap energy. It is just that we use materials that presently require the least amount of energy to convert them into something useful.
And what about mining on the Moon and Mars? These have yet to be exploited. With limitless cheap energy, one can bet one’s bottom dollar that these resources will eventually be exploited.
There is a brave new world waiting out there to be discovered. With human ingenuity, it is just a question of time.
If energy is no object, than it might be easier to create lakes and swamps in areas that are currently up wind of the areas you want to farm. Just keep pumping in the sea water and let evaporation create rain downwind.
Thankyou Dr Ball, as a so called atheist i see things a little differently .History repeats itself its no surprise that they call themselves the club of ROME because the Romans invented the false religion of Roman catholicism which was nothing more than Emperor worship in disguise, they conquered with the sword then surpressed and pacified the population with a state manufactured faith., that later evolved into the european fudal system that used the church as a weapon to keep peasants in servitude to their nobility. The hold on power by the fudal states and the church began to crumble at the time the printing press was invented up until then the lords and bishops controlled the mainstream media of the time (The Royal courts and the church pulpit)but the free printing press ( Like the internet today gave a platform to the alternative free thinkers of the day such as the lutherians, the cat was out the bag and there was no putting it back. Over the centuries since, the fudal system and the state church with it have lost their grip on power and the people through liberty and democracy have taken control What we see now in my opinion is an attempt to re establish the fudal system by a small but powerfull group of bankers and industrialists so that they can controll the food and energy resources of the future, to do that they need a one world government and a religion to control the masses with.Christianity is not fit for this purpose because its a multi religious multicultural world so they need a religion that has elements in all faiths that followers can relate to, what could be a better fit than enviroment and earth worship.ps i know many here have a deep and personnel relationship with their God i didnt intend to question your faith, just to demonstrate how states have used religion as a weapon against their own people in the past and they will again if we allow it, so i apologise to those of faith that i may have offended love and peace to all.
If your faith is easily offended, you have no faith
I always find it fascinating the way those who wish to pontificate regarding other people’s religions, are always so incredibly ignorant regarding the subject on which they pontificate.
Sir, is there anything you know that is actually correct?
Mark, i am English , christianity in one form or another has shaped and dominated my nation and its people ( my ancestors) for the best part of 1500 years ,so despite not being christian myself it gives me the right to as you put it ” pontificate” on other peoples religion if i wish to.
Let me see if I have this right.
Your ancestors were Christian, therefore you are an expert on Christianity.
It never ceases to amaze me how those who know nothing about Christianity, actually feel entitled to pontificate on it.
Doubtingdave you have the right to say anything you want. Forgive us if we think your summary of the last 2000 years of Western Civilization to be laughably ignorant. There are certainly atheists that could do a much better job on that count. Perhaps you should go to the library and take out a book or two on history.
fossilsage thanks your comment made me smile, you reminded me of my elder sister who says my scepticism of dangerous manmade climate change is laughably ignorant. She is a evangelical christian and also a phd physicist, when i asked why she is convinced on manmade climate change she said shes a follower of sir John Houghton who had a visit from God , So as a xmas gift i tried to purchase the ” Resisting The Sky Dragon ” dvd set from the Cornwall Alliance so she could take it to her congregation for discussion, but alas i couldnt get a dvd in european zone 2 format only the north american zone 1
doubtingdave. Send your sister to this site to read. She will come to her senses once she realizes that the “evidence” is not in. Here she can at least chose articles and discussion where the polemic is not the primary thing. You, on the other hand, get a book or two a good one for a sweeping view of the basics is “Mankind the story of all of us” which also has a well done documentary series. It’s not the Bible but a good summary of the last 5000 years. (please try to enjoy the snarky humor in that last sentence)
Because you are right on AGW, therefore you are right on everything you care to comment on.
I found nothing in DoubtingDave’s post that was ignorant. In fact, quite the opposite. The truly ignorant are those that think that organized religion has ever been anything but a human-designed, mass population control device. In the case of Catholicism, the etymology of the name of the religion itself belies its true intention. What it is, what it was, and what it shall be.
Thank the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster (may His noodly appendage be on you) that humans in great numbers are getting wise to the con.
Christopher Paino says “The truly ignorant are those that think that organized religion has ever been anything but a human-designed, mass population control device.”
But you, being smart and wiser than just about everyone, can be easily manipulated as you avoid the label “ignorant” whereas I embrace it, provided of course it is my enemies that label me so. Your faith in your religion is at least as strong as mine in mine. I also find the FSM to be a useful metaphor; it is part of the dogma of a real atheist.
The common thread running through The Club of Rome, Agenda 21, etc., is the need of some for totalitarian control to impose their will. Virtually all socialist theories degrade, over time, to dictatorship. Hitler explained it simply as the best way to govern. It makes little difference, as Holdren proves, the mechanism provided the end result is obtained. The totalitarian folks are simply using the enviro folks as a tool.
But you may not have noticed but CO2 is being supplanted by the rise of “sustainability”. CO2 and global temperatures can be attacked with reality, even if it takes 20 years of flat lined global temperatures. With the data not supporting CO2 warming, “Sustainable” has been groomed to will be the is perfect. It’s the perfect amorphic term that simply cannot be debated since it has no real world substance. Even if someone noodles out a political counter to “Sustainable”, the totalitarian group will have developed yet another straw man. The totalitarian folks are simply using the enviro folks as a tool. They’ll be discarded either when the enviro activists no longer produce results or when the totalitarians complete their takeover.
And they will win in their drive to control. Some think they already have and it’s just a matter of fluffing up things. Consider the Church — the actual Papal meeting is primary about “Sustainable” with CO2 as mostly a hanger on. What will happen is they will concede CO2 but use this meeting as a pivot to sustainable.
If the totalitarians really cared about people, they would promote energy and cheap energy. Energy is, in fact, life. Cheap energy is, in fact, prosperity. Prosperity allows humans to improve their environment for themselves. The totalitarians are simply evil people.
Thanks. Up with freedom, down with tyrants.
SUSTAINABLE REALITY
If you like your energy sustainable,
You must first make the climate trainable.
With sun day and night,
And the wind always right-
I think it just might be attainable!
Solar and wind are renewable,
But have proven to just not be doable!
They’re killing the birds
And displacing the herds
(But the general public is gullible).
It appears to employ better vision,
To subsidize nuclear fission.
(The Thorium kind,
For our peace of mind)
With world-wide grids, for transmission.
Affordable power to the poor,
Is a key to open the door
To an affluent life,
A job and a wife.
With less offspring than folks made before.
So curtailing overpopulation
Is not about limiting nations
On what they can do
Which emits CO2…
It depends on industrialization!
dawg…good poem or is it verses to a rap song?
UN IPCC DOWNFALL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic-economic_paradox
Why it is “they” call it a “paradox” remains unclear to me but it is obvious that the cure to over population is to encourage poor countries to do what rich countries already did – exploit their natural resources in a free market capitalist economy.
Mike, I dont think the math jibes. Third world nations received know how to reduce mortality, but the birth rate didn’t decline proportionally. Natural resources are well on their way to being over exploited. Population growth is clearly unsustainable, the question in my mind is whether the eventual population peak will be sustainable or not. I don’t think so. I bet it’ll be down a couple of billion from that peak within 200 years.
Mortality? I did not state anything about mortality. My link was “GDP per capita”. Certainly, if life expectancy is increased without increasing productivity (which would be the outcome of extending the life of someone old who has already stopped working), GDP per capita can only go DOWN. The question to be pondered is, “Is extending the lives of those in the third world actually making life even worse for them and therefore even more dependent upon rich countries?” “The First World” didn’t rely on anyone to extend our lives ~150 years ago, we did it ourselves by becoming rich via the tools of capitalism and cheap energy. So doesn’t it make sense to help them develop those same tools to become independent and wealthy rather than making them poorer and more dependent on us? (I know, insecure people just thrive on the thought that other people will always need their “help”.)
“..well on their way..” – Present a USGS report that ever projected LESS fossil fuel reserves than a past report?
“Population growth is clearly unsustainable” No one disagrees that there is ~some value~ that is unsustainable, the disagreement concerns “how many” per the conclusion by Tim Ball that I agree with – there is no evidence that we are any where near it.
Fernando, the poor countries received advice on how to reduce mortality, but for obvious reasons, they ignored it. Until they get wealthy, they need to keep having kids. No matter what do-gooding crusaders tell them.
Natural resources are no where close to being over exploited.
Population growth is no where close to being unsustainable. The world could easily support two to three times current population. Regardless, the population will peak sometime in the next 20 to 30 years.
Malthusian ideas are completely wrong. Population growth supports an expanding economy. Population decline is destructive to the economy. John Maynard Keynes came to this conclusion in the Great Depression of the 1930s. Unfortunately this segment of his economic thought is all but forgotten.
What really is unsustainable is our farmers in Australia ploughing the crops back in because it’s not worth picking them.
I was going to write the very sensible comment written by Leo Smith, but he saved me the trouble. Back in 1969, I wrote a song called “Science Will Find a Way,” which I reproduce here in its entirety:
Took a little trip on the LA freeway, bumper to bumper in a gray-green cloud;
Said it looks to me like the end of the world, when the fellow in the next car hollared out loud:
Science will find a way; science will find a way;
To pack in a few more billion people; science will find a way!
I took my girl to the beach one day, just to se if we could get away from it all;
It was beachball city and sand in the face; a beer-drinking party; they were havin’ a ball, singing:
Science, etc.
Paid fifteen dollars at a big ski hill [exorbitant back then!] just to stand in the lift line all day long;
Watch the ski patrol cut in line while the ski instructors all chanted this song:
Science, etc.
Well, I got mad, and I climbed Mount Everest; thought I could find some solitude there;
Boy scouts swarming all over the summit; it was Troop Number Nine way up in the air, singing:
Science, etc.
The four and a half decades since 1969 have satisfied me that science has in fact done just what my song predicted, but they have also convinced me that there are forces at work other than the deadly alliance of the single-minded profit motive and reproductive potential. True, such green-minded strategies as recycling and pollution control have actually enabled population growth by sweeping its undesirable externalities under the rug, but the same market forces that promote population growth have yielded the hopeful result that, in accordance with Malthus’s thinking, smaller families are actually more prosperous and productive than larger ones. Ergo: overpopulation is a function, and a manifestation, not of the profit motive, but of poverty. Eliminate poverty, and the result will be prosperity and population stabilization. Another hopeful development was the seemingly counterintuitive endorsement of conservation and the protection of endangered species by many, if not most, Republicans. This I interpret as a nod to our ultimate dependence on Nature and to the recognition that unhealthy environments are inimical and antithetical to prosperity and the enjoyment of life, which are, after all, the perquisites of productive (but not of reproductive) success. So now, 44 years after writing that song, I feel a bit more sanguine about the prospects of our human-dominated world making the necessary adjustments to provide for an ultimate balance between our reproductive potential and Nature’s ability to provide the high quality of life to which the most prosperous amongst us aspire.
Oops, that would be 46 years…
Julian Simon was right, and the Malthusian death cult was wrong — wrong in 1800, still wrong today. The question is not how many people can the planet support, but in what style? It cannot support 9 billion people living in the style of the nineteenth century (powered by horses and coal), and perhaps not even in the style of the 20th. However, our adaptability and technological prowess — and stabilizing population — suggest the 21st century will be a piece of cake for humanity, requiring only minor adjustments such as for example reducing the “throw weight” of our personal transportation and replacing the 3- to 7-liter internal combustion engines now in use with much smaller ones. Increasing CO2, meanwhile, will increase food production, and materials science will provide lighter, cheaper, more durable “plastics” (probably not made of petroleum, hence the quote marks). We will likely morph a culture driven mostly by acquisition and disposition, into one predicated on less materialistic values. I see a future of greater personal freedom and prosperity (redefined a bit) for mankind, once we get past the counterproductive machinations of the Malthusian death cult and its crypto-feudal agenda.
”
And he probably wasn’t the first to think that his generation had invented sex and reproduction. The population was increasing because fewer people (primarily children) were dying. Significantly due to the use of fossil fuels and industrialisation, among other factors.
As a Canadian it shames me to say it, but Maurice Strong is evil incarnate. Every awful global control issue has his stench on it. To bad China is so fond of him or we could see his face (ass) in court.
The CAGW memeplex serves many masters. That is why it is so difficult to kill.
memeplex. ….Good word.
“…The insanity of it all is that none of what they think matters because there is no overpopulation, no shortage of resources or any connection between CO2 and climate change.”
Dr Ball, thanks for your piece – great reading. The excerpt above troubles me only because, although I share the sentiments, I would appreciate the evidential facts to back them up. Do you have any such evidential proof – statistical or otherwise – preferably from an independent source or sources that cannot be instantly labelled ‘skeptical’ by pro-CAGW ‘believers’ (who will instantly dismiss anything that doesn’t come from one of their trusted sources)?
I really think knowledgeable members of the skeptical community need to produce some kind of ‘reality checklist’, easily understood and fully cited, which documents statements of ‘fact’ regarding claims made about CAGW, over-population, ‘peak oil’, etc which have all turned out to be completely unsupported by time and subsequent reality. It would help to be able to just put such a ‘reality checklist’ in front of people who refuse to accept the CAGW narrative they ‘believe in’ is nothing more than rainbows and unicorns.
You could start with The Ultimate Resource II by Julian Simon, and The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg. Each is chock full of references to “independent sources”. In 2015 they’re a bit outdated, but still useful.
This site lets you choose individual countries and see their historical and projected growth rates, according to the UN. Note that even most third world countries have declining growth rates, both past and future:
http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/unpp/panel_population.htm
Where is research that shows the optimum climate for our biosphere? The first question must be: where is our current climate and trend in relation to this finding.
Strangely, nobody seems interested in this vital comparison. Not so strangely, the solutions that are frequently demanded in the most urgent voice, all converge on a socialist worldview: statism, bigger government, higher taxes, less personal liberty, even fewer people. That bigger picture tells me all that I need to know about “climate science”.
27 April: Spiked: Brendan O’Neill: Are you now or have you ever been a climate contrarian?
The fury over Bjorn Lomborg Down Under confirms the intolerance of greens
Once, it was Communists who were harassed on Western campuses. Now it’s contrarians. Specifically ‘climate contrarians’. The massive stink over Bjorn Lomborg being given Australian government funding to set up a climate-change centre at the University of Western Australia (UWA) shows that the spirit of McCarthyism lives on. Only now, its targets aren’t Reds, but anti-greens: anyone who dares to criticise either the science — sorry, The Science — or the politics of climate change…READ ON
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/are-you-now-or-have-you-ever-been-a-climate-contrarian/16913
People want to kill you now. They use “The Future” as justification for doing it. Though all they really want is to kill you now. If it weren’t for “The Future,” they’d find some other justification. Hence, should you prove that “The Future” will be okay, it would change NOTHING.
“The Future” is a prop.
FINALLY….a real scientist who recognizes the Club of Rome (COR) and UN Agenda 21 for what they are and NOT conspiracy theories…..
We saw a perfect example of this when BHO and “Bill Nye the 9000 gallons of Jet Fuel – Political Guy” did their speech in the Everglades with, “The science is settled”, “Everyone knows” and the load of tripe they spew.
Ed Miliband (labor candidate for Prime Minister) in the UK this past weekend said he was going to make “Islamophobia” a FELONIOUS THOUGHT CRIME if elected PM of the UK. No, I’m not making this up, check the British news websites. The Climate “Deniers” will be next. This is where the world is headed – certainly Europe.
Ladies and Gentlemen, wake up before Orwell’s “1984” just slides right in and no one notices…..till it’s too late.
It *IS* too late. Nothing will stop this other than a war.
Yep, 1984 just slid right in. Been with us 31 years, just festering and biding its time
This article is no more than another nutty conspiracy theory– the entire world is out to get us and since we don’t like the answer from ALL Science, then ALL of Science must be in a conspiracy against us. And since every one of the world’s National Science Academies conclude AGW, they ALL must be in on it — the Chinese, The French, Germans, Japanese, British, Russians, Americans, the Aussies.
Do we need more evidence of the author’s mindset than his absurd proposition?
It’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
OK. So you are one of those who believes the World’s Science Academies are in a conspiracy to publish fraudulent Science?
warrenlb;;; try to deviate the party line, there are numerous examples of going wrong.
you lose your job, or subsidy, or protection. That are reasons for many people to stay quiet.
Retirees stand up to be more critical, but maybe in the future these too might be carefull , something can be found to put pressure on them.
Conspiracy or not, the fact that they have been taken over by politicians and supporting fraudulent science has already been proven.
Deal with it.
What is conspicuously absent is a connection with the PRESENT.
What is conspicuously absent is any connection with REALITY.
You are so uniformed, it’s too funny!
Do you believe that all the world’s Scientific Institutions – the Academies I cited — are in a conspiracy to publish fraudulent Science?
Do I believe that the politicians continue to push disproven science because it’s in their benefit to do so.
Of course. That’s what politicians do.
We had several articles last week regarding those precious academies of yours.
Most of their members are quitting because the politicians who run them will not listen to the members.
“warrenlb
April 27, 2015 at 6:56 am”
Prove it warren, prove it! No models, no computer predictions/projections, prove it with actual, observed, testable, evidence.
warrenlb doesn’t have to prove it.
His sacred texts say it is so, and that settles it.
We certainly need no more evidence of your mindset than your climate koolaid-inspired spittle-flecked rant.
Do we need more evidence of your ignorance? The Russian Academy of Sciences most certainly does not promote AGW:
(my bold)
http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/11/russian-academy-of-sciences-experts-warn-of-imminent-cold-period-global-warming-is-a-marketing-trick/#sthash.CioD5OA0.dpbs
What the Chinese really think is a little more inscrutible, imo
And
inscrutibleinscrutable too…Sorry, my comment here is in response to:
warrenlb April 27, 2015 at 6:05 am
@Steve P.
You have it wrong, three times over:
“2007 — In preparation for the 33rd G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration referencing the position of the 2005 joint science academies’ statement, and acknowledging the confirmation of their previous conclusion by recent research. Following the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the declaration states, “It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken.” The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.”
“2008 — In preparation for the 34th G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration reiterating the position of the 2005 joint science academies’ statement, and reaffirming “that climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is influencing many physical and biological systems.” Among other actions, the declaration urges all nations to “(t)ake appropriate economic and policy measures to accelerate transition to a low carbon society and to encourage and effect changes in individual and national behaviour.” The thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that issued the 2007 joint statement.”
“2009 — In advance of the UNFCCC negotiations to be held in Copenhagen in December 2009, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a joint statement declaring, “Climate change and sustainable energy supply are crucial challenges for the future of humanity. It is essential that world leaders agree on the emission reductions needed to combat negative consequences of anthropogenic climate change”. The statement references the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment of 2007, and asserts that “climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000 have been higher than even the highest predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become more rapid.” The thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that issued the 2007 and 2008″
The Russian scientists have been saying this for ages. But I’m not sure the cooling will be such a good thing. Better to be warm than cold.
Dementia is not your friend.
@Warrenlb Look there’s no conspiracy theory involved in the fact the John Holdren co-authored a book with Paul Ehrlich which suggested we need an international body to create an international policing mechanism to “compel” population control. It might require force of arms. These days John says he doesn’t remember that part. HE’S CO-AUTHOR OF THE BOOK for crying out loud! It’s not like he would forget the contents of the only book he wrote with his academic mentor do you think? Do you think they discussed it before it got in the book? He is now science adviser to the president of the United States! You don’t need a conspiracy theory. Wherever Neomaltusians arrive they will be quick to the draw on compelling conformity with their view for the greater good and, surprise, they will tend to hire like thinkers around themselves. Which is why it has taken forty some years for the Club of Rome to create and bring the IPCC into the “mainstream” Warren just read the history of the organizations and look up the biographies of the main players on Wikipedia these guys aren’t very shy about saying what they want to do.
The entire human population of the earth, to date, can stand, literally in their footprints only, on the Isle of Wight off the south cost of England. The issue (Problem?) is food, water supply and shelter. We seem to be doing reasonably well.
Whywould you want your children to live in such a world? What would be the point? Have you never heard of a ‘quality of life’?
Thats not the point. The point of my post is to demonstrate that humans have littile, phyical, impact on the global climate on this rock that we live on. And yet there are those who believe ~3% of ~400ppm/v CO2 can *DRIVE* change to the climate on this rock so that we, and no other being, can live on it! It seems this rock is proving these claims wrong.
Good question.
@Patrick.
You say: “There are those who believe ~3% of ~400ppm/v CO2 can *DRIVE* change to the climate…”
‘Those’ are all world’s Institutions of Science. When faced with choosing between the opinions of a blogger, vs the research of the world’s scientist, who should we believe?
warrenlb asks “When faced with choosing between the opinions of a blogger, vs the research of the world’s scientist, who should we believe?”
1. There is no “we”. You will choose who to believe based on a variety of factors.
2. There is no “should”. This is not church.
3. Your comparison lacks vital information. What is the qualifications of your hypothetical blogger and what are the political motivations of your world’s scientist? Both are relevant. The scientist may be ethically compromised and the blogger might be the One True Discoveror of something important and relevant.
In the story of the “Emperors New Clothes”, it is a boy that eventually proclaims the truth. The boy has no qualifications whatsoever BUT most people realize the boy also has no social motivations to lie. (He will have personal motivations to lie, but not social).
So you see, it is best if a “non-expert” proclaims the emperor has no clothes. Someone whose job does not depend on proclaiming one way or the other.
All 7 billion people on earth today would fit easily inside half of the Grand Canyon. Picture that in your mind’s eye. Whatever the real problem is, it is not too many people.
turns out they totally missed the boat on the ultimate population control. It is greed and capitalism. Once the free market reaches an area along with suitable medical treatment to drastically reduce childhood deaths, the 4th kid or a new flatscreen tv or car becomes a no brainer. Countries with even a modest amount of these factors require influxes of foreigners to maintain the population – ie the US and western Europe. Without the immigration, they would be a dwindling population – no tyrannical rule required.
these clowns, Malthusians, progressives (really they are retrogressives), are retarded in some way or another and are incapable of viewing the big picture. First, if we truly were overcrowded, nature would solve the problem immediately. Second, if we became overcrowded, as conditions declined, immigration would start to become a viable solution. The Moon, Mars, asteroids, man made satellites like the L5 society analyzed back in the 70s are technologically achievable and eventually can become cost effective and that’s before we ever get to a stage of interstellar colonization. Third, without a large population of random genetic activity and societal backgrounds, the great intellects of tomorrow will be replaced by idiots. Fourth, sooner or later all life on Earth will be destroyed by events which will happen that nothing can be done about – except to evacuate the place. Before that, there is a very high likelihood that some events almost as devastating will happen which could be avoided given sufficient warning time and technology.
Your local IKEA has a 400 sq ft example of living space furnished with their products. Those 7 billion could each be allocated 400 sq ft and all fit inside the sate boundaries of Colorado. It’s called math.
for 6bil or so, TX could be turned into one giant suburb. LOL. No water? Same problem with any city from ancient rome on. That’s what pipelines (aqueducts) are for. On a world that is over 2/3 water, there is no shortage of water, only of freshwater in some locations and desalination plants are readily created when there is cheap abundant energy around.
With all the talk of limits to growth, it is probably worth revisiting Chiefio’s common sense look at “enuf stuff”
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/there-is-no-shortage-of-stuff/
You name it, he takes a look at some of the real issues in water, food, energy and even living space. Who is the nut – warrenlb? All this sounds strange because you never see it in everyday discussions but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t truly realistic. Thanks Dr. Ball for another good post. And many thanks EM Smith for your wide ranging thoughtful discussions.
Where did I say anything about limits to growth?
And are you one of those who believes all the world’s Science Academies are in a conspiracy to publish fraudulent science?
Malthus, the Club of Rome and Paul Erlich were the ones talking about limits to growth. They are really the nuts in my opinion. You were the one calling Tim Ball a nut not me. There are a lot of nuts in the academic world but I don’t think Tim is one of them. I am certain the honest academics are doing good science.
@Bernie McCune.
You say: “I am certain the honest academics are doing good science.”
I agree with you. And here is what they say:
2007 — In preparation for the 33rd G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration referencing the position of the 2005 joint science academies’ statement, and acknowledging the confirmation of their previous conclusion by recent research. Following the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the declaration states, “It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken.” The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
2007 — In preparation for the 33rd G8 summit, the Network of African Science Academies submitted a joint “statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change” : ‘A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change. The IPCC should be congratulated for the contribution it has made to public understanding of the nexus that exists between energy, climate and sustainability.’
2008 — In preparation for the 34th G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration reiterating the position of the 2005 joint science academies’ statement, and reaffirming “that climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is influencing many physical and biological systems.” Among other actions, the declaration urges all nations to “(t)ake appropriate economic and policy measures to accelerate transition to a low carbon society and to encourage and effect changes in individual and national behaviour.” The thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that issued the 2007 joint statement.
2009 — In advance of the UNFCCC negotiations to be held in Copenhagen in December 2009, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a joint statement declaring, “Climate change and sustainable energy supply are crucial challenges for the future of humanity. It is essential that world leaders agree on the emission reductions needed to combat negative consequences of anthropogenic climate change”. The statement references the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment of 2007, and asserts that “climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000 have been higher than even the highest predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become more rapid.” The thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that issued the 2007 and 2008 joint statements.
Polish Academy of Sciences: In December 2007, the General Assembly of the Polish Academy of Sciences (Polska Akademia Nauk) issued this statement: “Problems of global warming, climate change, and their various negative impacts on human life and on the functioning of entire societies are one of the most dramatic challenges of modern times.”
American Association for the Advancement of Science as the world’s largest general scientific society, adopted an official statement on climate change in 2006: ‘ The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society….The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.’
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies in 2008 published FASTS Statement on Climate Change which states: ‘Global climate change is real and measurable…To reduce the global net economic, environmental and social losses in the face of these impacts, the policy objective must remain squarely focused on returning greenhouse gas concentrations to near pre-industrial levels through the reduction of emissions. The spatial and temporal fingerprint of warming can be traced to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, which are a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity.’
United States National Research Council through its Committee on the Science of Climate Change in 2001, published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions.[36] This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the scientific community:
The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century… The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.
Royal Society of New Zealand having signed onto the first joint science academy statement in 2001, released a separate statement in 2008: “The globe is warming because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Measurements show that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are well above levels seen for many thousands of years. Further global climate changes are predicted, with impacts expected to become more costly as time progresses. Reducing future impacts of climate change will require substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.”
European Academy of Sciences and Arts in 2007 issued a formal declaration on climate change:
“Human activity is most likely responsible for climate warming. Most of the climatic warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Documented long-term climate changes include changes in Arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones. The above development potentially has dramatic consequences for mankind’s future.”
European Science Foundation in a 2007 position paper states:
“There is now convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases have become a major agent of climate change… On-going and increased efforts to mitigate climate change through reduction in greenhouse gases are therefore crucial.”
Want more?
warrenlb says:
Want more?
What he is asking is: “Do you want more of my Appeal to Authority fallacies?”
No, thanx. Every organization listed is a political organization, including the UN/IPCC and all the others. “Man-made global warming” has totally failed the science test. There is no quantifiable evidence for the existence of MMGW. No measurements quantifying MMGW exist. None.
So the argument has shifted into the political arena. Politics comprises warrenlb’s entire argument. Because he has decisively lost the scientific argument.