Claim: Mankind will be extinct in 100 years because climate

bear_chessboard

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The end of chocolate, the end of coffee, the end of beer left us unmoved. Even bundling the chocolate, beer and coffee scares into one article didn’t raise a flicker. So desperate alarmists have recycled the ultimate scare story.

Science writer David Auerbach reminds us that in 2010, famous Australian Microbiologist Frank Fenner, who once helped eradicate Smallpox, predicted that climate change would lead to the extinction of mankind.

According to Auerbach;

Humans will be extinct in 100 years because the planet will be uninhabitable, according to Australian microbiologist Frank Fenner, one of the leaders of the effort to eradicate smallpox in the 1970s. He blames overcrowding, denuded resources and climate change.

Fenner’s prediction is not a sure bet, but he is correct that there is no way emissions reductions will be enough to save us from our trend toward doom. And there doesn’t seem to be any big global rush to reduce emissions, anyway. When the G7 called on Monday for all countries to reduce carbon emissions to zero in the next 85 years, the scientific reaction was unanimous: That’s far too late.

And no possible treaty that emerges from the current United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bonn, Germany, in preparation for November’s United Nations climate conference in Paris, will be sufficient. At this point, lowering emissions is just half the story — the easy half. The harder half will be an aggressive effort to find the technologies needed to reverse the climate apocalypse that has already begun.

Read more: http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/06/18/a-child-born-today-may-live-to-see-humanitys-end-unless/

The end of Mankind has got to be worse than no more beer or chocolate, right? I mean its the most emotive scare story alarmists can imagine, except maybe James Hansen’s excruciating refinement of the extinction scare, that not only will we all die, but we’ll all be boiled to death.

Fenner sadly passed away shortly after presenting his doom laden prophecy. We can only speculate whether he would have maintained such an extreme position, in the face of strong evidence that high climate sensitivity estimates are untenable.

Advertisements

261 thoughts on “Claim: Mankind will be extinct in 100 years because climate

  1. You ain’t seen nothing yet. Paul Ehrlich has a new article coming out about extinction !!!!

    • With no coffee or chocolate we may as well all die. Life will not be worth living ! LOL.
      I’m quite prepared to believe that society may well have collapsed by 2100 but it won’t be because of CO2 driven warming.
      We are witnessing the end of the age of reason. We will be back in the dark ages by then, or some SF distopean dictatorship enforced by storm-troopers in blue helmets and nice green ecomarchal badges.

      • kim
        June 20, 2015 at 5:32 am
        So, is ’42’ HALspeak for methyl xanthines?
        ========

        I dunno, but caffenine CAS number is 58-08-2
        theophylline CAS number is 58-55-9
        theobromine CAS number is 83-67-0
        and aminophylline CAS number is 317-34-0
        Unfortunately, if you do the substractions, none of them gives you 42, That would have been awesome. caffeine gives 48, though.

      • Alan M., see ‘Childhood’s End’ per Arthur C. Clarke. The devils didn’t even deliver utopia, and still they have their demands.
        Urederra: Theobromine, the food of the Gods. Oh, yes, we have no benumbers, today.
        ==============

      • Hmmmm, fifty-eight minus (two times sixteen) makes forty-two. Could Java be the location of the secret decoder ring? Avoiding numeracy here to escape surveillance.
        ==============

      • A super-duper computer was asked the Meaning of Life in A Hitchhiker’s guide to the Galaxy. It calculated for thousands of years, then returned the answer “42”.

      • Agree entirely.
        How the Reformation was won and ushered in the Age of Reason should be made the primary topic of all history lessons, before we forget how hard fought the battle was, and how fundamental the gains were.
        Sadly, many of our brain-dead politicians think the Reformation merely signified a change in artistic styles, a bit like the Renaissance, and had nothing to do with the foundations of modern science.
        Ralph

      • “We are witnessing the end of the Age of Reason.”
        Well-said Mike.
        I wrote this recently [excerpt]:
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/18/is-the-catholic-church-burned-by-the-sun-again/#comment-1967102
        This year is also the 800th Anniversary of the signing of Magna Carta in 1215. Magna Carta marked a critical beginning of Rule of Law in the modern era. Pope Innocent III wrote a Papal Bull annulling Magna Carta, calling it “illegal, unjust, harmful to royal rights and shameful to the English people”. Papal Bull indeed…
        Rule of Law is only practiced today in about 10% of the countries in the world – not surprisingly, they are the prosperous ones. Even in these 20 or so fortunate countries, Rule of Law is under threat from the pack of scoundrels and imbeciles that will always be with us.
        [end of excerpt]
        Democracy is a frail creature.
        We need a voting public that demonstrates some degree of education and intelligence.
        These campaigns to “get out the vote” are dysfunctional – we need a new campaign to restore rationality to democracy.
        I suggest we should implement an intelligence test at the voting booth, which questions such as:
        1. Is professional wrestling real or fake?
        2. If your car says Dodge on the front of it, do you really need a horn?
        3. Why is it called lipstick if you can still move your lips?
        4. etc.
        Better still , we need a campaign that just says ”Stay Home! You’re ‘way too stupid to vote!”
        Best regards, Allan 🙂

    • Paul Ehrlich’s work these days is almost entirely connected to the UN and an entity called MAHB–Millennium Assessment of Human Behavior. I wrote about it here a few years ago and the title is a quote from Ehrlich. http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/now-more-than-five-years-into-an-attempt-to-help-organize-a-near-total-revision-of-human-behavior/
      He is also pushing something now called Biosocial evolution where the changes are not genetic, but in prevailing culture. Needless to say, having his protege John Holdren in charge of digital learning initiatives via his office at the White House Science and Technology Policy, puts both of them in a position to push the very changes desired. Literally both Digital Promise and the League of Innovative Schools report to OTEP.
      The Remaking Learning Playbook that came out last week is a DP initiative and is so committed to Mind Arson that these K-12 initiatives are more likely to make man extinct than the climate. Talk about catastrophic.

      • Hiya Early Bird. This worm breathes fire and brimstone, and sparks encycle its eyes.
        ===================

      • Theory without culpable supporting documenting evidence. But then prior to the Common Core ELA and Math standards, the ability to spot such poorly supported proposals was not considered to be important. It is now a very well worded and very clear standard in the CCSS ELA and Math document.
        If you want to combat warmist catastrophic ideology, you have to use better writing strategies than they do.

      • 1. Teaching Maths In 1970
        A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?
        2. Teaching Maths In 1980
        A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or £80. What is his profit?
        3. Teaching Maths In 1990
        A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100. His cost of production is £80. Did he make a profit?
        4. Teaching Maths In 2000
        A logger sells a truckload of timber for £100. His cost of production is £80 and his profit is £20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.
        5. Teaching Maths In 2010
        A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of £20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers. )
        6. Teaching Maths 2020
        أ المسجل تبيع حموله شاحنة من الخشب من اجل 100 دولار. صاحب تكلفة الانتاج من الثمن. ما هو الربح له؟

      • Because you know what? Every other time people banded together to Make People Change Into A Better Thing, it worked out so well, and there weren’t even that many Mass Graves, Pogroms, and Labor Camps.
        Or, at least, that’s what the newly revised history texts will say.

    • If you don’t think this spyin’ stuff is really ideal, text yourself and let us know how you feel:

    • I honesty don’t understand why more people don’t just laugh when they here about more predictions being made by Paul Ehrlich.

      • Yes, all of Ehrlich’s predictions have been wrong. He is just making noise and has nothing real or truthful to say. All darkness and shadows with no light.

    • Remember how we went extinct during the Medieval Warming Period. Actually, societies throughout the world flourished then and the Renaissance and modern civilization were ushered in. It seems the worse the science gets the surer and shriller the climate change rent seekers become.

    • There was a report about this in the printed UK Daily Telegraph yesterday. Knowing his track record, why would anyone take anything this man says seriously?
      Anyway, I just shot of an email to the Telegraph, though the chances of it being printed are remote. But I did have a letter printed in the Sunday Telegraph last week.
      “You quote Prof Paul Ehrlich’s claim that we are entering the sixth great mass extinction. Just one small problem: it isn’t true. Ehrlich is a well-known serial doom monger since the 1970’s. Needless to say, not one of his doom-laden prophecies has come to pass (e.g. that Western civilisation would have collapsed by 2000). Mankind has certainly killed off many species by hunting, habitat destruction and the introduction of alien species (in one case a unique species of birds on an island was killed off by a single cat brought by its owner). But the empirical data shows that the extinction rate peaked around 1900 and has been falling ever since, obviously due to greatly increased animal protection. The idea that vast numbers of animals will be killed off because the world got two thirds of a degree warmer is laughable nonsense. Oh, yes, and those poster-children of the climate change scare, the polar bears, are not going extinct. They are thriving and their numbers have at least doubled over the last few decades.”
      The Telegraph headline stated this is the greatest mass extinction since the dinosaurs were given their marching orders. That was 65 million years. I haven’t checked, but quite likely CO2 in the time of the dinosaurs was significantly higher than today. And they were fine until a big chunk of rock gave them a very bad day.
      Chris

  2. That should do it. Submit you earthlings or else?
    What else?
    We are in a cooling trend that should last at least 40 years. The Northern Hemisphere maximum snow cover is increasing, the Antarctic ice is setting records year after year. These facts are harder to adjust than temperature data.

    • lenbilen:

      We are in a cooling trend that should last at least 40 years.

      Don’t think that the participants of COP21 in Paris (which for them, they should be reminded, stands for Continuation Of [the] Pause [in] 21c) won’t be working on a way to turn this prediction to their advantage. Perhaps, the scenario could go like this: “See, all that cutting of carbon and loading of carbon taxes has started to have an effect: the climate is starting to cool! We need to continue the fight! We must double down on our targets and increase the carbon taxes”.

  3. plenty of fundamentalists will be glad to hear this. Now we really are living in the end times. Will we have to move to the seaside to get boiled alive in the oceans or will sea level rise mean that the oceans come to us.

  4. Plausibly if the planet is doomed in 95 years (remember his prediction was 5 years ago) then we had better enjoy it. Consider – “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die” – a conflation of two biblical sayings, Ecclesiastes 8:15, ‘Then I commended mirth, because a man hath no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry’, and Isaiah 22:13, ‘Let us eat and drink; for to morrow we shall die.’
    Good to follow Ecclesiastes and Isaiah. Quote above from FunTrivia .com.

    • “If we drink, we will die!
      If we don’t drink, we will die.
      We might as well drink!”
      Taras Bulba – 1962

    • “Well, show me the way
      To the next whisky bar
      Oh, don’t ask why
      Oh, don’t ask why
      Show me the way
      To the next whisky bar
      Oh, don’t ask why
      Oh, don’t ask why
      For if we don’t find
      The next whisky bar
      I tell you we must die
      I tell you we must die
      I tell you, I tell you
      I tell you we must die”

  5. the climate apocalypse that has already begun.

    I guess “climate apocalypse” is the new term for the Great Pause. They really do not like the Pause. It must seem like the end of the world to them.

    • Tony L
      It is a long time since I went to university, but there must be a new course that they teach in the science department called “doom and gloom” . Are the students now being told to include a liberal dose of ‘gloom and doom” or ” it is worse than we thought” in all their work.?. Are they being told that they will fail the year ,their paper will not be published or the university will get no free money grants unless it is alarmist only . What else could cause these climate science papers to be so negative in their message, paper after paper.

      • What else could cause these climate science papers to be so negative in their message, paper after paper.

        Money.
        Lots and lots of money.
        As far as the “doom and gloom” goes:
        Where I work, an executive VP went through the Engineering dept. doing an informal survey on AGW. People said “no”. The word “hoax” was mentioned. A double check and “hoax” was the verdict. It seems people with a real degree in any real science or any engineering field are still immune, but they are few in number.

  6. Those guys that don “THE END IS NIGH” sandwich boards have been right on the money – for the past 150 years.

    • Don’t knock the doomsayers! I’m proud to be a fourth generation doomsayer-sandwich-board guy.

      • Can I have a Ham, Cheese & Pickel on Rye sandwich…as there’s no chance of coffee !!!

  7. Yes, we’re all going to die! Because of course human history proves that technology never advances and perceived needs are never fulfilled by invention and innovation. (sarc/off).
    I mean really! Who believes this shit?

  8. There was a time these folks would have been put away in asylums in straitjackets, drugged, electroshocked, and lobotomized. Now they run the show. Times have indeed changed.

    • And I suggest those changes may not have been uniformly for the better.
      The bettor – well, let’s see . . .
      Auto

    • Yes, and imagine how much they suffer thinking and writing of doom all day every day. If they believe what they write their lives are meaningless and hopeless. If they don’t believe it and continue saying it their lies are meaningless and hopeless as who can live a life lying and cheating and come to any good end?

  9. Somehow, someway, there is a Catholic monk, destined for sainthood, toiling in an abbey to save beer.

    • Just got back from the supermarket with the beer, they didn’t seem to know anything about it!

    • My garage fridge is stocked right now with Guinness stout and Sam Adams Summer Ale (A great lawn mowing beer) and some Corona for the ladies or men who prefer something lighter. Even decades after spending the better part of 5 years in Germany I still can’t tolerate American mass produced swill.

      • Nor is Corona, but then again neither is Becks, Paulaner, König, etc etc. But all, including Sam Adams, make more real and better beers than Miller, Budweiser America, etc. I’m not against making large quantities, but against inferior quality. Nor am I biased due to the nationality of the beer.
        Plenty of microbreweries make stuff that does not suit my taste.

      • I have fond memories of mass produced beer. Schlitz was the beer of youth when we couldn’t get over to Idaho for a rack of Coors.

      • Sam Adams’ IPAs and Darks are some of the best ‘mass production’ brews I have tasted. I brew my own bitters, stouts and lagers because NZ breweries seem unable to use hops or decent malts.
        I’ll miss beer after the apocalypse…

      • What the hell are you doing! You should never put Guiness in the fridge. Ruins the body and taste.
        (I recall complaining to a barman in Oxford about thin, watery Guiness. He apologised profusely, and explained that the Guiness tap had been placed next to the lager tap, so the refrigeration to cool the lager sometimes also chilled the Guiness. He gave me a pint of unchilled bitter as an attempt at compensation, though he rcognised that there can be no real compensation for ruined Guiness.)

      • Sam Adams is good stuff. When I went to teach in America I had some trepidation at spending a long time in the land of Coors and Budweiser. But shortly after I arrived I discovered Sam Adams, and my fears dissolved.
        The label was a bit confusing, though. It describes the original Sam as “brewer and patriot”, even though he was a rebel against his rightful king and country. Perhaps it means he was a patriot to the U.S.A. after it was formed.
        Good beer, regardless.

      • RoHa
        Samuel was a bit of a rounder. He in fact was a leader in raising the resistance to the taxes and providing direction to the mob that intimidated the Governor. That violent civil disobedience led to the occupation of Boston by British soldiers. And that occupation resulted in a defining event called the Boston Massacre. Then Samuel’s second cousin, John Adams, who also opposed the taxes and occupation, never the less, agreed to represent the British soldiers accused of murder for their trial when no other lawyer in Boston would, simply because John believed that any person accused to be tried should have legal representation. Adams legal defense was so effective that 6 out of the 8 British soldiers were found not guilty. Adams legal practice took a big hit for his stand on principle.
        Later Samuel is thought to have had a lot to do with the Boston Tea Party.
        As things heated up to the boiling point John Hancock and Samuel Adams were at the top of the British most wanted list. Thus when General Gage go word that Hancock and Adams were together in Lexington he made their capture a part of an already planned excursion to capture and destroy a store of arms, powder, and ball in Concord. And thus came the shot heard around the world.
        And so Samuel Adams was the only founder that had a hand in some way or another in the three most recognized events leading to the revolution. The Boston Massacre, the Boston Tea Party, and finally the opening military confrontations that started the war.

      • Quite a rebel. I bet he could spell “Guinness”, too, which more than my predictive software can do.

      • “Schaefer is the one beer to have, when you’re having more than one”.
        I don’t think that one would pass the PC “smell test” these days. ; – )

      • I would never turn down an invitation to visit with anyone who stocks Guinness Stout, I don’t care what else might be stocked in that fridge. If I’m going to drink San Adams, which I do, I prefer the Rebel IPA.
        I got my local brew purveyor to carry stock from Oskar Blues in Colorado. Their Ten Fidy compares well with Guinness Stout. They also brew a good Imperial Red Ale and a Pale Ale. Stone and Sierra Nevada make pretty good IPA’s also.

    • I have a few bottles of Chimay blue in the pantry right now. I guess I better stock up just in case the doomsayers actually got one right.

    • I just bought a keg of local ale and 50 reese’s cups. I’m a little bit ashamed. Well I was confused and frightened. The catastrophic beer famine predictions put me in a dark place emotionally.

    • Don’t forget the packet of peanuts and a good towel. You never know, a Vogon fleet might just happen by….

  10. I’ve long said that there is a lot of energy in the universe and that man will not ultimately use all of it.
    ================

    • Richard,
      that is a 2004 document.
      Even the CIA’s tame website has got up to 2014 for populations.
      Do you have a link to anything from the World Government.un that is a bit more recent?
      Auto

  11. While many scientists are also pessimistic, others are more optimistic. Among the latter is a colleague of Professor Fenner, retired professor Stephen Boyden, who said he still hopes awareness of the problems will rise and the required revolutionary changes will be made to achieve ecological sustainability. “While there’s a glimmer of hope, it’s worth working to solve the problem. We have the scientific knowledge to do it but we don’t have the political will,” Boyden said.

    Good envirodoommonger/bad envirodoomonger routine. Psychological tactic.

    • One good first step would be to thin out the ranks of these silly academics. And we give them tenure? For goodness sakes, let them be subject to the same job reviews the rest of us have.

      • Yeah, maybe an “Affordable Education Act” would do the trick? Let’s have insurance companies dictate how much money professors can make.

      • Good idea. First question on job review. Please justify your continued employment by showing something of practical value with a positive economic values. One paragraph please.

  12. That homo sapiens is already extinct but doesn’t know it yet i can agree with. Evidently the development of what we like to call consciousness was the law of unintended consequences in action. However the reasons he claims and the timescale are ludicrous. As current state of the species we merely exist for couple of 100.000 years, of which a mere few 10.000 as self destructive.
    As such given by other lifeforms extinction rates we still have some time left ( the panda bear still hangs on isn’t it?). But that we’ll ever even come close to the jellyfish by even 1 million years is not realistic. Giving a jellyfish us the finger for 500 million years and counting.

    • The first issue of my Equatorial Cities Journal features architectural plans for great floating cities modeled on the jellyfish.
      =================

      • kim – not, I assume Fat-boy Kim of Pyeong Yang –
        Thanks.
        Are your floating cities moored/anchored – or may they be at the mercy of time and tide?
        Auto
        [also possibly modelled on a jelly-fish]

  13. ”I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
    John Davis,
    Editor of Earth First! Journal

    • It is always fair to ask those who would bring harm and death to others. Why don’t you lead by example?

  14. This is clearly great news for skeptics. We are more doomed than ever before and no matter what we do climate change will make us extinct. Therefore, logically we should do nothing and any financial or other sacrifices we make now are futile. At least this generation should enjoy itself and even if we reduce emissions it is too late we are doomed. It won’t be my problem I’ll be dead by then.

  15. Well, for once, finally, they’re right. It’s absolutely true: we will all be dead in a hundred years.

    • Tom,
      Apart from our centenarians – IIRC – ‘about half of today’s new-borns will make centenarian status’.
      And they’ll vote, too.
      Auto

  16. I read this also this morning in another news source. They also mentioned we have already started another mass extinction era that will most likely kill humans. It also claimed the extinction rate was over 100 times more mammal extictions in the 20th century than the previous. Where would get a list of these mammals extinctions by century? Of course they don’t supply such a thing however they blame this phenomena mainly on climate change.

  17. There are more things in heaven and earth than one can imagine Horatio. We as a race are just now at the beginning of our scientific endeavour. The advances over this century into the next will be far in advance and even more frequent than those mainly propelled by wars in the last century.
    In this universe of ours we are babes in the woods at the very beginning of our scientific knowledge, beer will never go extinct, one day soon the standard models will, and science will advance in leaps and bounds.
    This latest political ploy of global warming will face a death of a thousand cuts as the world climate refuses to co-operate, and many faces will be red.
    CAGW is the new phlogiston, fear not for our chocolate is safe in the hands of good farmers.
    All praise to big brother for the increase in the chocolate ration. [ sarc kinda]

    • wayne job

      CAGW is the new phlogiston, fear not for our chocolate is safe in the hands of good farmers.
      All praise to big brother for the increase in the chocolate ration. [ sarc kinda]

      Sorry. Obola’s federal administration is now outlawing transfats completely by 2018 (used in chocolate flavorings and preservatives of thousands of foods) … including chocolate. “For your health” … “because we say we know so much.”

    • Beer may disappear if humans ever evolve to the point where they would no longer want to be inebriated. But then too, we humans ‘got a lotta evolvin’ to do…

      • “would no longer want to be inebriated.” What the heck is that supposed to mean? You believe people drink to get inebriated? You from the temperance league?

  18. Overcrowding, denuded resources and climate change leading to extinction?
    Well thank goodness. I am relieved. I thought it was going to be nuclear war, uncontrollable viral pandemics, or lethal sexually transmitted diseases leading to extinction. I mean just because the end is coming you don’t want to be stuck in a sick bed, or not have sex or have cable TV knocked out due to damn nukes.

    • I think we’re far more likely to succumb to a big chunk of rock, metal, or dirty ice hitting our planet than anything we humans have come up with to do ourselves in.

  19. WWIII is what we should all fear and looks like we have leaders pushing hard for this event.

  20. Who believes this sheet? I mean I would love to spit in this idiots face. Literally. Idiot old fart.

  21. All this is is an effort to line the sheep up, bleating at a “common enemy” projected on a screen.
    I am literally the only person I know who even thinks about AGW; with the exception of a few neighbors who’ve slapped solar cells on their roofs in the name of PC, for most it seems these predictions and pontifications are right up there with Jurassic Park. A few too many also remember “The Ice Age Is Coming!” Chalk it up as just one more way to seek attention.

    • Speaking of neighbours, I also thought I was the only one around ever thinking about AGW. Then in April, my neighbour came up to me, after the most viciously cold winter in memory in Quebec and said “this AGW stuff is complete hogwash. The folly can’t be stopped now, because of vested interests”. We’ve been friends ever since …

  22. These people need psychiatric help for their doom-filled prophesies and catastrophist thoughts (or their never ending compulsion to try to instill such fears in others).

    • Piping the chirrun right out of their minds;
      They were paid grossly, lavishly fine.
      ============

    • No they don’t. They know they are lying, they know it’s a pile of dung but they also know it’ a pile of money.

      • No mercy for Mr. Pied
        Who took the money and ran
        With the innocent fried.
        He does it because he can.
        ==================

      • Well, here’s part of a great comment from RadicalRodent at BH (can’t link directly to it, apparently):
        Now, we can have “scientific” explanations – in this case, rising CO2. And what causes the CO2 to rise? Let’s face it, not only do we have to find a cause, we have to find a cause that can be blamed on someone (not the accusers, of course, but appeasement of the gods does require a culprit), and we have to find a cause that has a solution. Well, “science” has determined that it is the human burning of “fossil” fuels that is the cause, as it can find no other reason, utterly ignoring the fact that they haven’t actually looked for any other reason. Quite why the fact that, while burning of fossil-fuels has risen exponentially, the rise in CO2 has been more or less steady seems to have passed by those who determine what is “valid” and what is not has to be a mystery, but questioning of The Cause is something that now cannot be tolerated. And Science – /True/ Science – is the sad victim of such intolerance, broken and bleeding as it is bludgeoned by ideologues, the collateral damage being the individuals, families and communities for whom Science has been the greatest protector and benefactor in history, who are to be forced to remain or return to subsistence living.

  23. “Claim: Mankind will be extinct in 100 years because climate”
    Gee, remember back in the day when the climate wasn’t changing and we were doing so well.
    Man, those were the days.
    /humor attempt

    • It has been less than a hundred years that man could predict weather at all. Yet, now, we can predict it a hundred years into the future.
      How far we have come.

  24. There is going to be an immense flurry of false doom and gloom messages and questionable science papers like this one released between now and the Paris conference later in the year . At stake is not the extinction of the human race but the possible loss of $100 billion a year of free money to the United Nations and yet even more free money grants to all the alarmist universities, alarmist environmental groups, . alarmist scientists and the free subsidies to foreign solar panel and wind turbine suppliers and contractors ..It seems that the only news coming out of these groups is doom and gloom . The liberal press and media will love the new alarmist headlines and media coverage as they have nothing else of news worthy to report. Global warming is the biggest money maker since the use of paper money without the gold standard backing was introduced.

  25. Julian Simon, in his “The Ultimate Resource 2” introduction, says, in summary, the higher the population,
    the higher, in general, the standard of living. These peaks in population tend to be in the warm periods.
    The increase in life expectancy belies the claim of a dirtier, more polluted planet.
    The worst missteps I see are increases in the price of energy and some starvation caused by burning food in our cars, causing some privation.

  26. Here is a little song that Holdren, Ehrlich, Auerbach, Fenner, Romm, and more will sing non-stop between now and the Paris summit:

    The world will be enchanted by their skills.

  27. The older highly accredited scientists that have commented on climate change like Freeman and Linden always seem so calm and assured that nothing bad is going to happen. I see a 90 year old guy who is a giant in Science basically laughing at climate change claims. Any old guy who is a huge scientific mind that is soo calm and collected about something that is so nasty. I wish those two were given more air time and the respect they deserve. This bs is getting way out of hand.

    • The standard climate-obsessed doomers’ response to this is, “Well, they’re old and won’t live to see the catastrophe, so they don’t care.” Or, “They’re old and senile, so their non-concern is to be dismissed.”

  28. Motion passed by the Tweed River Liberal Party Branch Thursday 18 June:-
    “The Tweed River Branch of the Liberal Party of Australia (NSW Division) notes that the objective of the United Nations Climate Change Conference (UNCCC) to be held in Paris November/December 2015 is to achieve a legally binding and universal agreement on climate, from all the nations of the world. As part of this process, nations are expected to submit their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) to reducing Carbon Dioxide emissions with a view to reducing an expected Global Temperature Rise to no more than two degrees Celsius.
    Accordingly the Tweed River Branch of the Liberal Party of Australia (NSW Division) considers that the Australian government must ensure that important safeguards are contained in the proposed agreement. These are:
    (a) that each nation shall determine its own proposed reduction in Carbon Dioxide emissions;
    (b) that the agreement shall not come into force until ratified by nations which emit in total not less than 75% of the global carbon dioxide emissions;
    (c) that each nation may, subsequent to the coming into force of the agreement, abrogate its ratification;
    (d) that abrogation shall be effective immediately upon receipt by the UNCCC Secretariat;
    (e) that no nation shall be required to provide finance to any other nation to assist such nation in reaching that nation’s proposed reduction;
    (f) that no distinction shall be made between so-called “Developed” and “Developing” and “Less Developed” countries;
    (g) that each nation may, subsequent to the coming into force of the agreement, modify its reduction target in the light of economic circumstances and new advances in scientific knowledge;
    (h) that the agreement provide for scientific investigation into the benefits of a global temperature rise of two degrees Celsius or more, noting that overall more deaths are due to excessive cold than to excessive heat;
    (i) that the agreement provide for scientific investigation into the benefits of increased carbon dioxide emissions for agriculture, noting that carbon dioxide is necessary together with water and photosynthesis for the growth of plants on which all life depends.”
    All members of political parties are welcome to copy and submit to their own party branches, in whole or in part – suitably amended as regards branch and party name of course.

  29. A cartoon is needed with David Auerbach and Fenner outfitted in white robes and sandals, each holding signs “The End is Near”

    • …or outfitted in the white garb of an insane asylum patient as in Burt Reynolds’ many botched attempts at suicide in the 1978 movie, “The End.”

  30. But, but, but… if mankind goes extinct then there will be plenty of coffee, chocolate, and beer for the unicorns. These things have a way of working themselves out.

    • Obviously, no caring can occur after extinction, so all the caring must be done in anticipation of it.
      Since a good deal of anticipation of doom has gone on through history, we have observations to base an answer on and my guess is that, of the final ten humans on the eve of extinction, six will be panic-stricken, three will be pretty bummed and one will be sanguine.

  31. one of the leaders of the effort to eradicate smallpox in the 1970s
    This looks like the old I’m a nobel prize gaff.

  32. Somehow, between now and November’s climate jamboree, they need to raise the “threat” level to
    CLIMCON1.

    • Do not lie easily in the dying light,
      Wage, wage war against the lying and the fright.
      =====================

  33. Phys.org links to Fenner’s article at The Australian from which it seems they base their story:
    Frank Fenner sees no hope for humans

    In 1980, Fenner had the honour of announcing the global eradication of smallpox to the UN’s World Health Assembly. The disease is the only one to have been eradicated.
    Thirty years after that occasion, his outlook is vastly different as he contemplates the chaos of a species on the brink of mass extinction.

    Maybe Fenner’s converted to Malthusianism.

  34. What did we do before genius climatologists came along? How in the world were we able to avoid extinction?? GK

  35. What I wish would go extinct is the faux credibility of all purveyors of apocalyptic claptrap.
    Ehrlich, Holdren, Romm, Auerbach, etc. are all pompous clowns who have never been right yet are treated with respect and credibility. Instead of the derision they deserve.

  36. The biggest, wild*** proclamation of global warming I have heard is a rise of 8C by 2100. I could move 2,000 miles south, and see that TODAY. 8C would bring on changes, but extinction is bizarre.

  37. There are too many people in positions of power who cannot accept that they are insignificant players in natural processes.
    For them, life is not worth living unless they can delude themselves into thinking there is something unique about themselves and their times. They are a danger to us and to the natural world.
    Unlike animals, humans do improve their environment and reduce breeding below replacement when they can afford to do so.

  38. My taxi driver tonight told me to sell slums and orphanages and to buy a crematorium. I think he might be on to something.

  39. Hum, isn’t that the BOMB! The POPULATION BOMB, the POLLUTION BOMB, the PESTICIDE BOMB, THE LACK OF RESOURCES BOMB…nah nah nah. Another RECYCLED HIPPIE from the ’70’s. You know, he’s right about one thing…I think the hippies from the ’70s are going to be extinct, soon, hopefully.

    • Pretty much what i said here last week. Leftover hippie culture.Yoga loving, dope smoking, grow your own lettuce in the backyard goofballs. Maybe we should go back to the era before oil and gas made our lives too cushie, almost a reset button. The only reason that we have time to worry about such trivial nonsense is mostly due to the fact that “fossil” fuels have made us soft and totally vulnerable. I especially see this in young adults. When this hippie generation has finally died off we will be left with a new crop of apathetic soma eating hip hop star wannabees. Humans require tragedy to move ahead. Most of our greatest technological advancements came during or just after major world wars. We need a major catastrophy to put things back into perspective.

      • AGW alarm has nothing to do with hippie culture. It has everything to do with Progressive culture. That culture goes right back to the early 20th century, and has its roots in Marxist new-socialist-man theorizing. Hippies had their faults (too much layabout), but they were not about totalitarianism disguised as eco-saving.

      • Hey Mick, I’m a “Leftover hippie culture.Yoga loving, dope smoking, grow your own lettuce in the backyard goofballs.”, and I’m sure there are plenty like me who believe like most of you. More alarmist propaganda to get the masses to do as they want. The biggest threat in our world in any time, IGNORANCE!

  40. So, the sky is still falling … and in a hundred years, we’ll all be dead … or maybe somebody’s been watching Jupiter Ascending a few too many times.

  41. “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.” — Mark Twain
    Religion is an interesting thing. Each religion is a philosophical worldview, a weltanschauung that has man as a central focus. They have for him origin stories and deontological frameworks regarding proper behaviour and thoughts he must have regarding his interactions with fellow man and the environment. They have for him cautionary apocalyptic tale about his final destination if he does not follow the deontological framework. There are usually numerous splinter groups that disagree on this or that point of doctrine, of course. For man, he is a rowdy animal. The each of which is prone to state that they have the one correct answer within their own theology. Which is why the most successful of these philosophical framework manufacture a consensus via the lash or restricting doctrine to a small set of issues that relate to man’s life. The philosophers in charge of these things, the clergy, do not to make things to sell by and large, so they subsist on funding from benefactors that give them money for their work in promoting the philosophy directly by evangelism and teaching or for writing papers about it their theological studies. For whatever reason, it has been historically popular for the clergy to wear long, white coats and vestments. And while it’s not a necessary uniform, it has been so common in the past that it is now an iconic notion of how the clergy dress.
    And I’m not terribly certain why it is, but advocates of a given religion have a habit of using dodgy math to score points or make grand statements in support of their doctrine. Some even go so far as to perform forensic tests and observational studies for the same reason. A rather large number of them historically have appealed to experiment to demonstrate the consistency of reality with their doctrine; this used as overstated proof that the evidence shows their doctrine is correct. These notions are largely put to use to win converts as well as to harangue heretics and apostates. A rather interesting consequence of this is that their layfolk busy themselves looking for signs and wonders mentioned in these works as a manner of demonstrating that their eschatological prophecies are occurring ‘now’ or ‘soon.’ This to bolster not only their own belief, but that of possible converts as well.
    Though, curiously, whenever inspection and validation of these issues refutes the validity of these works they have a habit of denying the refutation itself. Or calling for the force of law to be entrained to punish those that would have the chutzpah to make an argument against their philosophy. And always, when the signs and wonders do not end up fulfilling the prophecies of the future, they continue to state that nonetheless, it will happen ‘soon.’
    It is such a wonderful manner of cultivating attitudes and behaviours in the broad masses of people that it should be unsurprising that governments often adopt one or the other of these philosophies as a State mandated religion. The State then usually partakes in funding the clergy through public monies, punishes those that refuse to convert, and establish inquisitions in to accused false conversions. It becomes a mandatory token of the proper education of children in that society. And the counsel is sought from the clergy when legislation is to be authored by the State. In democratic structures of government, professing belief in doctrine becomes a religious litmus test for those seeking elected office.
    It is, on the all, a very curious thing. And it would be endlessly entertaining if only I could find in that anything that distinguishes the modern practice of Science from the historical practices of Religions. But I wish the best of luck to Fenner, and scientists like him, in trying to find their signs and wonders. God bless their little hearts.

    • Amen, Al-a-leulla, and Praise be to Gore! Can I hear an Arctic meltdown?
      Let us now bow our heads in prayer for a nice big jump in temperatures the next few months, or at least a Sandy-like disaster or two.

    • As a (very disappointed) Catholic, I agree in general.
      The dog whistling this Pope is engaging in dangerous on so many levels.

  42. Ironic, that a man that helped save millions would be so pessimistic about the future of humans. Meanwhile, just as the doomsayers are recycling his prediction, we may soon see the single greatest human life saving discovery/invention of all time.
    Throughout the course of human history Malaria has killed far more human beings than any other single cause. The deaths from all the wars in human history combined don’t even come close to the toll that Malaria has taken. And now, IF this works out, we may have a simple and effective way of preventing and curing humankinds greatest killer.
    http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2015/06/promising-compound-offers-single-dose-knock-out-malaria

    • I had forgotten that cheesy old b movie. Hollywood is so busy mining movie ideas from the past- why has this movie not been recycled yet?

      • They really do lack a lot in originality these days. There are still many great historical stories from the past. True tales that would make great movies that have not been touched by the film industry. And yet they make sequels to Sharknado and remakes of Plant of the Apes. Humans will probably not be extinct in 100 years but Hollywood sure will be sooner than that unless they go through some kind of Renaissance.

      • It was, in 2008, with Jason Statham. The story was mostly changed, however, the race was not in public but was a televised prison spectacle.
        It was not very good, but probably better than the ratings it got. The director said it wasn’t a remake per se, he thought of it as a prequel in the same setting.

  43. Humans will be extinct in 100 years
    Then let’s not spend our last 100 years listening to a bunch of climate gloom and doom crap.

  44. And for once they are correct …. but not in the way they think. As our interglacial ends and we descend back into the ice box crops fail and people have to migrate. A lot of countries have nuclear weapons and once the fighting starts nobody stops until they’ve shot all the bullets in their guns.
    This interglacial period will end. It is not a matter of if but when. So they may be right that it will end before 2100 or maybe 2200, 2300 ( a moving date in the finest of alarmist traditions). But it will end.
    Of course we could open up the Panama-South America channel like it was 3 million years ago and be done with this ice age business. Lets hope that we do something constructive instead of just killing each other off.

  45. So far, based on observations, the main effect of increasing carbon dioxide(besides the slight, mostly beneficial warming from the greenhouse gas warming) has come from this irrefutable law:
    Sunshine +H2O +CO2 +Minerals = O2 +Sugars(food)
    Life on this planet is thanking us for rescuing it from dangerously low levels of CO2 at 280 parts per million(up to the current 400 ppm)but we are looking the other way, not giving any weight to the booming biosphere, record high vegetative health, plant growth, crop yields and food production. In fact, doing studies that project the opposite of these realities.
    Regarding life on this planet, it’s telling us that going to 800 ppm would be even better.
    However, we have a large group of humans that have already decided what the perfect temperature of the planet should be and perfect level of CO2 in the atmosphere should be……………..and it’s the level that our planet was at when humans started to burn fossil fuels.
    Nothing else matters but this settled science/belief system and all information should be interpreted so that it lines up.

  46. Removing CO2 from the atmosphere isn’t actually that hard. The Navy Research Lab has already developed a technology to remove 90%+ of the CO2 from ocean water. Their intention is to use it to make liquid fuels on board ships. But, take that tech plus sequestration and you’re done. NETL estimates that sequestration costs about $5/ton. The Navy technology claims to be very low cost.
    Viola, THROUGH-THE-OCEAN-CCS for probably less than $10/ton. It’s worthless, of course, but at least it doesn’t cost much.

  47. When the G7 called on Monday for all countries to reduce carbon emissions to zero in the next 85 years, the scientific reaction was unanimous: That’s far too late.
    Actually, that’s doable. Even if we don’t make a breakthrough, there will be enough fossil-fueled affluence to swap for nukes. If one must plan, one prefers one’s goals to be rational.
    And I don’t think it’s too late. If we can pull it off, we’ll top out at well under +2C (+/- unknowns\natural phenomena).

    • And if they do reduce all CO2 emissions, and the atmospheric CO2 drops below 300ppm again..
      …. then the inhabitants of Earth will be in deep S***,
      because there won’t be enough food being produced through photosynthesis to feed the world’s populations.

  48. If there was even a sliver of doubt left that CAGW and modern environmentalism is a religion, predictions of the “end of humanity in 100 years” ought to seal the case.

  49. I am spending the summer in Phoenix Arizona, along with about 3 million other people. The high today will likely top 110 degrees, way above the median high temperature for the rest of humanity. There is really no chance that this heat, greatly exceeding even the highest temperatures imagined by the doom-and-gloomers for most of the world, will cause the extinction of humanity in the Valley of the Sun this summer. In fact, there will be more humans here by September than there are now!
    There is actually just as much evidence that we will be wiped out by Triffids than succumb to man-made climate change. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that the words used by modern fear-mongers sound a lot like a syfy b-movie trailer.

  50. This is an important warning. It should be broadcast to everyone far and wide.
    It’s always good to laugh.

  51. Meteorologists are held accountable for their weather forecasts…………every day, which keeps them honest and grounded to reality.
    Climate and other “projections” to the year 2100 go on endlessly as they can never be wrong.
    Even projections made 30 years ago for the current time frame are not held accountable, they are just shifted forward.
    Since we know that the science is settled, we just fit the observations into the theory and make the right time(or other) adjustments so that everything continues to confirm the belief system.
    The core belief of this belief system, always features the same endpoints. Disaster/catastrophe’s and distant time frames.

  52. “all countries to reduce carbon emissions to zero in the next 85 years”
    That would require all countries to stop breathing. Which would bring about the end.
    I suppose it could happen, but not from CO2, rather from the efforts to mitigate it.
    “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”
    And if you don’t have one, manufacture one.
    I expect to be extinct in less than 20 years, so:
    “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a d—”
    I’ll have some chocolate with my coffee.

  53. Extinct in 100 years , humans, interesting, I saw the article on the Yahoo feed the past few days. Here is a good one for yall. Back in 2004 I acquired my first PC. I got ATT dsl dedicated line for my new computer and in great excitement I used the yahoo search engine to look up … anything … regarding these three words Economic Ecologic Sustainability …. righty then, the first hit to pop up was some many pages from deep within some policy framework originating from the United Nations …. with utter astonishment (god I wish I had bookmarked these pages) I proceeded to read some of the most alarming policy position papers, in short I was reading text referring to economic and ecological sustainability equaling mass human depopulation as the only (ONLY) real solution to our earthly population and economic demands balanced with ecologic sustenance…. The methods for said depopulation included but not limited to : war , disease , famine , and , get this … ANY MEANS AVAILABLE to reduce human population. I am not making this up, the text was straight up terrifying… the target date for 87.5% human population reduction is 2050. Thus, this human extinction meme touted now falls right in line with UN policy papers regarding ecologic economic sustainability….. I still have my old computer, I will try to see if there is a way to find those articles.

  54. Of what significance would the extinction of the human race be? To whom? If there is no “whom” to then be significant, of what value can the significance be to us now who then will be extinct. Like a partial rebooting of a computer, might mass extinctions restore earth’s fauna to a base from which evolution could achieve a better state of affairs? What is the value system and knowledge base that provides an answer to this that would warrant policies detrimental to those currently living? (Don’t resort to intelligent design in your answer.)

    • There is no significance to the extinction of the human race, since the Sun will see to it eventually when it runs out of hydrogen and becomes a red giant frying the innermost 4 planets in the process. So it’s not a case of if but when. And there’s no escape hatch for our descendents, since the nearest star is a binary over 4 light years away. They say the frying date is about 4 billion years away. So why worry about the humans living 100 years from now when we can’t do a thing for our descendents 4 billion years hence?

      • I don’t fear the red giant. I’m hoping that by 4 billion years out, the sun will have lost enough mass, hence gravity, that earth’s orbit will have degraded out to Pluto, so the red giant will miss us. Nanny nanny boo-boo.

  55. We humans are hard wired to believe scare stories.
    If a man mistakes a bush for a lion, he may make an unnecessary, time-consuming detour.
    If he mistakes a lion for a bush, he may become a source of protein for a human-consuming lion.

    • True dat. However, in the old days we weren’t so much worried about what was down range as long as WE were not down range. So we would shoot the bush or the lion, either way one’s family was safe. Now a-days, we can’t even have ants downrange cuz they may be endangered ants.

    • It’s a good point, but crowd behavior is not governed solely by scare stories. To find the good stuff, people learn to follow the crowd. We are social animals because two heads are better than one, and 20 may be better than 2.
      Also, there is safety in numbers, especially for anybody who can’t tell a bush from a lion, or in case somebody like that gets eaten by the lion, there may be those who’d claim that there must have been a bush involved…

      • Safety in numbers applies for at least one other very important reason: You do not need to be able to outrun a lion to escape from a lion attack.
        You only need to be able to run faster than the poor slob standing next to you.
        The more people standing next to you, the greater the odds you can outrun at least one of them.

      • I’d suggest that any tribe with a strategy of outrunning lions probably did not contribute to the modern gene pool, but then one looks around…
        I’d offer that surviving tribes would avoid lions, but be prepared to kill lions if they approach. No man can really outrun any large carnivore, certainly not a cat, nor a wolf, bear, or hyena. To survive when attacked by these beasts, man must stand and fight, hopefully with others at his side, for there is not only safety in numbers, but also strength.
        And that strength may ensure the survival of those who can’t tell a lion from a bush, where wiser heads would avoid both.

  56. Tunnel Vision. Just think of all the things that could end the human race. You have still missed all those you know nothing of.

  57. So, do we have time to terraform Mars and build enough space ships to get everyone there? If not, and if there’s no solution, I guess we have to party like it’s 2115!!
    We can write songs and epic poems about the 100 year going out with a bang party.
    Any takers?

  58. False profits of the end of mankind have existed forever in society. What makes this nutcase any different?

      • The apparently intense need in many individuals to believe in prophets and prophecies manifests itself as one of the outstanding screwball characteristics of H. sapiens.

  59. “When the G7 called on Monday for all countries to reduce carbon emissions to zero in the next 85 years,”
    Of course, we all know that the reason for the G 7 to pick a date so far into the future is to allow time for all of this stuff to sort itself out. Over then next couple of decades the whole AGW thing will have arrived at the point where the science will clearly indicate that we still can’t figure out what is happening to any degree of confidence or accuracy. In the meantime, all of the people who talked world leaders into embarking on this quixotic effort to save the planet will be dead. The long time allotted to fix the problems means that if we do nothing over the next couple of decades then there will still be most of a century to fix it.
    In the meantime…hey! If it is too late, it is too late. Guess we’re screwed. Crack open a cold one and turn up the air conditioning.
    Fait accompli. Nothing to do.

    • Proud Skeptic
      You say

      “When the G7 called on Monday for all countries to reduce carbon emissions to zero in the next 85 years,”

      Of course, we all know that the reason for the G 7 to pick a date so far into the future is to allow time for all of this stuff to sort itself out.

      Actually, I don’t “know” that, and I don’t believe it. Furthermore, I think it important to recognise what is really happening.

      Politicians never admit they were wrong and have decided to abandon a policy.
      Instead, they establish targets so far in the future that no real action is required, and they establish bureaucracies to pretend they are still continuing with the abandoned policy.

      The AGW-scare was killed at the failed 2009 IPCC Conference in Copenhagen. I said then that the scare would continue to move as though alive in similar manner to a beheaded chicken running around a farmyard. It continues to provide the movements of life but it is already dead. And its deathly movements provide an especial problem.
      Nobody will declare the AGW-scare dead: it will slowly fade away. This is similar to the ‘acid rain’ scare of the 1980s. Few remember that scare unless reminded of it but its effects still have effects; e.g. the Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) exists. Importantly, the bureaucracy which the EU established to operate the LCPD still exists. And those bureaucrats justify their jobs by imposing ever more stringent, always more pointless, and extremely expensive emission limits which are causing enforced closure of UK power stations.
      Bureaucracies are difficult to eradicate and impossible to nullify.
      As the AGW-scare fades away those in ‘prime positions’ will attempt to establish rules and bureaucracies to impose those rules which provide immortality to their objectives. Guarding against those attempts now needs to be a serious activity.

      The decision at the G7 is completely consistent with that need.
      Richard

      • Well said, Richard.

        Politicians never admit they were wrong and have decided to abandon a policy.

        And, as you say, while they have decided to abandon AGW (they aren’t so stupid to continue with a failing idea) they know that they need to use the political hiatus (how ironic is that?) to allow them time for the next big thing.
        I can remember Wilson’s government (in the ’60s) removing mortgage tax relief for properties over £25k when most of us were buying at £4k and thought that only toffs could afford £25k. But we lacked the vision of the politician’s long-term plan: it took 25 years for the policy to bite and now we think it a joke when most properties in the UK are above £250k.
        You’re right. AGW, as a political strategy may well have played out, politically, but the polis know that they still have time in reserve to allow them the ‘next big idea’. They’re just waiting for the UN to tell them what it is.

      • “Bureaucracy defends the status quo long past the time when the quo has lost its status.” — Laurence J. Peter (1977) Peter’s Quotations: Ideas for Our Time ISBN 0-688-03217-6 p. 83

      • I guess I’m having a hard time understanding the significance of the difference between what you said and what I said. Bottom line they are buying time. They are buying time because to take this thing to the next level is going to hurt like nothing that has been tried before and they don’t want to be the ones to do it. So they will let it churn for a while.
        I see way too much optimism on this website regarding the “death” of AGW. As of this moment in time it as politically strong as ever. The Obama administration has come out solidly behind it and is pushing it like crazy. The Pope is in on it now.
        A lot of the folks on this website seem to get too comfortable with the strength of the scientific arguments against AGW…as if they will be the primary force in turning the tide on this. The science has tipped against the Warmists but that isn’t where the threat lies right now. It lies in the politics.
        Here is how I would summarize it…
        1. The science is going against the Warmists. That is the least influential of the forces at play here.
        2. Many of the countries who have been pushing the switch to renewables are burning out and realizing the technology isn’t even close to being ready. Those leaders will pull back from forcing more renewables on their citizens because of the political risks. Australia seems to be leading the pack on this but there is no way of knowing if it will catch on and spread. It is likely that this 85 year target is intended to stall and allow the current batch of politicians to coast until they retire. This was my point.
        3. The poor countries are (and have been) trying to cash in on this by demanding wealth transfers. The recent position taken by the Pope will reinforce this. This effort will have legs for quite some time and will help keep this whole thing alive.
        4. The Obama administration’s push on this is going to have some effect, though it isn’t possible to tell how big. It may be a case of too little too late. If Hillary Clinton is elected president then we can expect it to become a bigger part of our day to day life here in the US for quite a few years.
        Bottom line for me…I wouldn’t be too optimistic that the political push for renewables is likely to subside soon. But in the meantime, our country will change for the worse in many ways while this stuff sorts itself out.

    • Proud Skeptic:
      Thankyou for your reply that requests clarification by saying to me

      I guess I’m having a hard time understanding the significance of the difference between what you said and what I said. Bottom line they are buying time.

      The great and very important difference is the meaning of your phrase “buying time”.
      Your first post said

      The long time allotted to fix the problems means that if we do nothing over the next couple of decades then there will still be most of a century to fix it.

      I disagreed that the politicians intend to “do nothing” and I said

      As the AGW-scare fades away those in ‘prime positions’ will attempt to establish rules and bureaucracies to impose those rules which provide immortality to their objectives. Guarding against those attempts now needs to be a serious activity.

      Your post I am now answering concludes
      .

      Bottom line for me…I wouldn’t be too optimistic that the political push for renewables is likely to subside soon. But in the meantime, our country will change for the worse in many ways while this stuff sorts itself out.

      Bureaucracies don’t allow things to sort themselves out. And I am warning about the bureaucracies (e.g your EPA) and the Rules politicians will require them to implement.
      I hope the great difference between our views is now clear.
      Richard

    • They also need a few more years to control the Internet. The voices calling for an end to free speech and freedom of association are growing more shrill. In their dream world, the Internet will be replaced with the Governet, in which it will be illegal to login without permission and authentication, only government approved information will be allowed, and all social media will be moderated by government minders.
      Dystopian science fiction is coming true in HD.
      Watch out! “How To Serve Scientists” is a cookbook!!!

  60. The following comment was posted on the Reuters.com site given. It is becoming increasingly typical of people’s attitude toward the subject, one that will only increase as the “message” becomes ever more shrill.
    “More global warming scam scare talk!
    I’m bored of this crisis. Can I please have a different one?”

    • Another reader commented: “This article says much more about the unbridled narcissism of the author than anything about humans as a species…This feeling you have is just your fear of your own death, and you’re such a pathetic solipsist that you must think the entire species is going to end just because you are one day you pathetic fool.”

  61. “Hon?”
    “Yes, dear?”
    “Says here we’re doomed.”
    (yawn) “Again?”
    “Yup. This time they’re super super serial.”
    “That’s nice. More coffee?”
    “Yes, please.”

  62. According to Auerbach;
    Humans will be extinct in 100 years because the planet will be uninhabitable,….
    … When the G7 called on Monday for all countries to reduce carbon emissions to zero in the next 85 years, the scientific reaction was unanimous: That’s far too late.

    So lets “Eat, Drink and Be Merry for Tomorrow We Die (+36,524 more tomorrows )”.

  63. Sorry anti-humans. We will almost certainly out survive all but the most basic life on this planet.

  64. Hey, in 100 years all the people alive today will no doubt be “gone”. Maybe a few who live 100 years + will still be alive… I would say that 99% of the people today will be “extinct”.

  65. “Mankind will be extinct in 100 years because climate”
    If we are lucky, loudmouthed alarmist jerks will be extinct in 100 years because people will have had their fill of the crap they spew.

  66. What was that preacher who predicted the end of the world a few years ago? Oh yeah, Harold Camping. He died at age 92, recently. He was dumb. He picked a date that was right around the corner. The date came and went. Then he equivocated a bit, picked a new date, and that didn’t work either, AND STILL HIS FLOCK didn’t spurn him for an idiot. These guys are smart, they’re gonna live their entire lives before they’re proven to be idiots.

    • Several major cults predicted the end of the world over and over. The dates came and went, some people left the faith, but the cults lived on and even grew. I read that when people’s belief systems are challenged, they often reject new evidence and double-down on their faith.
      The Maltheusian cultists will march across this false prophet’s date with gritted teeth, just like they have all those others.

  67. Wow. They gave these guys advanced academic degrees? The most adaptive species on the planet cannot survive an non-existent change in temperature and CO2’s greening of the planet and more food and more plants and more animals? WOW. They, not we, are doomed. Let’s give them their own desert island so that they can live out their dreams all by themselves.

  68. The day I’ll confess that CO2 is a threat is, when my coffee turns into sparkling coffee, enriched from atmospheric CO2.

  69. Of course we’re all gonna die.
    Life is a fatal sexually-transmitted disease.
    I think it’s about time we had a decent war. It’s just about 70 years since the last major war.
    It will enable this generation to thoroughly demonstrate its stupidity to all (if any) following generations.
    It’s the only thing I can think of which will give that prediction any chance of being right. Another Dinosaur Redactor is too far away to make the timing.

  70. If Alfred Hitchcock had lived today, the “Birds” would certainly have attacked due to global warming.
    If the Titantic had sunk this year, the iceberg would have been said to have broken off due to global warming.
    The 20s dust bowl, Hurricanes Camile and Betsy, the Edsel and the Donny and Marie Show, all disaster caused by global warming! Wake up, people! Embrace communism!

  71. The confused mind of the modern eco-doom-monger nitwit:
    Many vertebrate species on planet earth are threatened with extinction due to the impact of humans.
    The increasing impact of humans is a result of the ability of humans to adapt and thrive in a wide range of conditions.
    As a result of our tendency to adapt and thrive we have become very numerous.
    We are also a vertebrate species. Therefore we should worry that we too may become extinct.
    In conclusion, we will become extinct because we can adapt and are thriving.
    Yes, I expect that to an eco-doom-monger, this argument makes complete sense.

  72. Doesn’t seem to worry Coca Cola. They are still polluting their drink with CO2 (sarc).
    “We believe in the importance and power of ‘informed choice,’ and continue to support fact based nutrition labeling and education and initiatives that encourage people to live active, healthy lifestyles.”
    http://www.coca-colacompany.com/brands/soft-drinks

  73. We have to endure the ” Harold Campings ” of “scientific study ” world doom every few weeks and it gets more intense at capital expenditure , grant time.

  74. Let’s presume that all of the catastrophic claims about climate come true in the next 100 years. Mankind would still not be driven extinct.
    Man is the most adaptable of all major organisms. Before the first major civilizations arose, mankind had spread to every continent save Antarctica. We inhabited every conceivable environment, including plains, desert, deciduous forest, taiga, tundra, jungle, alpine, swamp, archipelago, everywhere.

    • rabbit – Let’s presume that all of the catastrophic claims about climate come true in the next 100 years. Mankind would still not be driven extinct.
      Worst case scenario not even bacteria survive. Perforating the floor of Arctic ocean might be a way this gets set in motion.
      I imagine that Carl Sagan, were he still alive might comment something like this: Elementary planetary hygiene dictates that at a minimum we do not accidentally exterminate all known life in the universe.

  75. So we’ll be extinct in 100 years because we waited 50 years to find out the CAGW models are wrong but kept doing cr*p to stop “climate change” anyway?

  76. The last holdouts will have their taxpayer funded energy systems working for a few years before the inverters burn out.

  77. mod, OT
    one day I was interested in the equation living / death.
    did the math on an excel spread sheet.
    given the fertility rate 1.2 – a pair of 2 starts 2.4 descendents –
    the SUM of buried / since anthrops started / is always HALF of actually living.
    that’s good news I think.
    Physicians will do the math better than me, I’m sure.
    ____
    shines a new light on every armageddonism.
    maybe some pope starts to think of thinking.
    ____
    ain’t interested to find me under comments.
    Hans

  78. I should hope I am personally extinct in 100 years. I’m already 66, and there can’t be much fun left after 120 or so.

  79. I’m glad Paul Ehrlich was around to fill the void left behind when The Amazing Criswell died.

  80. text.derstandard.at/2000017837903/Graz-Amokfahrer-war-nicht-zurechnungsfaehig
    and thats the swartzenegger styrian country university town where for years the universitis homepage demanded death penalty for climate deniers.
    seems they’ve found their death penalters – not on climate deniers.
    yet on hate distribution.

  81. I could easily believe all the beer could be gone, Auerbach has obviously made it his personal mission to drink it all himself. But if there isn’t going to be any beer i’ll just drink more wine. Vineyards will be plentiful here in the UK, much like they were in the Roman Warming Period.
    Climate is cyclical, bullshit is endless.

Comments are closed.