Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?

[RickBradford]

The formation of a different scientific consensus is however.

Very concise, but hardly articulate.

Lot's of interesting dissent too - as there is within any scientific consensus.

Leaving aside the question of who Lot might be, it is the hallmark of the Green/Left that they try to stifle any "interesting dissent" with the continual refrain of "The science is settled; the debate is over."

Luckily, nobody who counts is listening to them (see: Peru, 20th Failed UN Climate Conference), and the remaining few eco-zealots, like those bewildered Japanese soldiers emerging from the jungle to be told they had lost WW2, are moving on to other matters.

By the way, if you think relativity is "wacky", it should be remembered that the global GPS network simply wouldn't work if relativity were not taken into account. Also, there are relativistic connections in semiconductor physics; that is, in all computers.

[boomerangutang]

I think you'll find that the 'scientific consensus' is confined to those scientists for whom the 'climate change crisis' pays the mortgage, and handsomely. It's a gravy train, and a very profitable one for those who continue to promote it.

Lots of folks trying to make a living and support their families. If you want to talk about which jobs don't contribute much at all to betterment of life for people in general, ....then that's most jobs. Careers in science usually don't generate much revenue comparatively. There are more than a few scientists who, because they couldn't get a 'finding published' - wound up leaving science for something with better prospects, like a little taco & burrito carry-out food place. I can't speak for all scientists engaged in the climate sciences, but I've been hearing about some who are doing some very interesting and innovative work. I could endeavor to make a list, but am weary of typing.

[canuckamuck]

Wilco, Boomer, and Neurath.

Post #984 contains a youtube link to a very excellent documentary produced by British Channel 4. Featuring only famous scientists, leaders in their fields, that discuss C02 and climate change in depth without any emotional hyperbole. These people dispute what you say and they are experts in climate and climate related fields.

I dare you to watch it. Especially you Wilco, I am sure you will be amazed at their lack of critical thinking.

If you do please give us a review.

[RickBradford]

I could endeavor to make a list, but am weary of typing.

I guess all that rock climbing does the fingers in somewhat.

I'll take up the slack.

Here's a cut-down list of people doing interesting and innovative work on climate, that goes beyond saying "The-science-is-settled-the-debate-is-over-we-must-take-action-now-to-stop-fossil-fuels."

Demetris Koutsoyiannis

Habibullo Abdussamatov

John Christy

Bob Tisdale

Nir Shaviv

Bob Carter

Tim Patterson

Ivar Giaever

Chris de Freitas

David Legates

Ian Plimer

Murry Salby

Nicola Scafetta

Sallie Baliunas

Fritz Vahrenholt

Tim Ball

Bob Carter

Ian Clark

David Douglass

Anthony Lupo

Tad Murty

Tom Segalstad

Fred Singer

Willie Soon

Roy Spencer

Henrik Svensmark

Jan Veizer

Claude Allègre

Petr Chylek

David Deming

Keith Idso

Craig Idso

Antonino Zichichi

Patrick Michaels

Of course, Naomi Klein would regard all of these people as racists and white supremacists, but that's the price you pay for opposing the Green/Left agenda.

[nisakiman]

If Wilco et al find the prospect of watching the full length global warming swindle programme a bit daunting, here's a link to a short clip (just over two minutes, so not taxing) of an interview with Dr. Peter Rost, former vice president of Pfizer.

As I said in my last post, the parallels between current medical 'lifestyle' research and AGW research are inescapable. Dr. Rost explains how research results are influenced (read 'fixed') to supply the results that those funding the research want, regardless of the facts. It puts the phrase 'experts have said...' in a whole new light when you consider that those funding climate research are all commited believers and/or have vested interests in global warming, and likewise that all funding for alcohol and tobacco research comes from rabidly anti-alcohol and anti-tobacco organisations (ideologues), who are in turn funded by the pharmaceutical industry (vested interests).

[Neurath]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The formation of a different scientific consensus is however.

Very concise, but hardly articulate.

Lot's of interesting dissent too - as there is within any scientific consensus.

Leaving aside the question of who Lot might be, it is the hallmark of the Green/Left that they try to stifle any "interesting dissent" with the continual refrain of "The science is settled; the debate is over."

Luckily, nobody who counts is listening to them (see: Peru, 20th Failed UN Climate Conference), and the remaining few eco-zealots, like those bewildered Japanese soldiers emerging from the jungle to be told they had lost WW2, are moving on to other matters.

By the way, if you think relativity is "wacky", it should be remembered that the global GPS network simply wouldn't work if relativity were not taken into account. Also, there are relativistic connections in semiconductor physics; that is, in all computers.

I have no doubt that relativistic physics is well grounded empirically and theoretically. It is your history dear boy, your history, that is wacky.

"Many of the greatest scientific discoveries have been made in the face of sustained hostility from the "consensus".

In the mid-1930s, a pamphlet called "100 Authors Against Einstein" dismissed as absurd the Theory of Relativity on which we now depend for so many things".

There was no sustained hostility from a "consensus" toward Einstein's Special or General theory of relativity and by the mid 1930's both the General and Special theories of relativity were accepted scientific consensus. They are the consensus position now - lot's of dissent within that consensus though.

The "100 Authors" you mention are the equivalent of today's ....... well there you go. Work it out: They were a laughing stock in the 30's and a laughing stock now.

So to make it clear - these 100 Authors do not constitute, as you seem to think they do, a consensus against which Einstein had to prevail. Why would such an erroneous account be put forward? Well.....

It's hysterically funny watching folks equate themselves with Galileo and Einstein and in so doing do as much violence to the history of science as their credulity does to science itself. Any port in a storm I suppose.

Happy to provide the 'articulate' part you missed - ah, edited out - so you can savor the words. You're welcome

Of course consensuses resolve and dissolve in the normal course of science, but that in itself is no argument against the truth of a current consensus position. The formation of a different scientific consensus is however. Seems there's pretty much a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. Lot's of interesting dissent too - as there is within any scientific consensus.

All joking aside - did you really think that I was suggesting the untruth of the special and general theories of relativity? Seriously, did you?

[RickBradford]

Of course consensuses resolve and dissolve in the normal course of science, but that in itself is no argument against the truth of a current consensus position. The formation of a different scientific consensus is however. Seems there's pretty much a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. Lot's of interesting dissent too - as there is within any scientific consensus.

If you think that paragraph is articulate, then you must have very low standards, especially in the grammar and spelling departments. I might "savor" it, but only because it is unintentionally funny.

The pamphlet "100 Authors Against Einstein" was published in 1931, that is, 26 years after Einstein had proposed the Special Theory. His theory was described as "an accumulation of naive errors" and a return to 16th and 17th century ideas. His critics included some very influential and well-known scientists.

The point is, to make it clear to the meanest intelligence, that a consensus about a scientific point of view does not by itself make that point of view more likely to be true.

As Einstein himself wrote regarding the 100 Authors: "If I were wrong, then one would have been enough."

Commenting on the matter, Hubert Goenner described the attacks on Einstein's theory as a mixture of mathematical–physical incompetence, hubris, and the feelings of the critics of being suppressed. Rather like modern-day climate science, in fact.

And don't call me "dear boy". People might think we were acquainted.

[Neurath]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Of course consensuses resolve and dissolve in the normal course of science, but that in itself is no argument against the truth of a current consensus position. The formation of a different scientific consensus is however. Seems there's pretty much a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. Lot's of interesting dissent too - as there is within any scientific consensus.

If you think that paragraph is articulate, then you must have very low standards, especially in the grammar and spelling departments. I might "savor" it, but only because it is unintentionally funny.

The pamphlet "100 Authors Against Einstein" was published in 1931, that is, 26 years after Einstein had proposed the Special Theory. His theory was described as "an accumulation of naive errors" and a return to 16th and 17th century ideas. His critics included some very influential and well-known scientists.

The point is, to make it clear to the meanest intelligence, that a consensus about a scientific point of view does not by itself make that point of view more likely to be true.

As Einstein himself wrote regarding the 100 Authors: "If I were wrong, then one would have been enough."

Commenting on the matter, Hubert Goenner described the attacks on Einstein's theory as a mixture of mathematical–physical incompetence, hubris, and the feelings of the critics of being suppressed. Rather like modern-day climate science, in fact.

And don't call me "dear boy". People might think we were acquainted.

You've not even been able to copy/plagiarize from Wikipedia accurately hombre.

Here's the address http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity from which you copied your notes and here's the actual quotation - one that you have mangled by misunderstanding that to which it refers. No wonder your history is wacky:

"For example, Hans Reichenbach described the book as an "accumulation of naive errors", and as "unintentionally funny". Albert von Brunn interpreted the book as a backward step to the 16th and 17th century, and Einstein is reported to have said, in response to the book, that, if he were wrong, one author alone would have been sufficient to refute him:^[1]"

So you see, it wasn’t Einstein’s theory that was described as an “accumulation of naïve” errors and nor was it Einstein’s theory being called a step back to the 16^th and 17^th Centrury. No, it was the book “100 Authors Against Einstein” that was being so described. The rest of what you have above is similarly mangled, but I will leave it to the readers to easily checked your mangled paraphrase with what is actually said. It's very poor research and reading here I’m afraid. I do hope this isn’t systemic with you?

Look, just give up on the idea that Einstein was battling against an entrenched consensus in 1930. He wasn’t. Those collected in 100 Authors Against Einstein were battling against a consensus - one that just happens to be correct and true to the best of our knowledge.

You even cribbed the term “unintentionally funny” from the Richenbach quote above also hence saving the trouble of thinking up something for yourself – so good on you J

[cooked]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

There are still a plurality of scientists and millions of people who believe,

Which is no indicator that what they believe is true. In Nazi Germany, millions of people and lots of scientists believed in the master race theory- were they correct?????

Well, actually, it is an indicator (the plurality of scientists that is). It's not a guarantee, but it's certainly an indicator of truth (however defined). If it wasn't an indicator there simply would be no such thing as science or the sciences - not just with regard to climate science, but with regard to any and all areas of scientific activity. Short of having a god's eye view of things - something I understand some people have, or at least think they have - consensus within a relevant scientific discipline is the best indicator of where truth or approximately truth might be. After all, what are the alternatives - drunk uncle McDermott's lunatic ramblings? Of course consensuses resolve and dissolve in the normal course of science, but that in itself is no argument against the truth of a current consensus position. The formation of a different scientific consensus is however. Seems there's pretty much a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. Lot's of interesting dissent too - as there is within any scientific consensus.

The greatest contribution to global warming? The gigatons of bilious hot air being generated by the misinformed 'debate' about it.

I think you'll find that the 'scientific consensus' is confined to those scientists for whom the 'climate change crisis' pays the mortgage, and hansomely.

It's a gravy train, and a very profitable one for those who continue to promote it. The scientists who disagree with the whole concept of AGW are swiftly marginalised and de-funded before they can rock the boat. They end up disagreeing from the sidelines, ignored by the MSM and unheard by the gullible politicians whose ears are being bent by the Grima Wormtongues from the AGW sect. There's far too much money at stake to allow any serious dissent to be heard.

It's almost exactly the same modus operandum as deployed by 'Public Health' in their pursuit of their neo-puritan ideology.

And the end result is the same; a gradual, salami-slice reduction in your liberties, giving those who rule over you ever more control of your day-to-day life and lifestyle. Your choices are being limited more and more, all in the name of 'AGW' and 'Public Health'. And the rallying cry of both is: "Think of the cheeldren!"

Lying, blackmailing charlatans, all. The sooner they are consigned to the dustbin of history, the better it will be for everyone.

Anybody that could prove that climate change was not caused by humans would be paid handsomely by the energy sector. I am sure that they are beavering away now, trying to disprove what 99% of scientists have accepted.

[boomerangutang]

Anybody that could prove that climate change was not caused by humans would be paid handsomely by the energy sector. I am sure that they are beavering away now, trying to disprove what 99% of scientists have accepted.

Right. I just heard on NPR how lobbyists the US's coal industry are getting v. active. I'm not 100% against coal, but the point is, there is big money behind the scenes. Big Oil are probably the biggest spenders, in trying to discount GW.

I also saw video of a group of Canadians who went camping/trekking way up north. They interviewed some Native Americans up there who backed up what the reasonable posters on here already know: Things are warming up considerably - in the Arctic region particularly. There are so many proofs of that happening, that it's a daunting task to list them all. However, if some folks are fixated about not wanting proofs (of GW) then they won't see or hear any.

[RickBradford]

Things are warming up considerably - in the Arctic region particularly. There are so many proofs of that happening, that it's a daunting task to list them all. However, if some folks are fixated about not wanting proofs (of GW) then they won't see or hear any.

(sigh) And for the umpteenth time; the debate is not about whether temperatures are going up or down in certain parts of the world, but what is the primary cause of that. Is it natural, or is it to some extent human-caused?

It is the attempt to blame CO2 emissions, and hence humanity, or the Western world, anyway, or even just the evil capitalists, which drives the entire activity around climate.

This is why Naomi Klein feels she can call people who disagree with the UN position on climate "racists and white supremacists". She would hardly say that if she believed that warming was natural, now, would she?

The attempt to blame CO2 and find ways to suppress it, is also why 11,185 people have just spent a week in Lima, Peru, parading their self-importance and bickering about unenforceable international treaties.

All these stakeholders, including those important participants from the Buddhist Tzu Chi Foundation, the World Association of Girl Guides, the Solar Energy Industries Association, the Maryknoll Sisters of Dominic, the Bianca Jagger Human Rights Foundation, and Women in Europe for a Common Future, would hardly be traveling such a long way to discuss a natural warming of the planet, would they?

Temperatures are just marks on a thermometer; it doesn't require 'proof'. It's the attribution of causes to any change in temperature that is the issue.

[boomerangutang]

Wait a cottonpickenminute. I seem to recall deniers repeatedly saying there has been no significant warming in recent years. Now, when proofs come forth on warming, they claim that's not the issue, and switch to focus on something else. The warming trend is partly to do with large-scale burning of fossil fuels by humans. Of course other factors affect weather and warming, such as solar activity, volcanoes, etc. Increases in human-caused CO2 are significant, but more so, in relation to 'greenhouse effect' are methane releases, and how those releases will increase dramatically if ww temps rise an added 2 to 4 degrees on average. Then it might be tropical beaches in Finland and fried-eggs on sidewalks in Italy. Seriously though, the desperate migrations of people we read about now (including the large abandoned ship full of Syrians which almost crashed into Southern Italy, yesterday) will pale in comparison to even greater human misery in near future.

Personally, I care as much for nature as for humans. So even if half the ww cities at sea level get permanently flooded in 25 years, it won't be the ultimate tragedy. Unchecked population explosions, of any species who outgrow a finite space, will have to be checked at some juncture, and it's always painful. Read up on the history of Rapanui (Easter Island) for a microcosm of what's happening on this planet now, and will only exacerbate in the near future.

[canuckamuck]

It hasn't warmed in recent years, but it is warmer than 50 years ago. So you see continued evidence of a warmer climate but that is not evidence of increased warming in the last two decades.

[canman]

How the science was 'settled'

At the United Nations Environmental Program's (UNEP's) 1980 conference in Villach, Austria, government scientists from around the world refused to sign the UN's claim of global warming due to human production of CO₂ stating 'no evidence'

For it's next conference in 1985, the UN learned its lesson: it selected delegates who signed its claim, despite no evidence. The conference produced a report reportedly written mostly by one man, Bert Bolin. He was prominent in the UN Environmental Program's corrupted climate campaign.

http://www.galileomovement.com.au/scientific_untruths.php#D

[thaibeachlovers]

Anybody that could prove that climate change was not caused by humans would be paid handsomely by the energy sector. I am sure that they are beavering away now, trying to disprove what 99% of scientists have accepted.

Right. I just heard on NPR how lobbyists the US's coal industry are getting v. active. I'm not 100% against coal, but the point is, there is big money behind the scenes. Big Oil are probably the biggest spenders, in trying to discount GW.

I also saw video of a group of Canadians who went camping/trekking way up north. They interviewed some Native Americans up there who backed up what the reasonable posters on here already know: Things are warming up considerably - in the Arctic region particularly. There are so many proofs of that happening, that it's a daunting task to list them all. However, if some folks are fixated about not wanting proofs (of GW) then they won't see or hear any.

Once again, the planet may be warming, and certainly there are changes happening, but whether those changes are caused by man or just natural variations as has happened ever since the planet formed is irrelevant in believing that we can make any difference to the reality, as we CAN NOT change anything and whatever happens happens. Surely no one on here believes that wind turbines that supply a few % of total electricity needs or hybrid cars will make any difference at all to what is happening.

However, it gives governments an opportunity to apply more taxes to the population, so it's no wonder they support the theory.

Are ANY of you that support climate change theory prepared to live a life style totally devoid of carbon use? I think not, and if so why bother as nothing will change till mankind does, in fact, cease all carbon usage.

[RickBradford]

Are ANY of you that support climate change theory prepared to live a life style totally devoid of carbon use?

Guaranteed access to reliable and affordable power is rather like the special foreign currency stores in the old Soviet Union -- only for the use of the self-styled elites.

The despised peasantry (who they claim to be acting on behalf of) can freeze or starve to death, for all they care, while 11,000+ of the self-anointed jet blithely off to Peru to massage each other's egos for a week. There will be even more flying in to Paris for the next climate circle jerk in December, not to mention subsidiary junkets in Geneva in February and Bonn in June.

These are absolutely crucial meetings to enable unelected bureaucrats, activists and other parasites to justify their existence and even lobby to increase their funding at taxpayer expense. No doubt the World Association of Girl Guides and Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University will be putting in their usual appearance.

Come, come, Comrade, have you no solidarity?

[boomerangutang]

Once again, the planet may be warming, and certainly there are changes happening, but whether those changes are caused by man or just natural variations as has happened ever since the planet formed is irrelevant in believing that we can make any difference to the reality, as we CAN NOT change anything and whatever happens happens.

Perhaps I should feel sorry for someone who feels so powerless to effect any changes for the better. But I don't think you want my sympathy. If I had a son or daughter who affirmed something like that ("we cannot change anything") it would sadden me a bit, and I would sit that person down and explain how we can effect positive changes, albeit usually bit by bit.

Are ANY of you that support climate change theory prepared to live a life style totally devoid of carbon use? I think not, and if so why bother as nothing will change till mankind does, in fact, cease all carbon usage.

You're not very effective at making your point. I'm glad you're not a college professor influencing youngsters. 'cease all carbon usage' is the kind of logic one might expect from Jr. high school girls, where everything in their world is either 'super groovy' or 'awfully yucky.' Sorry to bust your bubble gum world view, but it's not an all-white or all-black scenario. Improvements can happen by degrees (no pun intended). For example, if a forest is destroyed, planting some trees will be an improvement. Using TBL's Jr. High school logic, there would have to be a complete forest replacement of every tree bush, and patch of moss, or nothing is accomplished.

As for lessening carbon use: Yes, I use engines which emit carbon, but am endeavoring to lessen my use of them. And there are many others who are similarly conscious of lessening their dependence on fossil fuels. Will we ever completely quit using oil and gas? No. But incremental lessening does have some cumulative effects for the better. Again, it's not an all-or-nothing mentality, and it's certainly not a hyper-cynical mindset that's going to move towards improvements.

[thaibeachlovers]

Once again, the planet may be warming, and certainly there are changes happening, but whether those changes are caused by man or just natural variations as has happened ever since the planet formed is irrelevant in believing that we can make any difference to the reality, as we CAN NOT change anything and whatever happens happens.

Perhaps I should feel sorry for someone who feels so powerless to effect any changes for the better. But I don't think you want my sympathy. If I had a son or daughter who affirmed something like that ("we cannot change anything") it would sadden me a bit, and I would sit that person down and explain how we can effect positive changes, albeit usually bit by bit.

Are ANY of you that support climate change theory prepared to live a life style totally devoid of carbon use? I think not, and if so why bother as nothing will change till mankind does, in fact, cease all carbon usage.

You're not very effective at making your point. I'm glad you're not a college professor influencing youngsters. 'cease all carbon usage' is the kind of logic one might expect from Jr. high school girls, where everything in their world is either 'super groovy' or 'awfully yucky.' Sorry to bust your bubble gum world view, but it's not an all-white or all-black scenario. Improvements can happen by degrees (no pun intended). For example, if a forest is destroyed, planting some trees will be an improvement. Using TBL's Jr. High school logic, there would have to be a complete forest replacement of every tree bush, and patch of moss, or nothing is accomplished.

As for lessening carbon use: Yes, I use engines which emit carbon, but am endeavoring to lessen my use of them. And there are many others who are similarly conscious of lessening their dependence on fossil fuels. Will we ever completely quit using oil and gas? No. But incremental lessening does have some cumulative effects for the better. Again, it's not an all-or-nothing mentality, and it's certainly not a hyper-cynical mindset that's going to move towards improvements.

I feel that you believe that "incremental changes" will work, while I do not, which is my right ( and you to your opinion ). Canute believed that he could stop the tide too, but he couldn't.

My point that I make many times, is that what is ACTUALLY being done, not talked about, is not going to change anything.

While you may cut down on car use, Thailand is increasing it's car numbers daily, so your economising is not only less than pointless, but useless. Simply by refusing to turn on the nuclear power plants, japan is putting more carbon into the air than can ever be saved by reducing car use in wherever country.

I just don't believe that anything less than a huge reduction in carbon use will make any difference, so I don't bother. I can't change climate change any more than I can stop greedy Thai businessmen destroying Thai beaches with concrete. Sad, but a fact of life.

IMO, even as the last of humanity faces extinction, the bureaucrats will be heading for meetings to talk about it ( note- TALK about it, not to actually do anything, and governments will of course tax it ).

[thaibeachlovers]

Wait a cottonpickenminute. I seem to recall deniers repeatedly saying there has been no significant warming in recent years. Now, when proofs come forth on warming, they claim that's not the issue, and switch to focus on something else. The warming trend is partly to do with large-scale burning of fossil fuels by humans. Of course other factors affect weather and warming, such as solar activity, volcanoes, etc. Increases in human-caused CO2 are significant, but more so, in relation to 'greenhouse effect' are methane releases, and how those releases will increase dramatically if ww temps rise an added 2 to 4 degrees on average. Then it might be tropical beaches in Finland and fried-eggs on sidewalks in Italy. Seriously though, the desperate migrations of people we read about now (including the large abandoned ship full of Syrians which almost crashed into Southern Italy, yesterday) will pale in comparison to even greater human misery in near future.

Personally, I care as much for nature as for humans. So even if half the ww cities at sea level get permanently flooded in 25 years, it won't be the ultimate tragedy. Unchecked population explosions, of any species who outgrow a finite space, will have to be checked at some juncture, and it's always painful. Read up on the history of Rapanui (Easter Island) for a microcosm of what's happening on this planet now, and will only exacerbate in the near future.

I think you are agreeing with me that POPULATION INCREASE is the cause of excessive pollution and that it needs to be checked. However, no politician is currently on that bandwagon, so there is ZERO being done to limit it.

Even if a changing climate does not exterminate a parasite humanity, too many people will destroy the world as we know it anyway.

Checking and reversing populations would do more to stop climate change than any amount of wind turbines and hybrid cars could. It needs to be done now, not later, or Gaia will kill us off anyway.

[englishoak]

Enjoy the world as and while you can, theres nothing you can do that will change a damned thing, not your electric car not your vegan meal and not your purchasing carbon guilt credits when you buy your flight ticket back home.

When China and India take the lead in environmental regulations maybe it'll be worth looking at but until then you may as well be spitting into the wind

[boomerangutang]

from: Roy Wasson's Renewable Energy Fund Weekly Update #440

40 Years Later, MIT Predictions of Global Resource Collapse Coming True

The book Limits to Growth a 1972 harbinger of the death of the planet was largely dismissed in its time as being improbable at best and at worst, alarmist. But new research shows that the book by MIT researchers was likely right not just about a few things but about almost everything forecast about the planets collapse.

When Limits of Growth was first published, it was almost impossible to believe that population growth and dire predictions of resource consumption could lead to the collapse of the planet. Researchers Donella and Dennis Meadows built a computer model to track the worlds economy and environment, according to The Guardian. The model was cutting edge and tracked industrialization, population, food, resource use, and pollution. Scenarios were generated out to the year 2100 and showed the inevitable collapse of the economy, the environment and the population if serious measures were not taken.

Now in 2014, data gathered by the University of Melbournes Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute shows that the projections made in Limits to Growth were dead on. Principal research fellow Graham Turner drew from a wide range of sources to confirm the projections including the UN, the U.S National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and BP.

In fact, the projections from 1972 through 2010 were in line with what has happened in every category from the environment (including resources and pollution) to world population (including the birth and death rate) and the economy (including food, services and industrial output, per capita).

As the MIT researchers explained in 1972, under the scenario, growing population and demands for material wealth would lead to more industrial output and pollution. The graphs show this is indeed happening. Resources are being used up at a rapid rate, pollution is rising, industrial output and food per capita is rising. The population is rising quickly, according to the Guardian.

So now what?

If the books predictions are true, what will happen in the next 100 years or less? Well, as we continue to use up resources they will become more expensive. As we use more capital to pull out more resources the industrial output per capita starts to fall. According to the book, this begins to happen in 2015. Once industrial output falls, a domino effect occurs through food production, and the resulting cutback in health and education. As health services fall, the death rate rises and the global population will start to fall by about half a billion people per decade. Living conditions will become similar to those in the early 1900′s.

While some of the blame can also be placed on climate change and carbon dioxide emissions, most of it is placed squarely on the shoulders of resource consumption. While the University of Melbourne could not find substantive proof of collapse, the book indicates that it will be more evident beginning in 2015. In fact, some believe the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-08 was caused by resource constraints as well as The pursuit of material wealth contributed to unsustainable levels of debt, with suddenly higher prices for food and oil contributing to defaults and the GFC.

source: Roy Wasson's Renewable Energy Fund Weekly Update #440

[boomerangutang]

Enjoy the world as and while you can, theres nothing you can do that will change a damned thing, not your electric car not your vegan meal and not your purchasing carbon guilt credits when you buy your flight ticket back home.

When China and India take the lead in environmental regulations maybe it'll be worth looking at but until then you may as well be spitting into the wind

There are a lot of things I can do to change things. Ask me.

[thaibeachlovers]

from: Roy Wasson's Renewable Energy Fund Weekly Update #440

40 Years Later, MIT Predictions of Global Resource Collapse Coming True

The book Limits to Growth a 1972 harbinger of the death of the planet was largely dismissed in its time as being improbable at best and at worst, alarmist. But new research shows that the book by MIT researchers was likely right not just about a few things but about almost everything forecast about the planets collapse.

When Limits of Growth was first published, it was almost impossible to believe that population growth and dire predictions of resource consumption could lead to the collapse of the planet. Researchers Donella and Dennis Meadows built a computer model to track the worlds economy and environment, according to The Guardian. The model was cutting edge and tracked industrialization, population, food, resource use, and pollution. Scenarios were generated out to the year 2100 and showed the inevitable collapse of the economy, the environment and the population if serious measures were not taken.

Now in 2014, data gathered by the University of Melbournes Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute shows that the projections made in Limits to Growth were dead on. Principal research fellow Graham Turner drew from a wide range of sources to confirm the projections including the UN, the U.S National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and BP.

In fact, the projections from 1972 through 2010 were in line with what has happened in every category from the environment (including resources and pollution) to world population (including the birth and death rate) and the economy (including food, services and industrial output, per capita).

As the MIT researchers explained in 1972, under the scenario, growing population and demands for material wealth would lead to more industrial output and pollution. The graphs show this is indeed happening. Resources are being used up at a rapid rate, pollution is rising, industrial output and food per capita is rising. The population is rising quickly, according to the Guardian.

So now what?

If the books predictions are true, what will happen in the next 100 years or less? Well, as we continue to use up resources they will become more expensive. As we use more capital to pull out more resources the industrial output per capita starts to fall. According to the book, this begins to happen in 2015. Once industrial output falls, a domino effect occurs through food production, and the resulting cutback in health and education. As health services fall, the death rate rises and the global population will start to fall by about half a billion people per decade. Living conditions will become similar to those in the early 1900′s.

While some of the blame can also be placed on climate change and carbon dioxide emissions, most of it is placed squarely on the shoulders of resource consumption. While the University of Melbourne could not find substantive proof of collapse, the book indicates that it will be more evident beginning in 2015. In fact, some believe the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-08 was caused by resource constraints as well as The pursuit of material wealth contributed to unsustainable levels of debt, with suddenly higher prices for food and oil contributing to defaults and the GFC.

source: Roy Wasson's Renewable Energy Fund Weekly Update #440

Does the book take into account the rise of China? Anyone that thinks China will quietly lie back and die needs to have another think.

However, the west's lifestyle is indeed unsustainable, and will sooner or later collapse under the weight of the welfare society keeping the useless well off and the criminals free, combined with uncontrolled immigration from countries that will not limit their populations.

[thaibeachlovers]

Enjoy the world as and while you can, theres nothing you can do that will change a damned thing, not your electric car not your vegan meal and not your purchasing carbon guilt credits when you buy your flight ticket back home.

When China and India take the lead in environmental regulations maybe it'll be worth looking at but until then you may as well be spitting into the wind

There are a lot of things I can do to change things. Ask me.

For every YOU, there are a thousand that will do nothing except breed and consume.

[chuckd]

Breaking news - It's official - 67% of scientists agree

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Fears of man-made global warming exaggerated'

MUMBAI: Two of three scientists at a session on climate change and society at the Indian Science Congress on Tuesday felt fears of man-made global warming were greatly exaggerated. Their presence at the conference was particularly significant in light of the current 'development-versus-envir- onment' debates.

"While I agree that glaciers are melting because of global warming, if this is because of man, then what was the reason for the melting of the glaciers in the Gondwana period long before man arrived on the planet?" asked Dhruv Sen Singh, Centre of Advanced Study in Geology, University of Lucknow.

Read more at:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/45786412.cms?

PS: What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

[RickBradford]

It is clear that this Dhruv Sen Singh fellow is a 'racist and white supremacist'. Ditto the other scientist, Rajesh Agnihotri.

I know, because Naomi Klein told me so.

[wilcopops]

It hasn't warmed in recent years, but it is warmer than 50 years ago. So you see continued evidence of a warmer climate but that is not evidence of increased warming in the last two decades.

Yes there is! that 19 year thing was actually misreported. read earlier posts for references.

Edited January 10, 2015 by wilcopops

[wilcopops]

"let's be clear. The planet is not in jeopardy. We are in jeopardy. We haven't got the power to destroy the planet- or save it. But we might have the power to save ourselves." Michael Chrichton

Honestly, how can anyone take anything this guy says seriously? A person who is now described as oil industry shill spouting his propaganda and lies for the oil industry.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laurie-david/michael-crichton-the-oil-_b_15430.html

Hey, be nice to the oil industry or you can sit in the dark, take cold showers and start to walk to work.

Without the oil industry most people would be dead.

Imagine trying to survive winter in N. America or N. Europe without oil and the electricity that comes from it.

that's why they are advocating non-fossil fuels.

[wilcopops]

But go ahead and keep cooling off by drinking the FOX news Kool-Aid.

The graph isn't from Fox News, it's from a company contracted by NASA to analyse satellite data on global temperatures.

SELECTED buy Fox to misrepresent the suituation

[wilcopops]

My understanding is there is no Global warming Its a Made up thing by people that want to make Money from it

Have you noticed they don't call it Global warming any more Its now known as Climate Change

Many others are saying we are in the clinch of a Mini Ice Age

There is much info here These guys ( http://www.suspicious0bservers.org/ ) have a daily news on Youtube its very informative including when the world is likely to have large Earth Quakes etc

And the Solar shut down of the Sun etc

I think you'll find that the BIG money is behind denying global warming...Oil mostly.