I asked a group of climate skeptics/deniers to answer the following, asking people to focus on what they believe and not how scientists are wrong:
• Do you believe that the climate is changing? How fast? °C/decade is an OK unit.
• If so, what are the causes of the climate change? (Natural is not an answer, please explain the exact natural process.)
• Is climate change serious yet? Is it likely to be this century?
• Which sources of information do you trust to find errors in your thinking?
I have received the following answers so far:
Scientists are lying, here is a tabloid author saying so. I don’t know if Earth is warming, but if so, the cause is natural. Scientists are speaking beyond their expertise. I don’t like the solutions. Earth could be cooling. The ocean is giving off carbon dioxide to the atmosphere right now, also warmth. Scientists lie, look at climategate. If you weren’t so fixated on your sources (I’ve identified my sources as major reports written by organizations like National Academy of Sciences), you would know more. The solutions are too expensive. This book, which I intend to read some day, explains where you are wrong. There are scientists on all side, eg, this statistician. Scientists don’t actually agree that 2010 is the hottest year on record. Scientists disagree on climate change. How do scientists know what is the optimum temperature (for what is unspecified)? How can you say that you know what is happening to the climate because no one knows, I certainly don’t. Scientists use consensus when they don’t have good data. Scientists who accept the consensus on the climate are closed minded. The solutions will destroy the economy.
So far none seem to understand that, with the exception of the person who somehow has the ocean releasing both heat and carbon dioxide, all have failed to clarify what they believe, and if they have reason to believe it. I originally asked the questions so that they could see whether they agree with one another, but so far, they are stuck on “scientists are wrong” and none of the rest of us know what they believe.
Climate skeptics/deniers, can you do better?
How many of them brought up Al Gore? I’m sure that some of them must have done that.
I am not a denier although, at one time I had some doubts. The data at this point are undeniable. Your respondents are correct, there is some difference of opinion. Only 98 percent of climatologists agree that climate change is occurring. That leave 2 percent for the deniers to cite. There are a number of things about which we should be concerned.
1. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html This graphic shows the increase in CO2 and traces it back for 800,000 years. The level is high and rapidly increasing. One of the major absorbers of CO2 is our ocean. However, this enters the carbonic acid cycle creating a balance of CO2, HCO3, and H+. As CO2 increases, the levels of H+ also increase and HCO3 is precipitated out in salts. The pH decreases. This creates a serious problem as coral atolls begin to die with decreased pH. The atolls serve as home for many species of ocean fish. The combination of habitat destruction plus overfishing has led to major threats to ocean fisheries capability of sustaining themselves. This poses a huge threat to one of the major sources of protein for human beings. No change in climate, just change in our ocean habitats.
2. Earth’s climate is warmer than a century ago. The cause may be any of a number of factors. However, studies of climate over thousands of years show that our climate is very susceptible to CO2 changes. If these studies are correct, our climate is headed for an increase on the order of several degrees. That isn’t very much is it? However, the change from essentially worldwide tropics to ice age was on the order of 5 degrees centigrade. I wonder how we as a species will do in that sort of climate?
3. Of course, we don’t need to worry about the climate as we are fairly rapidly destroying our environment in numerous areas of the world. Over forestation not only impacts on climate but also changes water run off from rainfall, water release into the atmosphere, soil preservation, and a host of other things. Yet, overforestation continues through unregulated foresting by companies not at all worried about where they will get lumber in 40 to 50 years. After all, the present leaders will all be dead by then. So
4. Potable water is increasingly short supplied in numerous areas of the world. Agriculture uses about 90 percent of that potable water. Yet, environmental edicts from government are mostly directed at people flushing toilets, watering lawns, washing cars, drinking water at restaurants, etc. What is needed is immediate attention to water conserving technologies in agriculture. Many are known and are available. What is needed is incentive to farmers to use them in the US and implementation through assistnace in third world farms.
5. I mentioned soil loss. For example, top soil in the US is down from being measured in feet to measured in inches. That soil is now in the rivers and ocean coastal areas. Our crop yields are still strong but that may not be true for more than another 20 to 30 years.
These and other issues are not really partisan issues although both parties seize upon them and engage in ad hominem attacks against each other. Rather than taking effective steps in a manner that would not be draconian, they subsidize poor technologies and burning of food crops (corn ethanol). Rather than partisan issues, we need to realize that our world environment is the garden in which we live and survive. It has huge capability to overcome abuse and deprivation. However, that capability is not infinite. Our children and grandchildren are quite likely to face need for finding how to survive in a far less hospitable environment.
“Only 98 percent of climatologists agree that climate change is occurring. That leave 2 percent for the deniers to cite.”
I think 100% of climatologists agree that climate change is occuring. The question – is the main reason for this change is human or not. And I haven’t seen any evidence that 98% of climatologists believe that all or most of climate change is caused by humans. None whatsoever. I am pretty sure you’ve read something which you misinterpreted this way – honest error for, I presume, not a technically and mathematically savvy person.
I have presented you with this data before: http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html#
Nah. Not really. Let’s compare:
What I said: “And I haven’t seen any evidence that 98% of climatologists believe that all or most of climate change is caused by humans. None whatsoever.”
What your article says: “A new poll among 3,146 earth scientists found that 90 percent believe global warming is real, while 82 percent agree that human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.”
And these are numbers based on a survey which was not done on a controlled group – but rather a self-selected group.
All in all, as I said, you misunderstood the results. Happens all the time.
Hyphenated American,
This really is a waste of time, but I will provide the urls on which I made my assertion:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/20/97-of-active-climatologists-ag/
http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html# (Makes clear that the 97 percent number is after abstracting out those who are employed by the petroleum industry)
Edward,
Again, you are misreading the numbers. According to the paper itself, they narrowed down the number of “climatologists” (and this was from a self-selected group of people who decided to answer the survey) to 77 (or 79 – for some reason the number was dropped by 2 for unexplained reason):
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Just look at this passage:
“In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals
in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.”
All in all, this “survey” is not scientific, it does not pass the laughing test. Somehow, the guys have narrowed the number of “active climatologists” to mere 79 from initial 3146. Okay, how representative is this number? Moreover, they’ve got 79 on the question if there is some warming, and only 77 on whether humans had considerably contributed to this warming. What happened to these 2 people? They are certainly “climatologists” according to the authors, and yet their views are strangely absent from the analysis. And most mportantly – are these 77 (or 79) self-selected climatologists representative of the actual view of climatologists?
Again, I don’t expect non-engineers to understand statistics and scientific methods, so don’t feel bad about this.
H-A, what evidence do you have that shows that the percentage of active climatologist who support the idea is less than 97%? Perhaps this survey doesn’t reflect reality, but what else could we take a look at then?
“I am pretty sure you’ve read something which you misinterpreted this way – honest error for, I presume, not a technically and mathematically savvy person.”
By golly, you caught me exactly in your cross hairs. I searched to see if I could find the piece I cited. My number is off. The survey of 3146 earth scientists found that ONLY 97 percent, not 98 percent believe human activities are “a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures”
What appears fairly clear is that Earth climate is changing and that change right now is toward a warmer climate. The major factors influencing our climate are ocean currents, heat input from the sun, reflection of heat by cloud cover, retention of infrared heat by various factors including greenhouse gases (without that effect, this would be a very cold environment in which to attempt survival). There are also intermittent factors such as particulate debris in the atmosphere from volcanic activity. For example, there is some evidence that paleolithic humans came very close to extinction after a “super” volcanic event that occured something like 800,000 years ago and was about 100 times as large as any in the past 2 or 3 thousand years. The severe subsequent global cooling had huge impact on life on the planet and h sapiens may have dropped to a few thousand mating pairs. The Pinatubo eruption in 1991 led to about 1/2 degree centigrade global cooling lasting about two years.
Back to human impacts on global climate. Human contribution to climate comes from several sources. These include various greenhouse gases that absorb warming infrared radiation thus tending to exacerbate warming. Also the release of particulate debris tends to potentiate cooling by reflecting sun light. While a significant number of scientists appear to believe that our contributions of CO2 are a significant factor in our climate, it is certainly possible that they are wrong and that the climate is affected entirely and only by the ocean currents, sun effects, and other natural phenomena. However the CO2 and particulate debris remain as pollutants with other adverse effects that increasingly impact on our environment. We can choose to leave a cesspool for our following generations or we can take action to stop dumping our pollutants into the world they will inherit.
You said: “The survey of 3146 earth scientists found that ONLY 97 percent, not 98 percent believe human activities are “a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures”
The actual quote from the original article: “A new poll among 3,146 earth scientists found that 90 percent believe global warming is real, while 82 percent agree that human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.”
Moreover, this was a self-selected group, because the poll was sent to “10,200 scientists listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute’s Directory of Geoscience Departments”. Whether these 3,146 are representative of 10,200 scientists was not disclosed. All in all:
1. It’s not 98%, at best it’s 82%
2. Even this number is suspect due to self-selection.
Hyphenated,
You apparently do not expect non engineers to understand higher mathematics. I don’t especially expect engineers to comprehend much of anything but only respond to insults with an insult after at least two such comments. I gave you three.
If you really want to continue the discussion, let’s return to climate change and related environmental pollutants. If you prefer to exchange insults, find another foil, I am not interested.
Ed, I did not insult you. I apologize if you feel offended. My point was simple – the so-called “poll” was unscientific. There are plenty of things that as an engineer I needed to study, and statistics was one of them. It is true that a lot of lay people take the stuff they read in the newspaper for granted, without any attempt to critically assess what they are reading because they were not trained to do so. I was not trying to insult you. For example, I am not trained to understand quantum mechanics – I knows some basic stuff, but a person who is a physics major should know much more than me. It’s not an insult if a physics major tells that I was not trained to handle quantum mechanics and the math associated with it. Again, if you feel offended, I apologize, but I did not mean to insult you – I was simply telling you the harsh reality as I understand it.
Hyphenated,
I am not interested in comparing credentials nor the number of statistics courses we have each taken. This particular series of comments began based on how many climate scientists believe or disbelieve in AGW. It really does not matter how many believe or disbelieve. What matters is that our continued flooding of the atmosphere and the environment with pollutants is taking a toll. Added to this is a global warming trend that is probably due to natural events in great part. However, we know that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and that the CO2 content in the atmosphere is increasing. It would appear very likely that human actions are at least adding to that warming trend.
This post, challenging apostates to justify their apostasy, is science-free.
When the climatology of global warming degenerated in the public realm from science into nothing more than competing litmus-tests of ideological obedience, the function it performs now, I dropped it as an interest. Thus I remain neither skeptic nor denier; the subject as it currently deploys itself simply no longer attracts my interest. Life is too short to waste time on such things.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
HM, While I can see your point, I am concerned that continued ignoring of the impact of rapidly increasing CO2 in our environment posed a catastrophic future. Here is a piece on ocean acidification http://www.ocean-acidification.net/FAQacidity.html . Completely ignoring climate, ocean pH approaching 7.5 or less would be catastrophic for ocean life. Given that somewhere between 20 and 35 percent of human protein comes from the ocean, this should scare the hell out of even those who are not concerned about temperature of the climate.
My good Edward,
But ocean acidification is an entirely different and separable phenomenon from (purported A)GW, is it not, with entirely different and separable outcomes. At least, scientifically.
Oddly, though, we hear no one, absolutely no one, discussing such distinctions. There is no one left with any scientific interest in doing so.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
Yes, HM. They are different phenomena. But not so separate as both have as the root cause, increased CO2. Here is an article discussing both and what is happening. Many of the oceanography articles are very difficult reads. This one is rather simple. Also, this one talks of “acidification” which is a rather loose term. Ocean pH is mildly alkaline. However, very small lowering of that pH (still alkaline but less so) leads to major changes not the least of which is inability of shell fish to lay down calcium carbonate.
Forgot the url http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2008-05/ocean-ph-and-fate-food-chain
Yes, HM. They are different phenomena. But not so separate as both have as the root cause, increased CO2.
My good Edward,
Thank you for your patient tutelage.
Let me then elaborate my point, which is apparently not obvious. New data, such as Zunli Lu’s Syracuse study of ikaite crystalization, is popping up every day, changing the baseline understanding of just how A, and manageably A, ‘A’GW actually is. However, this fragile, ever changing wavefront of actual scientific data (as opposed to extrapolative computer modeling) has been completely consumed and hijacked by purely ideological interests interested only in centrifuging “us” from “them” to wholly tribal ends.
Ocean acidification, on the other hand, which presents far more direct scientific evidence of immediate CO2 damage and which actually may present far greater risks to mankind from fisheries collapse, is the plain fourth cousin, twice removed, which, however, will persist as a phenomenon independently of, even if AGW proves ultimately to be a negligible component of GW overall
So, for the time being, AGW is enjoying the herd-driven scientific consensus that consistently marks the history of all science as it lurches episodically from one consensus to another, those actual scientific endeavors on the margins of the intra-scientific political consenses ultimately prompting and changing, like spirited Shetland sheep dogs, the constituency and direction of the latest consensus-herd.
But these days things are worse than the annoying non-scientific progress of science Kuhn long ago documented. These days any actual science itself has become completely volatilized into ideological nitrous oxide: NPR and other progressive outlets consistently salt uncritical, matter-of-fact references to global warming into every dish they serve, as if they were referring to gravitational acceleration; right wing outlets do the opposite, extrapolating Lu’s paper beyond its immediate findings – which if ever actually mentioned in the progressive ideological media would be profound enough.
So the whole scientific climatological enterprise is now perfectly set up and perfectly poised for a boy-who-cries-wolf moment of reversal, and it is entirely possible (remember, we are at least pretending to speak of science, where the future is not politically pre-ordained) that CO2-stimulated AGW could be conclusively and overwhelmingly proved to be a negligible component of overall, primarily naturally driven GW, a naturally driven GW we can only marginally influence at best.
So the progressives, who have placed all of their self-serving ideological chips on AGW will be “exposed” as lying alarmist boys who have cried wolf all these years, and the Zeitgeist will belly roll through 180 degrees and reject, repudiate, and disown the self-power-serving ideology of CO2-driven AGW and the science which brought this prom-queen-now-revealed-as-whore to the ball.
Meanwhile, CO2-driven ocean acidification and its consequences will remain as an independent phenomenon, but now completely impossible for the popular herd mind to take seriously, either as science or as politics.
So I no longer care. I am of an age where neither will affect me and mine in our lifetimes, and while ecological troubles may or may not in fact visit themselves upon future generations, one of the tonic benefits if they do is the virtual certainly that such consequences will more swiftly and crisply separate the intelligent human stock from the herdable morons who once allowed their scientific reason to become catamites of ideological comfort.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
“Zunli Lu:
“It is unfortunate that my research, “An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula,” recently published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, has been misrepresented by a number of media outlets.
Several of these media articles assert that our study claims the entire Earth heated up during medieval times without human CO2 emissions. We clearly state in our paper that we studied one site at the Antarctic Peninsula. The results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditions across the entire globe. Other statements, such as the study “throws doubt on orthodoxies around global warming,” completely misrepresent our conclusions. Our study does not question the well-established anthropogenic warming trend.”
Steve
My good Steve,
Thank you for elaborating on the source of my reference above,
at least to the extent that your posting the source quote suggestively and then doing nothing else constitutes an elaboration. If we used “Likes” in Alexandria, your effort would likely garner several.
Here is a link to your previously unlinked quote:
http://asnews.syr.edu/newsevents_2012/releases/ikaite_crystals_climate_STATEMENT.html
On the other hand, what Lu’s research does offer, if short of establishing a global Medieval Warming Period, is an empirical rupture in the previously established ‘scientific conclusion’ that the MWP had been confined solely to Europe. If one such site has now been discovered so far from Europe, others might be also in the future. Or they may not be. Or interests in doing such looking may find themselves frustratingly without funding. Or enthusiastically funded. It will all depend to what extent a continuing interest in attempting to falsify existing scientific hypotheses in order to present newer, more accurate ones remains in fashion in climatological science.
You do understand that what Lu feels about his empirical data
is utterly irrelevant to any scientific evaluation of the empirical data itself. But I can understand how it might be exclusively relevant to many.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
The question “Is the climate changing?” is rather silly. Of course, it’s changing. It always has and always will. The question of human impact on the climate is significant as the greater our impact, the greater the possibility that we’re throwing the Earth’s ecology out of balance.
Edward makes some excellent points. Few people seem to realize the critical shortage of potable water the world faces, even in the U.S. Many of the western states face great shortages. The mighty Colorado River virtually runs dry by the time it reaches the ocean, mostly due to agricultural use.
I think Edward is referring to deforestation. The U.S. has more forest now but many of the world’s rain forests are in distress.
The problem is mostly too many humans.
Yes, deforestation is, perhaps, the tipping point of societal collapses in sites such as Easter Island, Rwanda, Haiti, the Mayan civilization, and a number of other places (see Diamond’s book, Collapse). But there is a lot more going on. Our population worldwide is very large and still growing, albeit at a slower rate than in the past. However, a large percentage of that population exists at near starvation level. To provide sufficient food for them to improve even to fair subsistance would require increase in the food chain of 80 to 100 percent. The facts of current agriculture science do not allow for that amount of increase even temporarily. And, many of the present productive areas are severely stressed due to soil erosion, soil salination (increased salt from irrigation), loss of water for irrigation, and other factors. The forests are often the first “domino” to fall. After that comes erosion, loss of indigenous (food) animal species, climate change (usually drought), and death of a society.
“However, a large percentage of that population exists at near starvation level. To provide sufficient food for them to improve even to fair subsistance would require increase in the food chain of 80 to 100 percent. The facts of current agriculture science do not allow for that amount of increase even temporarily.”
1.There is no reason why African farmers cannot be as efficient as European and American farmers.
2.European and American farmers are paid to grow less food.
All in all, your claims are not supported by evidence.
We humans have always had ingenious solutions to that problem. Okay, here is the big question? What do we do besides CO2 belt-tightening? How much tinkering with the environment do we dare do? See rabbits in Australia, kudzu, etc.
My good Kim,
We are nothing if not industrious little beavers: Google “cloud seeding to combat global warming”. What could possibly go wrong with such a well-meaning urge.
In the meantime, my environmental concerns remain confined to putting a round through the skull of the armadillo currently raiding my green spaces.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
ATRORM, I don’t CARE if the obvious current changes in climate are anthropogenic. What matters is what, if anything, people can do to mitigate their bad effects. And also, of course, whether humans can live with the kind of climate we may be evolving toward. Undoubtedly, earth’s climate has been a lot colder at various times, and a lot hotter at various other times. The worst of those times were all before humans started to inhabit the planet, but the fact that they would probably have been incompatible with human life had there been any is still pretty significant. It would be nice if we could stop arguing theology and get on with the practical issues.
” The worst of those times were all before humans started to inhabit the planet, but the fact that they would probably have been incompatible with human life had there been any is still pretty significant.”
Can you pin-point the times when the climate was hotter than now and yet incompatible with human life?
And yes, this is not theology, this is scientific question.
Go away for a few hours and there are a zillion responses. I may not get every skeptic/denier, but I’ll try. Thanks to ALL who posted.
I really am interested in hearing skeptics/deniers articulate what they believe is occurring. HA says climate change is occurring, but doesn’t offer reasons, anthropogenic or natural. Instead, there is an argument about numbers. Consensus is more than about numbers—I’ve seen ideas accepted by (it seems to me) pretty much everyone in the field, but these don’t necessarily make it past the next layer of peer review because there are too many unknowns. One example is biodiversity loss predictions for this century—I began reading about them in the 1990s, but it was only in the last 2 or 3 years I began seeing any estimates in the major reports, that is, that some of these numbers were now part of scientific consensus. To answer your question about hotter times incompatible with human life, my understanding is that no one expects the human species to go extinct, but many will be very unhappy. We did not evolve in the time of the dinosaurs, and that Earth would be harder for us to live on. Additionally, we have infrastructure that is susceptible to fairly minor changes in climate.
H. M. says that the beliefs are ideological, but does not state his own belief. Is the climate warming? If so, what are the main causes? Etc. I will post a short answer elsewhere, but this post wasn’t intended to state my beliefs so much as to hear you articulate yours.
DADvocate says the climate is changing, but doesn’t say why. Wired Sisters wants to find solutions even if we don’t know the causes, which can work, but is more ineffective generally than finding solutions after we know the causes.
So far, I haven’t heard any skeptic/denier or neither (H. M.’s category) explain clearly what they believe, except for the person who believes the ocean is warming the atmosphere.
DADvocate says the climate is changing, but doesn’t say why.
Because I don’t know why. As I said, the climate is changing. The climate has always been in a state of flux and change, even before humans existed. A multitude of causes are possible. Some possible causes we may not be aware of.
One thing is certain, global cooling would be much more disastrous than global warming.
H. M. says that the beliefs are ideological
My good Karen,
You have truncated quite a bit into this sentence, little of it accurately. This may be why others, as I am, may be leery of responding to someone who appears to be, whether mendaciously or merely obtusely, a reflexive manipulator, beginning with your challenge to “skeptics/deniers” to justify their relative distances from your assumed truths. What you offered was little different from querying “skeptics/deniers” to explain their respective reticences to embrace the Risen Christ, or the Lord Ganesh, or any other assumed faith not in immediate evidence in the inquiry.
The only honest way for you to proceed here is to explain in full and exhaustive scientific detail, utilizing first-order data, why you believe what you believe about what, and then ask others why, if they do not agree with your offering, why they do not. The burden is not on your respondents to explain whether or why they do or do not agree with the tacitly assumed bases of your post not in evidence – and neither are they required even to take up an interest in the subject of your query – the burden is upon you to first justify those bases.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
Actually, H. M., it is my sense that people who spend any time writing or telling people that they doubt/deny scientific consensus on climate change or any other subject would do better with a clear idea of what it is they do believe. That’s why I didn’t begin with what the scientific mainstream believes, as it devolves almost immediately into, “You’re wrong.”
My good Karen,
Well, best of luck leading others to what you sense they would do better doing. This post is a start.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
Belief by consensus is a logical fallacy.
An easy example of this is the cause of stomach ulcers. John Lykoudis of Greece recognized that antibiotics successfully treated ulcers in 1958. But, the scientific consensus was that stress, diet and other factors caused ulcers, not bacteria. Lykoudis was considered a kook for decades. In 1994 the National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference (there’s that word again), concluded he was right.
A logical fallacy? It can be wrong. In some fields of science, consensus might be used less rigorously, eg, what scientists generally believe, rather than what scientists generally believe after test attempting to contradict an idea fail.
Science will have a lot of mistakes, and this is a big one. My experience, though, is that those who skip the whole peer review process are almost always mistaken. What is your experience?
The discord ISN’T over AG, nor even man’s role in it, regardless of how large or small. . .the real issue is what strategies are best.
Clearly ALL innovation comes from the private sector, so IDEALLY governments would rightfully follow that lead.
One problem facing us is that there is simply NO available substitute for fossil fuels (gasoline & diesel). There is no other fuel source that is so easily stored, transported and contained. Moreover, most “alternatives” use a LOT of hydrocarbons in their production, whether it’s the plastics used to house batteries and “fuel cells,” or the energy/fuels needed to transport alternative energy sources from one place to another.
The most realistic of the current “alternative fuels” in development is algae fuels (http://www.algae-to-energy.com/) but that isn’t ready for complete oil/gas replacement yet and, whether it’s an alternative fuel (like algae-based fuels or bio-diesel) or fuel cells, there are still major issues. Moreover, all replacement fuels still function within internal combustion engine and as such, give off emissions from vehicles that STILL require tons of oil being used. The amount of oil used in the making of tires and plastics is still very significant. . .and fuel cells actually give off water vapor which remains the primary and most abundant greenhouse gas in the earth’s atmosphere.
Here’s the real dilemma, it’s NOT really energy use, but people that’s the issue here.
Automation has been making cheap human labor more and more obsolete for decades. The pace of automation has only increased and so, even fewer people are necessary today then even just a few decades ago. . .BUT people, ESPECIALLY poor people in under-developed countries keep adding more surplus to the people supply.
Back in 1974, many were warning of a projected 10 BILLION people on earth within 25 years (before 2000) and using the existing data at the time, they’d have been right. . .IF population growth had remained stable.
Those projections have been made wrong by projects like ZPG and others that have targeted the poor in 3rd World nations for birth control etc.
BUT that is hardly enough.
Ultimately, it really doesn’t matter whether the earth can sustain a surplus of humans OR whether the Corporatist state just feels that it’s unnecessary to do so. . .right? The end result will be the same.
In the 1970s ALL of the world’s developed nations were already firmly Corporatist, but they weren’t united in common cause. At that time, it seemed that the differences between Europe, Japan and America alone might doom any real concerted efforts for a relatively long while to come.
That’s not true any more, as the recent unification of the Rothschild’s and Rockefeller’s made clear (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/efe93494-a9a3-11e1-a6a7-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=crm/email/2012529/nbe/ExclusiveComment/product#axzz1wxfEvzMp).
In 1974, when so many were predicting 10 Billion people before 2000, I said even back then, that by 2050 or so, I could easily see a globe with somewhere around 1 Billion people. . .because that’s all that would be needed by then to maintain an effective and prosperous economy. It’s only logical that those with the greatest advantage will ultimately press that advantage. Those that see excess labor as merely “surplus supply” will eventually look to eliminate that “surplus supply.”
Corporatism is a natural partnership. Both need each other. Corporations produce the products and generate commerce, while governments control the populace.
The most brilliant, if not the first, Corporatist manipulation of the people was Dow Chemical’s employing (funding) much of the environmental movement to create “the hole in the ozone” campaign in order to replace traditional refrigerants with their much more expensive (and profitable) “CFC-Free refrigerants.” Dow spent millions to make BILLIONS!
Exxon-Mobil, BP, Chevron and the other Big Energy conglomerates have subsequently used the same technique to get the people to lobby against further oil drilling- thereby creating an artificial shortage and increasing profits for Big Energy. Anyone can read about the Corporate manipulation of people and government in The Big Ripoff (http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Ripoff-Business-Government/dp/0471789070/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1339175864&sr=8-1)
So, ultimately the problem, as seen by Corporatist governments, ISN’T really an energy shortage, but an excess of people.
How would such a reduction in people take place?
There are many possible scenarios, but one would work off of “an energy crisis.” The most vulnerable populations (those living at subsistence levels in Asia, the Mideast, sub-Saharan Africa would see populations devastated very quickly as food and other aid stuffs is cut off, as the rest of the world retrenches. You could easily see 2 or 3 BILLION humans perish in such an onslaught.
The most difficult “cuts” would come in the developed world. Are teachers, cops and firefighters and other such workers actually needed in this new world? A world in which every student can get the very best lectures in math, science, history, etc., streamed on their computers and other devices, where crime and fire are things of the past, in such a society all of those currently employed in the huge business of processing and grinding up their fellow humans (court and corrections officers, judges, etc) would all be expendable.
The frightening thing is that this process wouldn’t have to take all that long. . .maybe less than 25 years if engineered right. What’s more, if packaged and marketed right (the way CFC-Free refrigerants and oil drilling limits were) the people could actually be induced to foist this on themselves! The fact that so many “rational” people are calling for “action” on global warming without any real knowledge about which strategies are best, seems to indicate that such an extreme crisis could very easily be manipulated.