Michael Shellenberger Evicerates Peter Gleick

From Twitter

You, a person who lied, stole, and forged documents are trying censor an ethical scientist because he disagrees with you

https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-xpm-2012-feb-21-la-na-climate-documents-20120222-story.html

Why? Because you believe debunked & unethical Malthusian claims that there’s not enough resources for universal prosperity

Here’s a detailed explanation of how and why @PeterGleick is a pseudoscientific Malthusian ideologue who grossly misrepresents the science to advance the claim that the world doesn’t have enough resources for all humans to enjoy high standards of living

https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2020/8/3/bad-science-and-bad-ethics-in-peter-gleicks-review-of-apocalypse-never-at-yale-climate-connections

Peter Gleick is an admitted fraud. He lied to obtain documents & appears to have forged one of them, something he denies

The more one learns about this sordid affair the more it’s clear that Gleick is a fanatic who regularly engages in unethical behavior

https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-xpm-2012-feb-21-la-na-climate-documents-20120222-story.html

Here’s the Malthusian environmental record

– 2 famines (Ireland & India)
– make energy & food more expensive everywhere, particularly in poor nations
– make energy less reliable, causing black-outs
– fear-monger about scarcity so they can create scarcity

For decades the Malthusian pro-scarcity agenda is funded by Chinese solar industry, shadow banks, fossil interests

Started with Jerry Brown’s Dad and Gavin Newsom’s dad in the 1960s

Continues today:

https://michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/maybe-theyre-so-quiet-about-chinese

The reason that Malthusian pro-scarcity activists & pseudoscientists like @PeterGleick have to lie, cheat, and steal is because their agenda hurts people and the environment and is bought and paid for by powerful interests

I document it all here:

The reason @PeterGleick has to lie about honest scientists and journalists is because we have uncovered his dishonest and unethical behavior, and threaten his bad Malthusian ideology centered around making everybody poorer and harmonizing with nature.

Gleick part, offers no reason to expect declining food production, much less famine. Food surpluses have been rising gradually for millennia and especially in the 220 years since Malthus wrote his famous tract claiming that humans are doomed to starve.

https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2020/8/3/bad-science-and-bad-ethics-in-peter-gleicks-review-of-apocalypse-never-at-yale-climate-connections

British elites used Malthus’ ideas to justify letting 1M people starve to death during the Great Irish Famine. When people think of the Great Famine they tend to focus on the fungus that killed potatoes and overlook the fact that, between 1845 and 1849, Ireland exported food.

Thirty years later, the British governor-general of India argued that the Indian population “has a tendency to increase more rapidly than the food it raises from the soil.” Later he claimed the “limits of increase of production and of the population have been reached.”

After World War II, American conservationists adopted the thinly-veiled Malthusian idea that making the world a better place involved letting poor people in poor nations starve to death. Top academic institutions helped make Malthusian ideas mainstream.

In 1972, an NGO called the Club of Rome published “The Limits to Growth,” a report concluding that the planet was on the brink of ecological collapse, which The New York Times covered on its front page.

“The most probable result,” the report declared, “will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.” The collapse of civilization was “a grim inevitability if society continues its present dedication to growth and ‘progress.’”

Humankind needed to play “triage” and let poor people in Bangladesh die, argued Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren, and Anne Ehrlich, allies of @PeterGleick

In the “concept of triage,” they wrote, “those in the third groups are those who will die regardless of treatment. . . . The Paddocks [authors of 1967 book Famine 1975!] felt that India, among others, was probably in this category. Bangladesh is today a more clear-cut example.”

But In 1981, Indian economist Amartya Sen published Poverty and Famines showing that famines are not caused by lack in food and occur in times of war, oppression, and the collapse of food distribution, not production, systems. Sen won the Nobel Prize for economics in 1998.

In Apocalypse Never, I point to a pattern. Malthusians raise the alarm about a resource or environmental problems and then attack the obvious technical solutions. Malthus had to attack birth control to predict overpopulation.

Holdren and Ehrlich had to claim fossil fuels were scarce to oppose the extension of fertilizers and industrial agriculture to poor nations and to raise the alarm over famine. And climate activists today have to attack nuclear in order to warn of climate apocalypse.

Gleick suggests that I am wrong that hydro-electric dams, flood control systems, and nuclear power plants will allow human societies to both mitigate and adapt to climate change.

Malthusian pseudo-scientists like @PeterGleick are lost souls seeking false gods. They are individuals in the grip of religion without knowing it. It is a religion that leads them to justify lying, cheating, and stealing in the name of nature harmony.

Originally tweeted by Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) on May 26, 2021.

5 50 votes
Article Rating
194 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Editor
May 26, 2021 10:06 pm

Gleick’s attack on Koonin is a classic cheap shot, since he attacks the person not what he talks about.

When I see that, I realize he is full of babble, thus defeats himself.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
May 26, 2021 10:11 pm

“Gleick’s attack on Koonin is a classic cheap shot, since he attacks the person not what he talks about.”
Shellenberger is doing plenty of that here. And WUWT seems to celebrate it.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 26, 2021 10:21 pm

I celebrate it Nick. Gleick’s a f^cking criminal, self-admitted. He didn’t deny it at the time, when Steven Mosher nailed his sorry ass. Have they disappeared that one?

You don’t have any friends to tap you on the shoulder do you? Making stupid-ass comments constantly here will not make CO2 any more potent than its indistinguishable-from-zero potency at current levels.

Give it up mate. You only get one life.

Last edited 4 months ago by philincalifornia
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  philincalifornia
May 27, 2021 5:30 am

Hey, what happened to Stephen?
I have not seen a single comment from him in about a year.

Drake
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
May 27, 2021 8:18 am

He was mining bitcoin, He may have made soooo much $$$ that the climate thing no longer is of any importance to him.

Just guessing.

LdB
Reply to  Drake
May 27, 2021 10:28 pm

He was hiding out in South Korea because they were going to be so good at public health. Only they just came out of another lockdown as they endured there 4th wave so probably didn’t pan out that well for him and too embarrassed to show his face.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
May 28, 2021 5:20 am

I too, was wondering where Mosher was, just yesterday.

We may have to do a welfare check on him.

Editor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 26, 2021 10:25 pm

No they are based on Gleick’s own admitted unlawful actions and his baseless opposition to Koonin’s being invited to speak at a symposium by calling him names, and using the long abused lie that skeptics deny climate change.

Last edited 4 months ago by Sunsettommy
Reply to  Sunsettommy
May 26, 2021 10:33 pm

“by calling him names”
….
” @PeterGleick is a pseudoscientific Malthusian ideologue”
“Peter Gleick is an admitted fraud”
“Gleick is a fanatic who regularly engages in unethical behavior”
“The reason that Malthusian pro-scarcity activists & pseudoscientists like @PeterGleick have to lie, cheat, and steal”
“Malthusian pseudo-scientists like @PeterGleick are lost souls seeking false gods”

Forrest Gardener
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 26, 2021 10:49 pm

Nick, I cannot recall you ever posting anything with one truth in it let alone the six (6) truths you post here. Maybe there is hope for you after all.

Reply to  Forrest Gardener
May 26, 2021 10:51 pm

Yes, Shellenberger did indeed write those insults. As the quotes indicate.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 26, 2021 11:13 pm

When true statements are simultaneously insults, don’t you think that should be telling Gleick something?

Hey, and while you’re here, check this one out from Seth Goebbelstein at AP:

https://apnews.com/article/environment-and-nature-science-985338e4396ae3e9370bb42cdf9d8c92

I suspect he wasn’t reading our “conversation” from a couple of days ago, but I guess he did shove this one up your ass anyway:

and that the Atlantic will continue to brew more potentially dangerous hurricanes than it used to.”


harry
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 26, 2021 11:28 pm

So Nick, is Gleick and admitted fraud, yes or no.

Reply to  harry
May 26, 2021 11:38 pm

since he attacks the person not what he talks about”

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 27, 2021 8:00 am

Pointing out that Glieck has once again lied, and that he has a long history of lying to support his cause, is “what he talks about”.

Editor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 26, 2021 11:41 pm

Nick

Have you ever read Shellenberger’s book, which I reviewed here at Christmas?

You can then see the references and context.

tonyb

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 26, 2021 11:42 pm

In Peter Gleick’s disgusting world of the ‘Climate Inquisition’, those are not insults. They’re the tools of his trade a veritable science Torquemada.

John Endicott
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 27, 2021 2:19 am

When you consider the truth to be an insult, you should know you are on the wrong side of an issue.

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 27, 2021 7:58 am

They aren’t insults if they are true.

Drake
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 27, 2021 8:20 am

A statement of fact is not an insult.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Drake
May 27, 2021 8:56 am

A statement of fact can be an insult, but one that is deserved in this case. An ad hominen attack is basically attacking the character of a person in areas that are unrelated to the argument. That is, calling someone a child molester (even if true) is unrelated to whether they reached the correct logical conclusion. In Gleicks’s case, his past record of lying leads to a reasonable distrust of anything he says.

Simon
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 27, 2021 1:06 pm

But you can make a truthful statement (a) without descending in to language that becomes personally abusive(b).
(a)”Gleick has shown himself to be someone who lies and so cannot be trusted.”
(b)”Gleick is a filthy disgusting person and his lies just go to prove how low this slimeball will stoop.”

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Simon
May 27, 2021 9:32 pm

The ‘editorializing’ may be something that some find objectionable. However, considering what Gleick has done, it is understandable that some may be less than cordial about stating the facts. I try to avoid such things. However, that is just me. But, I’m not perfect either. It is good to know that at least you are perfect.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 28, 2021 5:22 am

All those descriptions seem to be in the truthful category.

Are we against speaking the truth now?

tygrus
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 27, 2021 1:32 am

The quotes (which Sunsettommy lists above) are based on the facts & argued evidence so they are not hollow personal attacks. You may come to a different conclusion but Shellenburger has made a lot of arguments based on historical & scientific facts that support his arguments.

Last edited 4 months ago by tygrus
Jay Willis
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 27, 2021 2:54 am

Nick, you are about half right. Some of those statements that you highlight as insults are just facts (pretty damning ones at that) – in bold below. But I agree that the ABL piece does resort to name calling and is the worse for it. As usual, your efforts are appreciated in keeping the discussion honest by taking an objective contrary view. The knee jerk emotional and insulting responses to your polite comments are surprising and disappointing – anyhow – keep up the good work, it adds an important moderating influence to what otherwise might become an echo chamber

” @PeterGleick is a pseudoscientific Malthusian ideologue”
Peter Gleick is an admitted fraud
Gleick is a fanatic who regularly engages in unethical behavior
“The reason that Malthusian pro-scarcity activists & pseudoscientists like @PeterGleick have to lie, cheat, and steal”
“Malthusian pseudo-scientists like @PeterGleick are lost souls seeking false gods”

GregB
Reply to  Jay Willis
May 27, 2021 8:50 am

Agreed.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 27, 2021 3:48 am

Nick, that is not name calling. It is pointing out fact. You used to offer some good well thought-out comments. Lately, you just write BS and gibberish.

Last edited 4 months ago by Trying to Play Nice
MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 27, 2021 7:58 am

I can understand why telling the truth is so offensive to Nick.

Editor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 27, 2021 8:01 am

The supposed “insults” are the truth, they are bother only Gleick supporters like you.

This is all TRUE!

Here’s a detailed explanation of how and why @PeterGleick is a pseudoscientific Malthusian ideologue who grossly misrepresents the science to advance the claim that the world doesn’t have enough resources for all humans to enjoy high standards of living.

He backs it up with links and documentation, too bad that it is too much for you to handle.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
May 27, 2021 9:43 am

This is all just variant of saying that our ad hominems are good ad hominems, because we don’t like Gleick. But your objection to Gleick’s tweet was
“he attacks the person not what he talks about”
and that is exactly what Shellenberger is doing.

And after that list of his corrosive ad hominems, what was Gleick’s offence again?
“Koonin chose many years ago to be a climate contrarian”
” Now he’s a darling of RW climate deniers”
I’m sure many would say that those are true. He certainly seems to be very well promoted by WSJ.

John Larson
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 27, 2021 11:45 am

Nick, do you not think calling someone a “climate denier” is lying? If not, why not?

Reply to  John Larson
May 27, 2021 11:51 am

It’s not clear who he is calling that, so I can’t say. But calling Koonin a contrarian seems fair, at least from his point of view.

GregB
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 27, 2021 12:01 pm

Sorry but “climate denier” is always an ad hominem attack. Additionally, saying that “he’s not a climate scientist”, is also an ad hominem attack since it’s a comment not on the argument, or the data, but the person. Some that both Gleick and Santer, from a couple of days ago, regularly engage in.

Surely we can all agree on that?

Simon
Reply to  GregB
May 27, 2021 1:10 pm

Huh? Saying someone who is not a climate scientist, is not a climate scientist, is an ad hom? You are kidding right?

John Larson
Reply to  Simon
May 27, 2021 1:54 pm

The term “ad hominem” means an argument against the person, as OPPOSED to an argument against what they are contending. (It’s not just using insults and the like . . those are called insults and the like ; )

If, for example, a person with a degree in sociology called you a racist because you disagreed with some aspect of ‘critical race theory’, and you tried to argue against that accusation, and their response was that you aren’t even a sociologist . . nor “Black”, I suspect you would recognize that it’s not a valid form of argument, even if true.

(Be careful what you wish for ; )

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
May 27, 2021 3:02 pm

I love how Simon actually thinks he’s going to get away with changing terms in the middle of an argument.

GregB
Reply to  Simon
May 28, 2021 5:48 am

No. And the fact that you don’t understand that is a signal that many people don’t really understand logical fallacies.

Below WR2 says that its more of an “appeal to authority” than ad hom. I can see that point as well.

But as John Larson says, the point is if your argument is based on your credentials, or attacking another person, its a logical fallacy. It doesn’t mean anything.

In short, saying something is false because the person “isn’t a climate scientist” carries no value at all.

WR2
Reply to  GregB
May 27, 2021 2:50 pm

It’s argument by authority, another logical fallacy, but not really ad hominem. Actually I’m proud to say I’m not a climate scientist, as I would consider that an insult.

John Larson
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 27, 2021 1:17 pm

It’s not clear who he is calling that, so I can’t say.”

Have you ever (in your entire life) heard anyone deny climate? If not, why would it matter who he is calling a “climate denier”?

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 27, 2021 6:36 pm

It’s not clear who he is calling that, so I can’t say.”

That is completely dishonest framing. From Gleick’s piece:

Climate Denialism Has No Place at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) has invited Professor Steven Koonin to give a seminar on May 27, 2021. Professor Koonin’s seminar will cover material contained in a book he published on May 4. His book is entitled “Unsettled”. Its basic thesis is that climate science is not
trustworthy.
Professor Koonin is not a climate scientist.”

It’s abundantly clear to whom he is referring.

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 27, 2021 3:01 pm

An ad hominem is an insult unrelated to the subject at hand.
Nick is trying to claim that it is a logical fail to bring forth any fact that is non complimentary to the subject.

Forrest Gardener
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 27, 2021 6:05 pm

Nick, do some research on the difference between fact and opinion. To help you get started it is a fact that you receive down votes on most of your posts. It is my opinion that the down votes are very well deserved.

Hope that helps.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 27, 2021 8:48 am

“Calling Names” is not the same as making insulting statements that are defensibly true and germane. Sometimes people earn their descriptions.

Jon Salmi
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 27, 2021 12:55 pm

Nick – the truth is never an insult, though, if its is delivered with scorn or derision it can be construed that way. Shellenberger’s remarks are the delivered without derision or scorn. Only in the last statement does Shellenberger wander a bit.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Sunsettommy
May 27, 2021 3:23 am

The only people who deny climate change, are the people shouting & screaming & stamping their feet in childish tantrums, that we’re all going to hell in a handcart due to global warming!!! The Earth is still cooler today than the previous 3-4 Inter-glacials dating back 500,000 years! Note also that global warming is rarely mentioned these days, all part of the Intellectual Ruling Elites mantra/meme, who jet-set around the world to exotic locations to holiday anytime they want, just as long as these locations are exorbitantly expensive so that we peasants cannot afford to go there!!!

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 26, 2021 11:30 pm

Wake up and smell the coffee, Nicky boy. Condemning ad hominem, used in place of an argument is valid. Attacking an enemy of truth, science and humanity is an obligation of all right thinking people. Peter Gleick has been a poltroon, a forger, a plagiarist, a liar and a disgusting little Neo-Malthusian has-hat with no forgiving qualities for as long as he has been in the public eye.

Reply to  Rory Forbes
May 26, 2021 11:40 pm

Peter Gleick has been a poltroon, a forger, a plagiarist, a liar and a disgusting little Neo-Malthusian has-hat “
His alleged offence here is calling Koonin names.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 27, 2021 12:34 am

His alleged offence [sic] here is calling Koonin names.

How is that not offensive? You’re being disingenuous, Nickie. Gleick’s entire existence is offensive. You have no obligation to be an apologist for the likes of those types, so why would you?

John Endicott
Reply to  Rory Forbes
May 27, 2021 2:22 am

That he is an apologist for the likes of Gleick (an admitted identity thief who stole and forged documents) speaks volumes about Nick. None of them good.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  John Endicott
May 27, 2021 10:42 am

Why would anyone with integrity carry water for Peter Gleick? If the “climate change” true believers had any ethics at all, the guy would have been set to Coventry years ago.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rory Forbes
May 28, 2021 5:43 am

“Why would anyone with integrity carry water for Peter Gleick? If the “climate change” true believers had any ethics at all, the guy would have been set to Coventry years ago.”

Along with Ben Santer, who inserted his own personal opinion in the official IPCC report. He changed the IPCC position from being unable to confirm any human influence on the Earth’s climate, to being a certainty that humans were influencing the Earth’s climate. Quite a change, wouldn’t you say?

This was his opinion alone, contrary to the actual IPCC science report, yet he stuck his opinion in there, and it remains to this day. It remains to this day! How does this happen?! Where are all the IPCC scientists he overruled?

When alarmists claim humans are influencing the Earth’s climate, they are voicing Santer’s opinion, because there is no evidence that CO2 is influencing the Earth’s climate to change in a measureable way, and it says so right there in the IPCC report.

Unbelievable!

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 28, 2021 10:35 am

I remember when that happened so well and the controversy that followed. It was the final confirmation that the IPCC was purely political and had nothing to do with science. From then on they regularly “adjusted” whatever was necessary to maintain their narrative. Also, around about that time, the gas lighting of contrarians began in earnest. Even Roger Revelle (Al Gore’s supposed ‘mentor’) was thrown under the bus when he questioned the role of CO2 in warming.

Derg
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 27, 2021 2:57 am

You are a terrible human 🙁

Simon
Reply to  Derg
May 27, 2021 1:14 pm

Nasty comment. You may not agree with NS but given he never resorts to name calling (even though many here – like you – resort to it) and always backs up any comment he makes with evidence, I wonder how you can justify the term “terrible human?”

Derg
Reply to  Simon
May 27, 2021 3:10 pm

Terrible human.

Russia colluuuusion;)

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  Simon
May 27, 2021 7:02 pm

“But Mueller’s team said it couldn’t “reliably determine” Manafort’s purpose in sharing it, nor assess what Kilimnik may have done with it — in part due to questions over Manafort’s credibility. The Senate committee also came up empty, though its report drew attention for its characterization of Kilimnik as a Russian intelligence officer.
It was not clear what new information, if any, led to the Treasury Department’s assessment that Kilimnik had “provided the Russian Intelligence Services with sensitive information on polling and campaign strategy.” A Treasury Department spokesman did not return an email seeking comment.”

Since you didn’t bother to read it. And this is the same AP who claimed they didn’t know their news bureau was operating in a Hamas building.

Derg
Reply to  Simon
May 28, 2021 4:21 am

Lol Simon. You really are a clown show. I wonder if Russia Colluuuusion was like Benghazi started by an internet video or weapons of mass destruction.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
May 28, 2021 5:48 am

TDS

Rick C
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 27, 2021 9:00 am

His alleged offence here is calling Koonin names.”

No, his offence is trying to get Koonin cancelled and preventing him from speaking at LLBL. He did it through ad hom attack, not reasoned argument. In my view, Gleick should have been prosecuted for Identity Theft, forgery, and fraud. Not sure why Heartland Institute did not press the issue. Maybe they decided that it was enough the Gleick had destroyed his credibility and expected him to be a non-factor going forward.

Forrest Gardener
Reply to  Rick C
May 27, 2021 6:14 pm

Correct. That was indeed Gleick’s offence this time around. Nick should thank you for reminding him of that fact.

Vincent Causey
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 26, 2021 11:43 pm

People like Gleick, Ehrlich – let the Indians starve to death – are wicked, despicable people. Yet you side with them. Go figure.

Reply to  Vincent Causey
May 27, 2021 12:16 am

What exactly did Gleick do to let the Indians starve to death?

Derg
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 27, 2021 2:58 am

And you have poor reading comprehension….uhg

MarkW
Reply to  Derg
May 27, 2021 8:02 am

Nick’s one rhetorical skill is his ability to change the subject by lying about what others have said.

Reply to  Derg
May 27, 2021 11:52 am

Well, then, please explain. What is the connection between Gleick and Indians starving?

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 27, 2021 3:04 pm

They both espouse a philosophy that led others to allow Indians to starve to death.

Simon
Reply to  MarkW
May 27, 2021 5:56 pm

What are you talking about? On any other website you would be laughed out of town for a comment like that, but even though it makes no sense wants-so-ever, you will get an upvote. Watch

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
May 28, 2021 5:52 am

So what you are really saying is you don’t understand MarkW’s point.

Simon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 28, 2021 2:05 pm

Tom. I understand it is a desperate comment that to reasonable people is meaningless.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 27, 2021 3:02 am

Calling someone a hypocrite is not an ad hominum. It is stating an observation.

Mark Whitney
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 27, 2021 4:56 am

I think not, Nick.
Here Shellenberger attacks specific actions and attitudes supported by documentation. Calling a spade a spade is not the same as simply calling names and defaming an individual without substance.

M Courtney
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 27, 2021 5:58 am

From the Wikipedia article on the scandalous Peter Gleick:

In 2011, Gleick was the launch chairman[5] of the “new task force on scientific ethics and integrity” of the American Geophysical Union.

Which seemed astounding at the time that he was exposed as a thief (stealing documents), a fraudster (impersonating others to humiliate the deceived lowly employees and aid in his felonies)) and and a slanderer (fabricating documents ascribed to others, remember the documents he stole were not incriminating in any way).

Now we realise that a new “task force” was wanted because they actually wanted a new “ethics and integrity”.

Nick Stokes, you can keep your new ethics and integrity. It’s not right and it won’t stand.
Peter Gleick has to live with his earnt reputation. It is not unfounded. Reporting it is not unjustified.

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 27, 2021 7:57 am

There goes Nick with his predictable attempts to change the debate by lying about what others are doing.

Pointing out that has conducted fraud and forgery in the past is not an attack on Glieck, it is just pointing out the lengths to which Glieck is willing to go in order to promote his world view. In which case, he’s a lot like Nick.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 27, 2021 8:41 am

Have you read Apocalypse Never, Nick? I have and found it an eye-opener. It might just open your mind though I’m not holding my breath!

GregB
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 27, 2021 8:46 am

Agreed. Ad hominem cheapens any argument.

Last edited 4 months ago by GregB
Duane
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 27, 2021 10:33 am

Nick may be wrong about climate change, but he is right that Shellenberger is cheap shotting just as energetically as Gleick is on Koonin.

Two stupid arguments don’t equal a smart argument. Name calling is stupid and juvenile. Dropping down the basement levels of Gleick does not produce a winning and compelling debate victory.

The best thing to do is call out Gleick for his attempt to stifle debate – which is exactly what he is doing. If Koonin is so wrong and ineffective, then Gleick should be glad that Koonin is given an opportunity to destroy himself. That Gleick posted such a hyperventilating rant really proves that Gleick is actually afraid that Koonin will be persuasive.

As Napoleon famously said a couple centuries ago:

“When your enemy is busily destroying himself, do not interfere”.

Robert A. Taylor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 27, 2021 5:22 pm

I find myself in the unenviable position of agreeing with Nick Stokes on this issue. State the facts as you see them, but do not use personally insulting language. Sorry folks, I’m a long time “climate denier” as far as CAGW is concerned.

Robert A. Taylor
Reply to  Robert A. Taylor
May 27, 2021 5:23 pm

In addition I’ve read Shellenberger’s book, and agreed with it.

May 26, 2021 10:07 pm

“Eviscerate….”…with an S…
Oh and at what population level would you consider the world to be beyond its resource limits then ?

Serious question for all Cornucopians. Is the planet capable of sustaining infinite population expansion and if not, why not?

Last edited 4 months ago by Leo Smith
Reply to  Leo Smith
May 26, 2021 10:22 pm

And who is talking about “infinite population expansion?”

Can’t you come up with a better straw man that that?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
May 27, 2021 9:08 am

It is, however, reasonable to ask what an optimal human population might be, or alternatively, what dangerously low or high populations might be.

It is obvious that “infinite” is a mathematical construct. However, there are real physical limits on population such as the mass of humans on Earth can’t exceed the mass of the Earth. A reasonable person then, recognizing a natural limit, would ask what a sustainable, or desirable population would be.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 27, 2021 9:36 pm

Would any of the three of you who voted me down care to point out what I said that was not true? Certainly you don’t hold the positions that complex, dynamic systems don’t have optimal operating ranges! Or do you?

Last edited 4 months ago by Clyde Spencer
commieBob
Reply to  Leo Smith
May 26, 2021 10:43 pm

We have a well known cycle of population boom and bust in the animal kingdom. It’s natural to expect some folks to extrapolate that onto the human species which is basically what Malthus did.

The problem for Malthus is that people behave in a different manner than do animals. In particular, people respond to economic and social signals. The result is the Western European Marriage Pattern which limits fertility. It was already well established by the time of Malthus and was observable by him.

Malthus’ conjectures were already manifestly false even in his own time.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Leo Smith
May 27, 2021 12:42 am

No one knows what this planet is capable of sustaining, but presently humans are further from depleting the supply than ever in human history. As more and more people achieve a better and better standard of living and even affluence, the birth rate drops accordingly. We are growing ever more nutritious food on less and less land. Only politics is limiting supply.

Steve Case
Reply to  Rory Forbes
May 27, 2021 2:27 am

 We are growing ever more nutritious food on less and less land. 

Our friends on the left would have you believe that increasing greenhouse gas causes food to be less nutritious. After typing that, I realized that it fit rather well with what Shellenberger wrote in the original post:

In Apocalypse Never, I point to a pattern. Malthusians raise the alarm about a resource or environmental problems and then attack the obvious technical solutions. Malthus had to attack birth control to predict overpopulation.

The good news about increased greenhouse gas, and in particular carbon dioxide, needs to be attacked. The notion that a warmer greener world with more rain, longer growing seasons and more arable land could be sold as a looming catastrophic disaster is testimony to the greatest propaganda triumph the world has ever seen.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Steve Case
May 27, 2021 10:36 am

testimony to the greatest propaganda triumph the world has ever seen.

We are being encouraged to disbelieve the evidence of our own observation … which is just a fancy way of saying, “pay no attention to that guy behind the curtain”.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Rory Forbes
May 27, 2021 9:10 am

We are growing ever more nutritious food ..

There are some who contest that claim. Do you have at least a citation to support it?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 27, 2021 10:26 am

There are some who contest that claim.

There are some who contest nearly anything. No, I don’t have a citation off hand. At nearly 80, after a lifetime of reading, it’s hard to provide a source for every comment one makes. Feel free to join the queue of people who will not believe me. However, it’s no secret that genetic improvements to many crops increase disease resistance as well as resistance to cold … both conditions reduce their nutrition.

Last edited 4 months ago by Rory Forbes
Davidf
Reply to  Rory Forbes
May 27, 2021 5:26 pm

Well, as just one case in point, Golden Rice.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Davidf
May 27, 2021 5:43 pm

I just did a quick search on the benefits of Golden Rice. It would seem even that has come under attack and heavy scrutiny, as much for the fact that it is “BMO”, as to whether the vitamin A characteristics are as advertised and a long list of other criticisms. You just can’t win these days.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Rory Forbes
May 27, 2021 9:40 pm

We are the same age. I try to avoid making statements that I can’t back up. If someone calls be on it, I’d spend the time to provide support for it, or admit that I was expressing an unsupported belief.

Your last sentence seems to contradict your original claim. Which is it?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 27, 2021 10:33 pm

However, it’s no secret that genetic improvements to many crops increase disease resistance as well as resistance to cold … both conditions reduce their nutrition.

That was my last sentence. In what way is it contradictory? Both cold and disease reduce the nutritional value of crops. I could have also included resistance to pests.

I rarely provide sources, mainly because that is properly considered an appeal to authority and because it pisses warmunists off, whose first line of defense to facts is “source”? I could have done a search to find studies to support my logic, but it shouldn’t be necessary when the conclusion is obvious. I wasn’t writing a scientific paper. This is an informal comment section. I mentioned my age only to indicate that satisfying an impertinent question is a waste of time.

You’re fully within your rights to conduct yourself as you see fit. After decades of experience I’ve found what suits me. I have no idea why you’re making an issue of something so obvious.

Gene
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 27, 2021 1:44 pm

Roy Forbes, aren’t the reported annual record harvests, over the last 10 or so years, evidence enough?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Gene
May 27, 2021 5:37 pm

Whether the added nutrition is from crop volume, better storage qualities and protection from disease or from better nutritional value, it amounts to better fed people.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Rory Forbes
May 27, 2021 9:46 pm

However, your original claim was that “We are growing ever more nutritious food …,” not that technology allows us to grow a larger quantity or to preserve the nutritional value for a longer period of time.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 27, 2021 10:44 pm

Have you got some sort of bug up your ass? I made a general comment that is more or less irrefutable, that covers most conditions. I didn’t go into greater detail regarding the specifics because that was inappropriate given the nature of my response.

You’re not asking for information, you seem to be trying to criticize what I wrote in a passive aggressive attempt to belittle my writing, not the facts. I don’t need instructions on how to make a point. Either refute my points or go away.

M Courtney
Reply to  Leo Smith
May 27, 2021 5:48 am

Any scientific theory that has been proven wrong for 300 years is either discarded or adopted as a tenet of faith.
How can I argue with your faith? It’s your religion.
But it’s not mine.

MarkW
Reply to  Leo Smith
May 27, 2021 8:06 am

Without outside resources, the planet could probably support between 20 and 30 billion.
Once we start mining the moon and the asteroids, we could probably double or triple that.

BTW, talking about “infinite population” expansion just shows that you are more interested in inciting emotion than you are about dealing with fact. (Are you related to Nick?)

Just a few days ago we had an article which demonstrated that within 10 to 30 years, the world’s population will peak and begin falling. Rapidly.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
May 27, 2021 9:13 am

Without outside resources, the planet could probably support between 20 and 30 billion.

However, it is not a world I would want to live in. How can Man avoid creating a Living Hell?

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 27, 2021 12:13 pm

You have that option.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
May 27, 2021 9:49 pm

The high suicide rates in many advanced countries with high population densities (such as Japan) suggest that many are exercising the option. Whether they realize it or not.

I won’t live long enough to have to consider the option.

AlexBerlin
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 27, 2021 2:54 pm

You won’t have to, because it won’t happen in your or my lifetime. However, considering more of your own species around you “Living Hell” makes me wonder how misanthropic and anti-human your mindset is? If “Nature” were any good for Humans, civilization and culture would never have been invented. As a human being, I say it is humanity’s duty to adapt the planet for their purposes. Not for those of other species which should be viewed in terms of their usefulness for us humans only and at all times.

MarkW
Reply to  AlexBerlin
May 27, 2021 3:09 pm

Considering how much empty space there is in today’s world of 7.5 billion, there would still be a lot of space if the world’s population increased by a factor of three to four.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
May 27, 2021 10:03 pm

I’m old enough to have lived through the US more than doubling its population. Places I used to visit are now off limits. The government has replaced educational rangers in National Parks with armed ‘henchmen.’ I’ve been accosted and threatened with confiscation of my vehicle and other property for engaging in recreational gold panning without a permit in a National Recreation Area.

And then there is the Jewel of California, San Francisco, that was actually a delightful place to visit when I was a young man. Now, there are homeless people putting up tents all over the city, discarded drug paraphanlia on the sidewalks, and feces from humans, when in the past one only had to be concerned about dogs. Even in the 1970s, if one were to walk down the steps to the underground garage at the Mosconi Convention center, the stench of human urine was almost overwhelming!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  AlexBerlin
May 27, 2021 9:53 pm

So where to you take your vacations? Shanghai, Mumbai, the Bronx? Delightful places!

MarkW
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 27, 2021 3:07 pm

Why do you believe that anything has to be done to avoid such an extreme situation?
The point is that 20 to 30 billion is so far above what the probable peak human is going to be, that only those who have a deep seated fear of others need worry about it.

Davidf
Reply to  MarkW
May 27, 2021 5:31 pm

There is a TED talk I watched last year, by a European demographer, that showed quite clearly that Earths population, due to existing factors, is likely to peak at 11 billion, and decline from there.

Last edited 4 months ago by Davidf
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
May 27, 2021 10:03 pm

I hope you are right.

Jeffery P
Reply to  Leo Smith
May 27, 2021 8:36 am

Did you miss the post on the alleged “depopulation bomb?”

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  Leo Smith
May 27, 2021 9:07 am

Leo, the only way the human population continues to increase is if the scientologists succeed in keeping the 3rd world as the 3rd world.
Wealth increase always means reduction in fertility.

It is the height of irony that Europe struggles under a wave of immigrants from Africa, if progressives didn’t go out of their way to prevent Africa from getting cheap energy and wealth, the waves of immigrants would subside.

Progressive policy, climate change POLICY is what will drive economic migration.

There are zero climate change refugees to date.
There are millions of climate change POLICY refugees.

Mike O
Reply to  Leo Smith
May 27, 2021 9:37 am

I think that the key thing is that all demographic modelling shows that the world population continues to grow for the next couple of decades and then begins a long decline. Decreasing fertility and interest in bearing children is already causing many populated countries to be below the population replacement rate (China, Russia, Japan, most of EU, US not quite but close).

As countries get richer, infant and child mortality declines and women have fewer children. About the only continent that is still rapidly growing in population is sub-Saharan Africa, but even there there has been a decline in children per woman.

Fossil fuels will make Africans wealthier and healthier so the campaign to mitigate climate change is directly exacerbating the environmental degradation that you are worried about plus promoting a whole bunch of really bad behaviors like strip mining and child labor for scarce minerals to go into windmills and batteries.

Guess what we should be doing if we are worried?

MarkW
Reply to  Leo Smith
May 27, 2021 3:11 pm

In my experience, the vast majority of those who spend their lives in deep seated fear of too many people, live in cities and have actually come to believe that the world is one big city. They have absolutely no idea how much empty land is out there.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Leo Smith
May 28, 2021 6:02 am

Of course, the Earth cannot sustain infinite human expansion, but that does not look like what is in the future for human beings.

Currently, we are seeing that as different countries acquire a certain level of affluence in their societies, the population of those countries starts to decline, so we may reach an optimal level of human population on Earth naturally, barring wars, famines, asteriod stikes, diseases and other disasters.

I also see human expansion into the Solar System which can accomodate many more humans.

There are no limits to growth, just limits to the imagination.

May 26, 2021 10:08 pm

The man’s poor thumbs! (I thought that the writing was somewhat poor compared to his normal work – then finally noticed that the entire polemic was on Twitter.)

Well done.

nayyer ali
May 26, 2021 10:29 pm

Shellenberger is living in a nuclear fantasyland. No one is building nukes, less than 5 new plants are started per year compared to 45 in the 1970’s. The big problem for nukes is that they are high cost power with huge up front investment that requires them to run 24/7. In a deregulated energy market they will not find customers during daytime when solar is 20% of the cost, or when winds are blowing. Nukes dont work as backup power, they would need massive government subsidies to survive. See my review of Shellenberger’s book:
https://smile.amazon.com/product-reviews//0063001691/ref=acr_search_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&reviewerType=all_reviews#reviews-filter-bar

Forrest Gardener
Reply to  nayyer ali
May 26, 2021 10:51 pm

Oh dear. Running 24/7 is the great feature of both coal and nuclear. Only in a truly upside down fantasy is this a great problem.

Last edited 4 months ago by Forrest Gardener
Rory Forbes
Reply to  nayyer ali
May 26, 2021 11:45 pm

I can see that you might find actual science and economics confusing when your view of the world is from the confines of your lower bowel.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  nayyer ali
May 27, 2021 5:37 am

It is true that no one is building them.
But I think maybe Shellenberger’s biggest problem is that he is trying to talk to the same people he used to agree with, and get them to change their minds about some of the things they believe, but not all of them, while simultaneously not changing his mind about the underlying problem.
IOW…he is trying to debunk one big lie while preserving the supporting lies that prop it up.

MarkW
Reply to  nayyer ali
May 27, 2021 8:10 am

1) The only reason why nuke’s are so expensive is because of lawsuits by nut cases such as yourself make them so.
2) Running 24/7 is how they are designed to run, that was the plan since before the plans were begun.
3) Are you really stupid enough to believe that wind and solar are actually cheap?
4) What does your simple little mind plan on doing when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining strongly enough. (which is most of the time)

paul courtney
Reply to  MarkW
May 27, 2021 10:45 am

Mr. W.: I’d like Mr ali to tell us this- if solar is 20% of the cost of nuclear during the day, what % of the cost of nuclear is solar at night?
Now there’s the mathematical construct “infinite”.

Drake
Reply to  nayyer ali
May 27, 2021 9:01 am

So how does SOLAR work as back up power? How about WIND? You have your argument backwards. Nukes and coal provide 24/7 dispatchable power. What do your chosen preferred electricity generation means provide.

This is the point of Shellenberger’s tweet, Malthusians chose a way to make functional systems nonfunctional, in this case by destabilizing the grid with weather dependent “generation” and then claim that dependable generation methods are a problem and don’t work as BACKUP. BTW: That too is a lie, SMR can cycle as needed, but doing so to support unreliable systems like wind and solar is expensive and just plain stupid.

Then you mention the number of nukes being built. THAT is directly related to POLITICS, not economics. The pro nuke adds of the 60s would be true today if construction of nukes had continued at the pace of the early 70s. We would not need residential electric meters. Electrical power would be so plentiful you could be billed generically based on the size of your house and some basic questions like, do you have a pool?, etc. You would not now have a SMART meter that can turn YOUR individual home’s power off or charge you extra for power by the hour. Just think of all the cost savings for not having meters, reading meters, etc. over the last 50 years. Larger distribution networks, yes, aggravation about all the Jimmy Carter energy savings rebates no. Even to the current day “Energy Code” requirements, who would care. Cheap, plentiful, available, all things you neo-Malthusians are against.

I read part of your review, the same garbage we see here in the comments occasionally, but unendingly at hotist sites.

Your religiosity is showing.

Jeff Labute
Reply to  nayyer ali
May 27, 2021 9:41 am

I see the bulk of renewables as an over-subsidized, short-term, knee jerk reaction to an evidence-less CAGW. Nuclear on the other-hand is more promising for the long haul. Nuclear works great everywhere else in the universe. Certainly there is research to do, but plenty of time remains to do it. I’d rather have a neighborhood SMR than 50 large spinning blades and there is a big push to commercialize SMR. Instead of spending money on more useless climate reports, we need to nurture a new generation of nuclear physicists and technologies. We do NOT need to develop a means to micro-manage every household watt using billions of inverters, and batteries, which is a wasteful economy.

Last edited 4 months ago by Jeff Labute
Tsk Tsk
Reply to  nayyer ali
May 27, 2021 7:07 pm

Solar can’t find customers in the daytime either. Seems like the common thread is the undesirability of solar.

Izaak Walton
May 26, 2021 10:45 pm

Another day another evidence free conspiracy theory. Now it is the “Chinese solar industry, shadow banks, fossil interests” that are paying the scientists along with
other activists who are “bought and paid for by powerful interests”. I am not sure if
the powerful interests are the same as the fossil interests or completely separate but the idea that the all climate scientists are being paid for by the Chinese solar industry is laughable.

Derg
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 27, 2021 3:02 am

Are you talking about Trump Russia colluuuusion 😉

MarkW
Reply to  Derg
May 27, 2021 8:14 am

Or the Wuhan flu having escaped from a Chinese lab

The left has to resort to declaring so many things as “conspiracy theories” because they know that they can’t refute them honestly.

paul courtney
Reply to  MarkW
May 27, 2021 10:47 am

Mtr. W.: Well, it saves them alot of time. I won’t say it saves them alot of thinking, how can you “save” what never happens?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 27, 2021 5:51 am

Yet I’m sure you think all sceptics are paid by fossil fuel “interests”. Anyone ever tell you that “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”? Or, “what goes around comes around”?

MarkW
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 27, 2021 8:13 am

Declaring anything you disagree with as a conspiracy theory, sure is easier than actually refuting the claim.

BTW, a grand total of nobody has ever claimed that all “climate scientists are being paid for by the Chinese solar industry”. If you have to lie about what others have said in order to win an argument, you have already admitted that even you know you can’t win an honest argument.

For you, that is par for the course.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkW
May 28, 2021 7:32 am

“BTW, a grand total of nobody has ever claimed that all “climate scientists are being paid for by the Chinese solar industry”.”

Yeah! Where did you get that from, Izaak?

Drake
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 27, 2021 9:08 am

Funny, I always knew that the coal interests funded the anti-nuke crowd. I have never seen any article in any MSM about where the anti-nuke protesters got the money to support their encampments outside nuke plants, construction sites and future proposed sites. These people were not independently wealthy, and always seemed to have plenty of food and other support. The fact that the MSM didn’t care to find the money source spoke volumes.

The encampments stopped once the process of permitting new nukes was stymied by the leftists within the permitting process. Amazing.

And now the coal industry has reaped what they sowed.

stinkerp
May 26, 2021 10:52 pm

Well, in Gleick’s defense, he’s an idiot. Lying (making stuff up) is his way of compensating for his handicap. Much like Joe Biden…

Last edited 4 months ago by stinkerp
Forrest Gardener
May 26, 2021 10:54 pm

Oh well. I suppose that means that any thoughts Gleick may have rehabilitated himself are gone.

u.k.(us)
May 26, 2021 11:00 pm

“Malthusian pseudo-scientists like @PeterGleick are lost souls seeking false gods. They are individuals in the grip of religion without knowing it. It is a religion that leads them to justify lying, cheating, and stealing in the name of nature harmony.”
================
Gotta pull that one back, or provide evidence.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  u.k.(us)
May 26, 2021 11:50 pm

There is mountains of evidence highlighting Peter Gleick’s pathetic career as a lying poltroon. You won’t even have to leave this site. Just plug his name into search.

Sunderlandsteve
Reply to  u.k.(us)
May 27, 2021 5:05 am

I think you’ll find Gleick has already provided the evidence.

Matthew Sykes
May 27, 2021 12:11 am

Gleick’s language makes him out to be a rabid fool.

griff
May 27, 2021 12:26 am

Really, there isn’t some historic ‘Malthusian’ movement… there isn’t a current Malthusian point of view, trend, industry or movement.

This is all hyperbole and name calling.

Derg
Reply to  griff
May 27, 2021 3:04 am

Hello pot?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  griff
May 27, 2021 5:53 am

Yep, pot and kettle! Who is the denier now?

MarkW
Reply to  griff
May 27, 2021 8:16 am

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
griff, if you want to find a Malthusian movement, I suggest you have a meeting with your fellow warmunists.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  griff
May 27, 2021 8:56 am

Radical environmentalism, including climate alarmism, is the de-facto religion of Misanthropic Marxist Malthusians. I think you check all the boxes Griff.

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  griff
May 27, 2021 9:39 am

Griff, did you really say that?

You deny the Malthusian movement even exists?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
May 28, 2021 7:37 am

That’s what it sounded like to me.

Forrest Gardener
Reply to  griff
May 27, 2021 6:23 pm

Nice one Griff. And denial is not just a river in Africa.

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  griff
May 27, 2021 7:11 pm

The Progressives of a century ago and the greens of half a century ago would like a word. Have you read their eschatological work The Population Bomb?

LdB
Reply to  griff
May 27, 2021 10:44 pm

Wrong again Griff goggle and listen to any David Suzuki presentation on over-population and the subtext he infers … population control but he avoids saying how.

In Australia we have a number of them here read this link and tell me if you think it qualifies
https://population.org.au/
Go to the bottom and press on did you know.

Derek Wood
May 27, 2021 12:31 am

That’s an interesting topic: If one comments truthfully about another’s dishonesty, is that an insult?

dk_
Reply to  Derek Wood
May 27, 2021 1:05 am

DW, see Greek philosophy, Parrhesia. To do otherwise is cowardice, but the speaker has to take responsibility for innacuracy. My interpretation, of course.

John Endicott
Reply to  Derek Wood
May 27, 2021 2:26 am

The truth is only an insult on those who’s live (and livelyhoods) depend on lies.

Michael in Dublin
May 27, 2021 1:25 am

Some years ago I read a BBC report – sometimes a truthful article seems to crop up – on the huge amount of food in India that spoils before reaching the markets. If one were to investigate the amount of food stolen in the supply chain this would add to this. The priority should be to address these and then look at how much more food production is needed.

Drake
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
May 27, 2021 9:15 am

Reminded me of a completely off topic subject, Colombian drug money eaten by rats:

http://www.hoaxorfact.com/celebrities/drug-lord-pablo-escobar-had-enormous-wealth-that-rats-ate-1-bn-a-year-facts.html

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
May 27, 2021 9:32 am

Logically, if food is stolen, then it is food that won’t have to be bought, and will be consumed. It doesn’t mean that additional food production will be needed.

Loss of food, particularly to consumption of grains by rodents and insects is a serious problem in Third World countries. Countries without reliable sources of electricity have to deal with the loss of food from bacterial spoilage. If the issues of safe storage of food were solved, no additional production would be needed. There might even be a surplus.

Davidf
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 27, 2021 5:43 pm

There’s already a huge surplus, on international scales. The problem, as was stated in an earlier post, is distribution, particularly in war zones

Michael in Dublin
May 27, 2021 2:19 am

It is easy to prove Peter Gleick and Ben Santer – who he uses to support his case – are disingenuous even deceitful. When they write of “climate denialism” and use phrases like “climate denier” and “climate contrarian” they are using a falsehood to discredit anyone who calls into question their views.

If as Santer writes, “The climate science community treats uncertainties in an open and transparent way,” why do they not prove it in open discussion with people like Steven Koonin instead of trying to have him boycotted and silenced?

The Köppen climate classification has five groups and some 20 subdivisions. I have not seen articles where climate scientists address these individually and on how changes in one may impact on the surrounding ones. They appear to treat climate as some amorphous whole. I do not need to be a scientist to recognize the extraordinary complexities in these climate systems and their interactions.

Perhaps Santer gives it away when he says, “My primary job is to evaluate computer models of the climate system” (my emphasis) and declares himself to be a climate scientist. Is it about models and finding ways to get the data to fit one or other model? I am not a scientist but observations over the course of seven decades and in differing climate zones has made me a dissenter when it comes to climate alarmism. Perhaps these scientist need to get out of their labs and offices into the outdoors more often.

Last edited 4 months ago by Michael in Dublin
Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
May 27, 2021 4:00 am

His Wikipedia entry says he has a BS (no mention of field of study) and an MS and PhD in Energy and Resources. That doesn’t sound like science to me, especially since his focus was on hydroclimatology.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
May 27, 2021 4:24 am

You are referencing Peter Gleick.
As for Ben Santer there was an interesting article on Wattsup on him two years ago:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/24/a-history-of-dr-ben-santer-and-his-ipcc-trick/

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
May 27, 2021 5:45 am

Whatever credentials a person does or does not have says exactly zero about the veracity or lack thereof of the things they say or believe.
If we could tell what was true and what was not true by simply referring to some expert or other, there would have never been any need for the scientific method.
It is literally irrelevant if anyone has some University degree or not.

Last edited 4 months ago by Nicholas McGinley
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
May 27, 2021 9:39 am

Nullius in verba

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
May 27, 2021 5:42 am

“…why do they not prove it in open discussion with people like Steven Koonin…”

Because it is impossible for liars and fools to have a open dialogue with knowledgeable people without being shown to be liars and fools.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
May 27, 2021 9:36 am

The Köppen climate classification has five groups and some 20 subdivisions. I have not seen articles where climate scientists address these individually and on how changes in one may impact on the surrounding ones.

Thanks for banging my drum. When I have raised that in the past, it has gone largely ignored.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 27, 2021 10:26 am

Clyde, perhaps a younger scientist could tackle this subject. I would chip in with a contribution and so too would many others. Perhaps WUWT could set up a list of climate topics that are deserving of further study?

I do not believe the the world with these various climate zones becomes uniformly warmer or colder, wetter or drier. Besides natural variability I wonder what will happen if say a large desert area were irrigated how this would affect the climate both in this region and that of its neighbors. Would more warm days or more rain in certain areas not be counter-balanced by cooler and drier ones in others?

Since the earliest human records we know people have had to resort to ingenuity to survive and many have succeeded. Perhaps we need to welcome climate change and adapt and take advantage of the different climates. Perhaps our governments should give us the options: a contribution to attempts to engineer climate or a contribution to adapt to climate changes.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
May 27, 2021 10:09 pm

Perhaps WUWT could set up a list of climate topics that are deserving of further study?

I think that is a good idea, in principle. However, as long as the ‘science’ is run by politics, it is unlikely to get off the ground.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 28, 2021 1:58 am

Years ago I knew a Scot who always said to his students, “He who gets the vision, gets the job.” What we need is men and women with vision, who are principled and prepared for the sacrifices needed. History shows they are the ones most likely to get things done, even if the recognition only comes after their death.

H.R.
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 27, 2021 9:39 pm

I’ll second that, Clyde.

And I haven’t run across any classification changes in any area. I may have missed a reclassification or two, but one would be hard pressed to attribute any classification change to excess atmospheric CO2 levels.
.
.
I suppose there will be a change somewhere though. That’s what climate does. It changes.

I’m a Climate Change Acceptor who is still waiting (and waiting, and waiting) to meet a Climate Change Denier.

Oh wait… there are those who think the climate has been the same all their lives, don’t think it should change, and think we can keep it from changing. I’m not sure what to call them. Maybe… perhaps… Climate Change Deniers?

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
May 27, 2021 10:11 am

“My primary job is to evaluate computer models of the climate system”

Well here are a few quotes from a paper published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society by Stainforth et al back in 2007. One of the other authors was Myles Allen. I’d wager that these comments are still relevant today.

The paper was titled “Confidence, uncertainty and decision-support relevance in climate predictions”

“Here, our focus is solely on complex climate models as predictive tools on decadal and longer timescales. We argue for a reassessment of the role of such models when used for this purpose.”

“Complex climate models, as predictive tools for many variables and scales, cannot be meaningfully calibrated because they are simulating a never before experienced state of the system; the problem is one of extrapolation. It is therefore inappropriate to apply any of the currently available generic techniques which utilize observations to calibrate or weight models to produce forecast probabilities for the real world. To do so is misleading to the users of climate science in wider society.”

“There is no compulsion to hold that the most comprehensive models available will yield decision relevant probabilities, even if those models are based upon ‘fundamental physics’.

“There are many theoretical sources of uncertainty in the interpretation of model results in terms of the real world.”

Statements about future climate relate to a never before experienced state of the system; thus it is impossible to either calibrate the model for the forecast regime of interest or confirm the usefulness of the forecasting process.”

“The interpretation of climate models to inform policy and decision support must consider at least five distinct sources of uncertainty. Forcing uncertainty captures those things in the future which are considered outside the climate system per se, yet affect it. Initial condition uncertainty captures our uncertainty in how to initialize the models in hand; what initial state, or ensemble of states, to integrate forward in time…………..Model imperfection describes the uncertainty resulting from our limited understanding of, and ability to simulate, the Earth’s climate. Model uncertainty captures the fact that we are uncertain as to what parameter values (or ensembles of parameter values) are likely tp provide the most informative results; here climate modelling has a further complication due to choices between parametizations themselves, not just the values of each model parameter. Finally, model inadequacy captures the fact that we know a priori there is no combinations of parametizations, parameter values and ICs which would accurately mimic all relevant aspects of the climate sytem. We know that, if nothing else, computational constraints prevent our models from any claim of near isomorphism with reality, whatever that phrase might mean. The five types of uncertainty are not independent and basic questions of identifiability and interpretation remain.”

(Note ‘ICs’ are Initial Conditions)

“Confidence, uncertainty and decision- support relevance in climate predictions” ,Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2007) 365, 2145-2161 Published on line 14 June 2007.

Authors D.A.Stainforth, M.R. Allen, E.R. Tredger and L.A. Smith

Last edited 4 months ago by Dave Andrews
bonbon
May 27, 2021 3:12 am

Have a look at the UNESCO founding document :

Huxley Unesco Its Purpose And Philosophy : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Quote :
“At the moment, it is probable that the indirect effect of civilization is dysgenic instead of eugenic, and in any case it seems likely that the dead weight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability and disease proneness, which already exist in the human species will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved. Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”

Malthusianism became Eugenics, later named Environmentalism after the world witnessed eugenics in action in WWII.
Huxley wrote that UNESCO document, and no surprise, chaired the British Eugenics Society, along with Maynard Keynes.
The WHO founder Chisolm is even worse :
How the Unthinkable Became Thinkable: Eric Lander, Julian Huxley and the Awakening of Sleeping Monsters – the Canadian patriot

Schellenberger does indeed see some of this. Whether Mann, Gleick, Greta et. al ever heard of eugenics is not known. To refute Malthus today this eugenics movement crossing many institutions and private funds has to be squarely opposed.

See
NSSM 200 by Henry A. Kissinger Report 1974 – Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests – COLLECTION : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Sir Henry Kissinger’s infamous NSSM 200 shifted U.S. foreign policy doctrine from pro-development to pro-population reduction.

Last edited 4 months ago by bonbon
iflyjetzzz
May 27, 2021 3:15 am

Malthusian Theory – which has been disproved time and again over the years and should have been discarded long ago – is still around with hardcore believers. I’ll go out on a limb and state that the same will hold true for CAGW/greenhouse gas theory. No matter how cold this earth gets over the next 200 years, there will still be crackpots who cling to their belief that man is destroying the earth by freeing locked carbon atoms.

In reality, the earth’s temperatures in the last millenia have moved between multi decade warming and cooling cycles. Man’s impact on that cycle is de minimis. Always has been and always will be no matter how many carbon atoms we free. We just aren’t that important to the earth’s weather cycles and I find it extremely arrogant for any human to believe that mankind’s existence has meaningful impact on the weather.

But to the point – long after CAGW/greenhouse gas theory has been effectively debunked, there will still be many who believe that it is real and we will eventually raise the earth’s temperature above where mankind can comfortably live. It will live on just as Malthusian theory lives on.

Brian R Catt
May 27, 2021 3:33 am

Exactly. Well put.

What has industrialisation driven by the use of intense fossil and nuclear energy ever done for us?

Activist hate solution to problems they invent, so oppose them because they have no case or raison d’etre when the problem is solved by human progress, as has been the case for 200 years at least. e.g We DO know what to do with nuclear waste. Not a problem.

I also refer those who are interested to the Simon abundance Index. As population grows the amoint of resources available to it increases at a lower cost in fact.

Earth is 6 times more abundant now than 1980, population not even doubled. Just the facts. It’s a big planet:

https://www.humanprogress.org/the-simon-abundance-index-2021/

Also that population will probably peak at 11Billion and then decline as the World gets to 2.n children in response to Universal health care and hygeine, so defeating the infant mortality problem, almost done now except for some hopelessly corrupt equatorial African countries and primitive Islamic states like Afghanistan where women are not allowed control of their lives. Hans Rosling explained this very well to idiots like the Erlichs and this guy above I never heard of. They don’t like the facts up ’em. If you have never watched this, you should. Facts meets beliefs…. and win:

May 27, 2021 5:54 am

Malthus didn’t attack birth control to predict overpopulation, but because as an Anglican minister he was in favor of moral restraint and against people having sex until they’re economically prepared to have children.

May 27, 2021 6:13 am

I strongly support Michel Shellenberger’s aggressive stance – the climate doomsters have obviously been lying to us for decades; the evidence is incontrovertible, as stated below.

It is long past time that we call out these climate fraudsters, who have profited by creating false crises, and promoted destructive climate-and-energy policies that have squandered trillions of dollars of scarce global resources, and wasted millions of lives.

Increased atmospheric CO2 is not causing dangerous global warming. The climate computer models that predict dangerous global warming use climate sensitivities (CS) that are 3-5 times the upper bound of CS. The climate models are deliberately programmed to predict dangerous warming, and have no basis in reality.
Fraud!

There have been ~40 failed very-scary global warming predictions by warming alarmists since ~1970, At 50:50 odds for each prediction, the probability of 40 consecutive wrong answers is 1 in 281 TRILLION! No individual or group could be this wrong, this obtuse, for this long – they know they are lying; they’ve been lying all along.
Fraud x Fraud = Fraud^2

There is a high probability that the cause of increased atmospheric CO2 is primarily natural, not human-made; not primarily caused by fossil fuel combustion. CO2 changes lag temperature changes at all measured time scales, from the ice core record to the modern data record. See Kuo (1990), Keeling (1995), MacRae (2008), Humlum (2013) and Dr Ed Berry’s latest paper and book (2020 and 2021).
Fraud x Fraud x Fraud = Fraud^3

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/23/shivering-europeans-urged-to-keep-the-faith-on-global-warming/#comment-3252986

The ability to predict is the best objective measure of scientific and technical competence.
Climate doomsters have a perfect NEGATIVE predictive track record – every very-scary climate prediction, of the ~80 they have made since 1970, has FAILED TO HAPPEN.
 
“Rode and Fischbeck, professor of Social & Decision Sciences and Engineering & Public Policy, collected 79 predictions of climate-caused apocalypse going back to the first Earth Day in 1970. With the passage of time, many of these forecasts have since expired; the dates have come and gone uneventfully. In fact, 48 (61%) of the predictions have already expired as of the end of 2020.”
 
To end 2020, the climate doomsters were proved wrong in their scary climate predictions 48 times – at 50:50 odds for each prediction, that’s like flipping a coin 48 times and losing every time! The probability of that being mere random stupidity is 1 in 281 trillion! It’s not just global warming scientists being stupid.
 
These climate doomsters were not telling the truth – they displayed a dishonest bias in their analyses that caused these extremely improbable falsehoods, these frauds.
 
There is a powerful logic that says no rational person or group could be this wrong for this long – they followed a corrupt agenda – in fact, they knew they were lying.
 
The global warming alarmists have a NO predictive track record – they have been 100% wrong about every scary climate prediction – nobody should believe them.
 
The radical greens have NO credibility, make that NEGATIVE credibility – their core competence is propaganda, the fabrication of false alarm.
 
Source:
CLIMATE CHANGE, COVID-19, AND THE GREAT RESET
A Climate, Energy and Covid Primer for Politicians and Media
By Allan M.R. MacRae, Published May 8, 2021 UPDATE 1e
Download the WORD file
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/climate-change-covid-19-and-the-great-reset-update-1e-readonly.docx
___________________________

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
May 27, 2021 6:21 am

The ability to predict is the best objective measure of scientific and technical competence.

Climate doomsters have a perfect NEGATIVE predictive track record – every very-scary climate prediction, of the ~80 they have made since 1970, has FAILED TO HAPPEN.
 
“Rode and Fischbeck, professor of Social & Decision Sciences and Engineering & Public Policy, collected 79 predictions of climate-caused apocalypse going back to the first Earth Day in 1970. With the passage of time, many of these forecasts have since expired; the dates have come and gone uneventfully. In fact, 48 (61%) of the predictions have already expired as of the end of 2020.”
 
To end 2020, the climate doomsters were proved wrong in their scary climate predictions 48 times – at 50:50 odds for each prediction, that’s like flipping a coin 48 times and losing every time! The probability of that being mere random stupidity is 1 in 281 trillion! It’s not just global warming scientists being stupid.
 
These climate doomsters were not telling the truth – they displayed a dishonest bias in their analyses that caused these extremely improbable falsehoods, these frauds.
 
There is a powerful logic that says no rational person or group could be this wrong for this long – they followed a corrupt agenda – in fact, they knew they were lying.
 
The global warming alarmists have a NO predictive track record – they have been 100% wrong about every scary climate prediction – nobody should believe them.
 
The radical greens have NO credibility, make that NEGATIVE credibility – their core competence is propaganda, the fabrication of false alarm.
 
Source:
CLIMATE CHANGE, COVID-19, AND THE GREAT RESET
A Climate, Energy and Covid Primer for Politicians and Media
By Allan M.R. MacRae, Published May 8, 2021 UPDATE 1e
Download the WORD file
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/climate-change-covid-19-and-the-great-reset-update-1e-readonly.docx
___________________________
 
Allan MacRae published in the Calgary Herald on September 1, 2002, based on communication with Dr Tim Patterson:
 
3. “If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
 
MacRae updated his global cooling prediction in 2013, based on cold events that occurred starting circa 2008 near the end of Solar Cycle 23:
 
3a. “I suggest global cooling starts by 2020 or sooner. Bundle up.”
 
In 2019, expert meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo and I co-authored a paper describing the late planting in 2018 and 2019 and the huge Great Plains crop failure of 2019 due to cold, wet weather.
THE REAL CLIMATE CRISIS IS NOT GLOBAL WARMING, IT IS COOLING, AND IT MAY HAVE ALREADY STARTED  October 27, 2019
Planting was ~one month across the Great Plains of North America for crop years 2018 and 2019. In 2018 the growing season was warm and the crop recovered, but in 2019 there was a huge crop failure across the Great Plains. In 2019 fully 30% of the huge USA corn crop was never planted because of wet ground. Much of the grain crop across the Great Plains was severely harmed because of early cold and snow in the Fall.
 
We saw these very-cold weather patterns due to the instability of the polar vortex at the end of SC23 circa 2008, and this enabled me in 2013 to re-calibrate our 2002 global cooling prediction from “2020-2030” to “2020 or sooner”, at the end of much weaker SC24. A huge crop failure across the Great Plains of North America occurred in 2019. Now we have this brutal winter and very cold spring in 2020-2021. Nailed it.
 
Crop losses are already significant this year. Worrisome.
 
Best regards, Allan
 
Meanwhile, back at the ranch…
 
COLORADO BREAKS MULTIPLE COLD RECORDS + DENVER SUFFERS ITS SECOND-LONGEST SNOWFALL SEASON SINCE RECORDS BEGAN
May 12, 2021 Cap Allon
You’d forgive CO residents for thinking the climate was actually cooling!–But I’m sure they know better than to trust their own eyes and real-world observations — after all, it’s those ‘supercomputer-generated’ climate models that dictate reality, not natural variability, not the Sun… (sarc!).
 
CENTRAL RUSSIA EXPERIENCES RECORD SPRING SNOW, AS CRIMEA SUFFERS EXCEPTIONALLY COLD APRIL
April 30, 2021 Cap Allon
Global warming’ continues to be demonized by the IPCC, the MSM, and those hokey pop-scientists, yet heat has only-ever proved beneficial for life on our planet — it’s the cold that gets us.
 
EARLY-SEASON BLIZZARDS HIT AUSTRALIA + A POWERFUL POLAR OUTBREAK IN THE FORECAST
May 13, 2021 Cap Allon
In recent years, Australia’s climate has been changing — for the cooler and wetter. And early-season snows have become far more common. #GrandSolarMinimum
 
HISTORIC COLD SPREADS ACROSS THE U.S. BREAKING LOW TEMPERATURE RECORDS FROM THE 1800S
May 13, 2021 Cap Allon
Plus, Europe looks set for more unprecedented lows and historic late-May snows. Bundle up. Spring 2021 is a no show.
With the official start of summer less than 40 days away, an unseasonably cold air mass is currently gripping large areas of the United States, dropping temperatures some 25 degrees F below seasonal averages.
As reported by CNN weather, these temperatures are more in line with what you should expect in mid-March, not mid-May.

U.S. HAS SET 17,450 NEW LOW TEMPERATURE RECORDS THIS YEAR VS 13,886 HIGH + SINABUNG EXPLODES INTO THE STRATOSPHERE
May 17, 2021 Cap Allon
Furthermore, the U.S. ALL TIME records summary reveals that 223 new unprecedented, never-before-observed low temperature benchmarks have been busted this year, versus the solitary 1 for all-time record highs. This disparity between cold records and hot records has only been increasing in the month of May.
Told you so, 19 years ago…   Nailed it.
 
FIVE MAJOR DATASETS SHOW GLOBAL COOLING, AS CARBON BRIEF IS CAUGHT LYING TO THE PUBLIC
May 17, 2021 Cap Allon
Climate Change headlines are built around narratives, not facts. Most sheeple are easily fooled by illogically-linear charts and phony correlations.
The Global Lower Tropospheric Temperature Anomaly has cooled 0.64C in 14 months, from an anomaly of +0.59C in February 2020 to only -0.05C in April 2021.
 
RECORD BREAKING COLD BLASTS AUSTRALIA AND CANADA: “GLOBAL” COOLING
May 20, 2021 Cap Allon
Arctic air continues to descend unusually-far south, while Antarctic air continues to ride anomalously-far north. The culprit is low solar activity, namely its weakening of the jet streams, and the upshot is COOLING across the lower-latitudes (where us humans reside).
Not since the year 1967 has Sydney experienced a colder streak in May.
In Kamloops and the Okanagan, British Columbia, record-breaking overnight lows for this date were logged.
 
DELHI, INDIA SUFFERS COLDEST MAY DAY IN 70 YEARS + EARTH HAS COOLED 0.8C SINCE 2016
May 20, 2021 Cap Allon 
This COOLING trend is expected to accelerate over the coming months and years as the Sun continues its relative shutdown. Prepare for the Grand Solar Minimum.
 
RECORD COLD AND LATE-MAY SNOW SWEEPS THE WESTERN U.S. + COLD EUROPE + MORE MSM OBFUSCATION
May 21, 2021 Cap Allon
Accumulating late-May snow is pummeling the higher elevations of the Western United States — the latest inconvenient real-world observation to pour cold water on the hot mess that is AGW.
The picture is the same in Europe:
 
RARE AND HEAVY LATE-MAY SNOWFALL HITS KASHMIR, INDIA AND KAGHAN, PAKISTAN
May 25, 2021 Cap Allon
While northern Russia’s anomalous warmth is dominating the MSM headlines, the intense cold-blasts and unusually fierce snow-dumps currently ravaging vast portions of the planet are of far greater concern.
Over the weekend, twenty-one runners tackling a mountain ultramarathon in northwest China perished after freezing conditions hit the high-altitude race. Rescuers were only able to save 151 out of a total of 172 participants.
VIOLENT LATE-SPRING SNOWSTORM BLASTS SCOTLAND, BURIES THE HIGHER ELEVATIONS
May 25, 2021 Cap Allon
Scots are suffering a rare late-spring Arctic blast this week as an unusual chill continues to engulf the majority of the European continent.
GREENLAND JUST GAINED A RECORD-SMASHING AMOUNT OF SNOW AND ICE
May 26, 2021 Cap Allon
According to climate alarmists, Greenland should have melted into oblivion by now. Yet here we are, posting unprecedented GAINS:

NEW ZEALAND SUFFERS ALL-TIME RECORD COLD, AS GREENLAND SNOW & ICE GAINS HEAD OFF THE CHARTS [LITERALLY]
May 27, 2021 Cap Allon
Every key data point now indicates a cooling planet. How long will it be before the likes of the IPCC and their MSM lapdogs report on the facts?

Last edited 4 months ago by ALLAN MACRAE
Steve Oregon
May 27, 2021 6:59 am

Gleick is a poster child for the moving target lunatic left who will never acknowledge anything wrong they have ever embraced. They just move on to more of the same.

MarkW
May 27, 2021 7:53 am

In 2014 he ran a failed “red team/blue team” debate: science won.

Gleick is right that the science won. Which is why the moderators called the debate for Shellenbeerger’s team.

It really is amazing the kind of lies that people like Glieck think they can get away with.

Reply to  MarkW
May 27, 2021 7:37 pm

“Gleick is right that the science won. Which is why the moderators called the debate for Shellenberger’s team.”

Completely off the facts as usual. Firstly he is talking about a debate that Koonin ran. Schellenberger was not involved.

Koonin called the debate in his capacity as chair of an APS committee to update their statement on AGW. His view did not prevail, and he resigned his post. 
“Instead, the American Physical Society (APS) now states that climate change is a “critical issue that poses the risk of significant disruption around the globe.” “

Described here. Gleick was right.

Drew McMahon
May 27, 2021 8:09 am

I’m regular follower of this site and others that are generally skeptical of climate change alarmism. I’m a layman when it comes to the science and statistics, although in my career as a litigator I dealt with experts from many disciplines. This, or rather these disciplines are mind-bogglingly complex, at least to my mind. I can’t imagine trying to distill the issues in a way a judge or jury could understand.
I appreciate the pushback to the generally accepted science that appears here, and it seems to me I can get a good sense of that science and then get the rebuttal here. But pushback needs to go both ways, and as strongly argued as possible.
I, for one, appreciate the participation of Nick Stokes (or whoever he is). He is one of the very few willing to put up with constant attacks to provide counter arguments. Keep at it, Nick.
In this instance, with respect to the ad hominem argument, I’d say he has the better of it.

AJM

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Drew McMahon
May 27, 2021 10:02 am

AJM

Back in the ’70s, I used to subscribe to Geotimes. There was a Letters to the Editors section that I always read, which had an ongoing dialog between Creationists and secular scientists. When I read a letter from a man who was a Creationist, and a micropaleontologist who earned his living from examining cuttings from core drillings to find fossils to date the age of the core, I realized that there was no relationship between education and religious beliefs.

Nick Stokes is obviously a bright, well-educated man. However, he has a reputation of always providing a counter-argument to any ‘skeptical’ position. The problem is, those arguments are largely sophistry and the commenters here have grown tired of his predictable responses, apologizing for fraudulent research and disingenuous manipulation of facts. He has lost credibility with most. That is why he gets so many ‘down votes.’ He seems to be becoming less effective as being a useful gadfly because he does not demonstrate objectivity.

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 27, 2021 12:29 pm

I’m most definitely not a climate scientist and Nick Stokes wouldn’t know me from a hole in the wall, no reason that he should, but i have been following along here for a few years, and lately he seems to oppose just for the sake of opposing whether the argument makes sense or not.

Seems almost like a politician in that regard, oppose because that’s what is expected.

paul courtney
Reply to  Drew McMahon
May 27, 2021 11:05 am

Mr. McMahon: I also appreciate Mr. Stokes’ comments, but too often he picks a point that distracts from the substance, and rides it to avoid the substance. Here, the author does have some choice names to tag Gleick as a fraud, but he provides substance to back up the point (which Mr. Stokes avoids), that Gleick’s past demonstrates he is not qualified to review Koonin’s book, not even in 25 characters or less. Mr. Stokes perceives that Gleick calls Koonin names, and Shellenbarger calls Gleick names, and that’s the story for Stokes. No, he did not get the better of it, he distracted from it. Nothing about Koonin’s book, nothing about Glieck’s past, nothing about the substance of Shellenbarger’s attack on Glieck.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Drew McMahon
May 27, 2021 7:33 pm

Nick Stokes is obviously a bright, well-educated man. However, he has a reputation of always providing a counter-argument to any ‘skeptical’ position. The problem is, those arguments are largely sophistry and the commenters here have grown tired of his predictable responses, apologizing for fraudulent research and disingenuous manipulation of facts.

he seems to oppose just for the sake of opposing whether the argument makes sense or not.

too often he picks a point that distracts from the substance, and rides it to avoid the substance

I absolutely agree with the points made about Nick’s behaviour on this blog. He could do so much better by avoiding this and confronting the actual issues raised. He is obviously intelligent, and could contribute enormously, but is marginalising himself by resorting to irrelevant pedantic arguments.

Last edited 4 months ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
GregB
May 27, 2021 8:45 am

I’d prefer reason. Ad hominem is a bit shrill.

Pat from Kerbob
May 27, 2021 8:58 am

Boom
Love it

Bruce Cobb
May 27, 2021 11:47 am

Hitler was a nazi mass murderer. Oops! Ad hom.

JontheTechnologist
May 27, 2021 12:02 pm

Nick Stokes can you answer the questions:
JontheTechnologist says:
February 11, 2021 at 4:21 PM
I have never received an answer to these questions from any Climate Scare Alarmist: What should the earth’s perfect temperature be and has it ever been and for how long; and what should the correct level of CO2 be and do you believe like some that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant, and most important, if so, who amongst us should be forced to hold our breath to stop CO2 from getting into the atmosphere???(considering that we inhale 400ppm and exhale approximately 20,000ppm)
Last but not least, is there a published or otherwise empirical paper or experiment linking CO2 to the Earth’s temperature? I think
NOT.

Barry Malcolm
Reply to  JontheTechnologist
May 27, 2021 6:57 pm

Stop giving CPR, you’re poisoning him/her!

Lowell
May 27, 2021 1:14 pm

Science that works requires people that follow truth and have a libertarian view to science rather than the authoritarian view that the extreme left has. We cant talk about anything anymore. From pros and cons of the vaccine to nuances of both the dangers and benefits of the vaccine. The CDC is simply not smart enough to determine with simple rules if you should take the vaccine.

From my viewpoint the rise in temperature does not look catastrophic based on the predictions versus the actual rise. But if it does become catastrophic inter mitten renewables do not hack it. Using intermittent renewables is like playing Russian roullete with the power grid. There will be times where there is no power.

Pat Frank
May 27, 2021 9:58 pm

The reason @PeterGleick has to lie about honest scientists and journalists is because he has no case.

That’s why they all lie. They have no case.

Michael Mann composed a lie in 1998 because he had no case. Ben Santer composed a lie in 1995 because he had no case. Jim Hansen composed a lie in 1988 because he had no case.

The only real question is why all the scientific societies, especially the APS, rolled over and bought in.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Pat Frank
May 28, 2021 7:59 am

“The only real question is why all the scientific societies, especially the APS, rolled over and bought in.”

That is a good question. And it applies to more than just the scienfitic societies.

We are talking about mass delusion here. How was this brought about? I think I know, I’ve watched it develop for years.

If I had control of the Mainstream Media, I could make many people believe anything I wanted them to believe. Maybe many, many, millions of people. And then of course, the delusional climate alarmists reinforce the delusions of other climate alarmists.

Scientists will be studying this current era for a long time, trying to figure out how millions of human beings can be fooled all at the same time.

Mark - Helsinki
June 2, 2021 4:07 am

Irish “famine”

Ireland had over 10 other veg crops
vast amounts of fruit
animal stock aplenty

The English used their barracks and soldiers to cause an actual famine that had little to do with potatoes and fungi.

Purely, concern of shortages in England. So they stripped Ireland to the point where those at the bottom of the calorie intake scale, ended up with nothing to eat

Last edited 4 months ago by Mark - Helsinki
%d bloggers like this: