[Grizzly]

And our descendents, if they exist, will probably undervalue the effort it took for us to succeed.

ACtually you raise a good point. We are currently at High Noon. Consider the milankovich cycles: In the next 10000 years, we will have experienced far more erratic weather changes then those being currently predicted. The next glacial peroid, to be precise. Our descendants going trough the next ice age will probably not grasp at all what this ruckus of "global warming" is about. Such is the difficulty of grasping nature with human measurements.

Even considering similar geoligical conditions, the earth has been warmer then it is today, during the Eemian stage. A similar situation (albeit taking longer) is predicted be the result of GW and the collapse of the antartic ice sheet, this is referred to as super-interglacials.

[Aardwolf]

For that to happen renewable sources need to be cheaper and more reliable than fossil fuels.

It doesn't help that the fossil fuels industry still has huge subsidies (and seems to get off scot-free whenever they murder an ecosystem, etc.).

Why do I get the sense that GB is either ignoring me or Ignore-ing me? I could sort of excuse the latter, after the events leading up to the temporary thread lock, but I've made some good posts since it was unlocked!

[The E]

Why do I get the sense that GB is either ignoring me or Ignore-ing me? I could sort of excuse the latter, after the events leading up to the temporary thread lock, but I've made some good posts since it was unlocked!

Just FYI, there is no requirement for anyone to read or engage with your posts.

[Luis Dias]

There's reason to be concerned, but don't panic. Same goes for peak oil, the alarm is unwarranted. We will overcome it, and we will look back funnily into these days like "we were so clueless and so overly concerned about such naive things".

Whilst history is chock full of people being clueless and overly naive about things that were great cause for concern... I don't quite see why you adopt such a line.

Ahah I still remember the good ol days when that site... what was its name.... ah... "Life After The Oil Crash"... I still remember the great lines like "in five years everything you know it will be doomed" and so on. That was 2004. And that Olduvai Gorge theory by Richard Duncan that stated the oil civilization lifespan was exactly 100 years which meant that by 2012 we would start seeing blackouts and general degeneration in services and the whole energy economy.... this wasn't just a marginal phenomena, a whole site that was deemed quite influential "The Oil Drum" was drumming for quite a while with their doom and gloom until... it ended in a whimper. Or what about Matt Simmons the great man who predicted in 2003 we would see a "gas cliff" that would send us to the caves. Yeah. What about Paul Erlich, the famous guy who hasn't still been arrested for destroying so many people's psyches with his "by 2000 50 million north americans will die from famine".

These Cassandras still get credit. I just have no idea why. It's like we live in an opposite era of that which Cassandra lived, wherein no one paid attention to fearmongers and messengers of danger. Now, nobody pays attention to those who are optimist or just reasonable, heresy with them, and all the fame and glory goes to the likes of Paul Erlich despite the fact these morons have been wrong for over 50 years and counting.

[Grizzly]

Paul Elrich was right though. Mass starvation had been a problem if nothing had taken place to countermand it.

peak oil is already here but because we happen to have alternatives, it is not that big a problem.

And yet, global warming has a lot more backing scientifically then any of the anecdotes you care to mention (indeed, in earth scientist circles, the support for it is fairly massive). Yet, politicians seem to be stuck in this phase where they are unwilling to lose votes since changes may affect economic development. Solving mass hunger, on the other hand, is always a vote winner, which is why I am a lot more skeptical about a solution arising. Or, indeed, that solution being implemented.

[Luis Dias]

The green revolution was happening long before Paul made the predictions, and he ought to know it, hell he was in the business of predicting an entire planet's economy evolution for decades, how the **** did he miss something as obvious and big as the green revolution? He didn't just miss that, he also missed the fact that the population wasn't going to "explode" while any demographic study of the time already hinted that this was probably *not* going to happen.

I could give you lists of fearmongering shenanigans that the world was awashed with the past 50 years now and that nowadays just seem silly, naive and forgotten. There's this really great lauded speech by an american president in 1977:

The oil and natural gas that we rely on for 75 percent of our energy are simply running out. In spite of increased effort, domestic production has been dropping steadily at about 6 percent a year. Imports have doubled in the last 5 years. Our Nation's economic and political independence is becoming increasingly vulnerable. Unless profound changes are made to lower oil consumption, we now believe that early in the 1980's the world will be demanding more oil than it can produce.

The world now uses about 60 million barrels of oil a day, and demand increases each year about 5 percent. This means that just to stay even we need the production of a new Texas every year, an Alaskan North Slope every 9 months, or a new Saudi Arabia every 3 years. Obviously, this cannot continue.

Except it did and nowadays we drill 90+ million barrels of oil a day. These guys weren't just "mildly wrong" or "somewhat wrong in some numbers but they got the gist right", no, they were absolutely, terribly, pathetically wrong in almost every single prediction they made about the future that informed their policy suggestions, ideologies, outlook of the world.

There comes a moment where the errors are so grand that you should stop a minute and think "there's something inherently wrong in this kind of thinking, where did these guys went wrong? What is it in this kind of thinking that just absolutely fails to capture the world we inhabit?"

[Grizzly]

He didn't just miss that, he also missed the fact that the population wasn't going to "explode" while any demographic study of the time already hinted that this was probably *not* going to happen.

This does not seem like a population explosion to you?

Except it did and nowadays we drill 90+ million barrels of oil a day. These guys weren't just "mildly wrong" or "somewhat wrong in some numbers but they got the gist right", no, they were absolutely, terribly, pathetically wrong in almost every single prediction they made about the future that informed their policy suggestions, ideologies, outlook of the world.

I disagree. Oil production in the US has steadily decreased. Oil production globally has increased thanks to unconventional oil sources, but as a result it is becoming more and more and more expensive, thus greatly increasing food prices. It's not naive, silly nor forgotten. You simply have dismissed it as such, but that is much more the result of who you are as a person then the validity of these statements.

There comes a moment where the errors are so grand that you should stop a minute and think "there's something inherently wrong in this kind of thinking, where did these guys went wrong? What is it in this kind of thinking that just absolutely fails to capture the world we inhabit?"

And yet they don't. They are perfectly correct statements when considering the time they were made in. They were simply incorrect in hindsight, due to unpredictable developments in the future. The flaw in your thinking is that, since a Colossus has appeared to deal with a problem (peak oil, food), that there always will be a Colossus for any problem, and that there will be no problems by deploying the Colossus at all (severe enviromental problems or even more juggernauts).

[Luis Dias]

Except it did and nowadays we drill 90+ million barrels of oil a day. These guys weren't just "mildly wrong" or "somewhat wrong in some numbers but they got the gist right", no, they were absolutely, terribly, pathetically wrong in almost every single prediction they made about the future that informed their policy suggestions, ideologies, outlook of the world.

I disagree. Oil production in the US has steadily decreased. Oil production globally has increased thanks to unconventional oil sources, but as a result it is becoming more and more and more expensive, thus greatly increasing food prices. It's not naive, silly nor forgotten. You simply have dismissed it as such, but that is much more the result of who you are as a person then the validity of these statements.

Goalpost shifting is meaningless. The argument never was "the US production is going to fall, therefore we will rise it elsewhere or the economy will find alternatives, etc.", the argument was "The US production is going to fall, everything else is going to fall too, it's inevitable, it's physics and we are all ****ed, start buying shotguns and food cans". The irrational non-sequiturs were all there for people to criticize and be ignored while doing so. Yet, some people instead prefer to listen to the Cassandras and keep missing the wider picture.

It's the same ****ing **** with Global Warming. Goalpost shifting is part of this self-hating ideology.

Whenever people are skeptical of the holocaustic sci-fi renderings these artists output in the airwaves (and call them Scientific Projections), they will say "BUT 97% ITS A CONSENSUS", yeah, the consensus is that global warming has been happening and humans had a part in it. I'm PART of that consensus! But then, this "consensus without an object" shifts itself, morphs itself unto this "97% of SCIENTISTS SAY WE ARE DOOMED DOOMED", which they... don't. That's not the 97% consensus. Yet, if you deny the latter, I get all this **** about how I am denying the former ALL THE ****ING TIME.

And yet they don't. They are perfectly correct statements when considering the time they were made in. They were simply incorrect in hindsight, due to unpredictable developments in the future. The flaw in your thinking is that, since a Colossus has appeared to deal with a problem (peak oil, food), that there always will be a Colossus for any problem, and that there will be no problems by deploying the Colossus at all (severe enviromental problems or even more juggernauts).

This is the exact error, you can't even see it it's so embedded in your psyche. You are basically saying "If Earth behaved exactly as my model predicted, then events would have been exactly as I had foretold", it's a ****ing tautology. What you are not understanding is that these models suck in a fundamental manner. That mankind has the knack of adapting itself in multiple scales and solutions, either upstream, downstream, any part of the river you can see. These models instead picture Earth in a "holistic" machine-like "ecossystemic" sense, like an electronic schematic, filled with prejudices, ideologies, simplistic views of every single phenomena, and then whenever reality doesn't conform with their models, people blame reality like you did: "It's not their fault they didn't see the future, if the future had been exactly like the present then they would have predicted it correctly!"

Your mind is polluted. Start cleaning your mind of these false ideologies and prejudices before trying to clean the planet.

[The E]

I would like to ask you to dial it back down a notch, Luis. Telling people that "your mind is polluted" doesn't make a good argument.

Also, are you really going to just sit there and keep telling everyone that everything is fine?

You claim that the views of the Cassandras are "filled with prejudices, ideologies, simplistic views of every single phenomena", but isn't that true of your position as well?

[Grizzly]

Goalpost shifting is meaningless. The argument never was "the US production is going to fall, therefore we will rise it elsewhere or the economy will find alternatives, etc.", the argument was "The US production is going to fall, everything else is going to fall too, it's inevitable, it's physics and we are all ****ed, start buying shotguns and food cans".

This is not apperent from the quote you pulled from that particular US president, though. That particular president simply has staed that "This can not continue". Evidence suggests that he is right.

It's the same ****ing **** with Global Warming. Goalpost shifting is part of this self-hating ideology.

None of what you have posted has pointed towards that conclusion, however. The effects of certain degrees of warming is something that is taught in climate courses in university, not just the wild predictions of some websites in your earlier argument. The effects of certain degrees of warming which sparked this particular track is also simply that: The effect of certain degrees of warming, not the result of "if sociolopolitical situations continue to occur as they do now".

[Luis Dias]

I would like to ask you to dial it back down a notch, Luis. Telling people that "your mind is polluted" doesn't make a good argument.

Also, are you really going to just sit there and keep telling everyone that everything is fine?

You're absolutely right, that was beyond the line. I haven't said "everything is fine" too. Although I usually try to get people to volume down the panic and so on, I never say there's "nothing to worry about". Global warming is an issue that we should worry about, solutions should be discussed, etc., but I also think the whole discussion is overly polluted with downright irrational panic over unknown unknowns being taken almost as "fact", bold exaggerations always cramming the newsscape (and no one ever reads the retractions) and so on.

You claim that the views of the Cassandras are "filled with prejudices, ideologies, simplistic views of every single phenomena", but isn't that true of your position as well?

My position here is a bit pessimistic, borderline "Lovecraftian". I do think we are "out in the open", that there's no guarantee that something like the climate doesn't go bananas tomorrow and so on, but I have a particular distaste for the whole hysteria phenomena, how it feeds itself, how it informs policy and science itself, how the politics of fear have become the norm rather than the exception. Do these prejudices hurt my capacity to see what others might see? Yes, I admit, it probably does. The difference, I think, is that I'm keenly aware of these prejudices and try to be watchful of them, since I was on the "camp alarmist" some years ago and I know exactly how it's so easy to be blinded of one's own prejudices and assumptions.

This is not apperent from the quote you pulled from that particular US president, though. That particular president simply has staed that "This can not continue". Evidence suggests that he is right.

He was exactly wrong and all his policies backfired with the neo-cons winning tremendously in the Reagan years.

None of what you have posted has pointed towards that conclusion, however. The effects of certain degrees of warming is something that is taught in climate courses in university, not just the wild predictions of some websites in your earlier argument. The effects of certain degrees of warming which sparked this particular track is also simply that: The effect of certain degrees of warming, not the result of "if sociolopolitical situations continue to occur as they do now".

Yes, I am aware of these science-fiction papers. I'm not even opposed at their existence or consideration, I think spending time in devising possibilities and so on is very important. The difference is they are being treated as *facts* when they are pure speculation, and we do have enough empirical evidence to support that we really are very bad at predicting this sort of stuff.

[Grizzly]

He was exactly wrong and all his policies backfired with the neo-cons winning tremendously in the Reagan years.

With the risk of starting a circle-jerk, I have already stated and cited examples of why I believe that, in that particular instance, he was not wrong at all, as the oil economy has changed significantly in the last decade, and it is affecting other economies on a world wide scale (such as food pricing). Would you suggest that nothing has changed?

. The difference is they are being treated as *facts* when they are pure speculation, and we do have enough empirical evidence to support that we really are very bad at predicting this sort of stuff.

I do not propose treating them as facts, I just think that their considerations should be, well, considered, not just flatly dismissed as is happening now. Climate models are more then just "pure speculation", as they are constructed out of historical data.
I'd also be interested in your emperical evidence that supports that we are awfull at predicting climates.

[Luis Dias]

With the risk of starting a circle-jerk, I have already stated and cited examples of why I believe that, in that particular instance, he was not wrong at all, as the oil economy has changed significantly in the last decade, and it is affecting other economies on a world wide scale (such as food pricing). Would you suggest that nothing has changed?

I would suggest that many things have changed, and almost all of them in the opposite direction than those that were predicted by the Club of Rome in the late 70s (peak oil and so on). The oil price pretty much collapsed in the 90s in total opposition of the predictions. Subsequently two factors had a big impact on the slow rise of the oil price in the 00s, namely the collapse in investment of oil infrastructures (due to the price collapse) and the unexpected economic surge and oil demand from China.

Peak Oil is as much of a reality as is Global Warming: something that is empirically true but that has nothing of the armaggedonist characteristics that shape our political discussions. That is, the "peak oil" that will happen will be a smooth ride of slowly increasing oil prices, slow substitution for shale gas and eventually nuclear or solar power over the coming decades, increased efficiencies, etc.

The effect on the food industry due to this shenanigan is for everyone to see, and I agree we would be far better off without this "oil" with such a pathetic EROI and such nasty consequences for poor people all over the world. Consider though which groups you can thank this for. What groups of folks clamored for this "solution" as a "green solution"? Yes, that's right, this was an environmentalist solution before it wasn't to the "problem" of peak oil. See? There's a danger too in establishing "dangers" that do not exist.

I do not propose treating them as facts, I just think that their considerations should be, well, considered, not just flatly dismissed as is happening now. Climate models are more then just "pure speculation", as they are constructed out of historical data.
I'd also be interested in your emperical evidence that supports that we are awfull at predicting climates.

Just look at how models are faring right now. They are overshooting every observation so far and in such little time already.

[Grizzly]

The oil price pretty much collapsed in the 90s in total opposition of the predictions.

I would not consider this trend a collapse (carefull: the scale is log), although there is obviously a dip in the nineties, it's only in the peroid of 10 years, which is an extremely short time by any measurement except a political one. Since then, it is has only been rising and rising.

The effect on the food industry due to this shenanigan is for everyone to see, and I agree we would be far better off without this "oil" with such a pathetic EROI and such nasty consequences for poor people all over the world. Consider though which groups you can thank this for. What groups of folks clamored for this "solution" as a "green solution"? Yes, that's right, this was an environmentalist solution before it wasn't to the "problem" of peak oil. See? There's a danger too in establishing "dangers" that do not exist.

I have absolutely no idea what your last few lines are even talking about.

Just look at how models are faring right now. They are overshooting every observation so far and in such little time already.

Hmm, I'd beg to differ.

[General Battuta]

No civilization-ending doomsday prediction has turned out correct, but I'm not sure that's sound logical ground in and of itself to dismiss civilizational or existential threats from climate change. On the far extreme, we do know that (to pick one scenario) anoxic ocean events have occurred multiple times in the past. An extreme anthropogenic warming scenario could put us at the low end of the necessary temperature range.

I broadly agree that most Pollyanna scenarios aren't worth panicking about, but that's because they tend to disregard the global system's ability to seek new local optimae. Finding new ways to supply energy is a natural, profitable endeavor, so our system is very good at it. Reducing emissions...I'm not so sure that's the same class of problem.

And there are definitely Pollyanna cries that are worth heeding, like asteroid defense. I don't think we can categorically deny them all.

[Luis Dias]

The oil price pretty much collapsed in the 90s in total opposition of the predictions.

I would not consider this trend a collapse (carefull: the scale is log), although there is obviously a dip in the nineties, it's only in the peroid of 10 years, which is an extremely short time by any measurement except a political one. Since then, it is has only been rising and rising.

It's not just the log scale that misleads in your picture, it's also the distinct lack of inflation adjustment. Yeah, nowadays inflation isn't much to ponder about, but the 70s and 80s had lots of it. This is the actual correct picture:



So yeah it was a collapse.

Hmm, I'd beg to differ.

Skepticalscience roflmao. I must say, when they lie outright in defense of Hansen's model it's a really glorious moment of propagandaspeech. I have the utmost disgust in all the people involved in the building of that site. In reality, CO2 grew faster than his "business than usual" model A, and empirical observations didn't even reach the speed of global warming in his model C, where he posited a severe cut of CO2 emissions, with them going to zero in 2000.

No civilization-ending doomsday prediction has turned out correct, but I'm not sure that's sound logical ground in and of itself to dismiss civilizational or existential threats from climate change. On the far extreme, we do know that (to pick one scenario) anoxic ocean events have occurred multiple times in the past. An extreme anthropogenic warming scenario could put us at the low end of the necessary temperature range.

I broadly agree that most Pollyanna scenarios aren't worth panicking about, but that's because they tend to disregard the global system's ability to seek new local optimae. Finding new ways to supply energy is a natural, profitable endeavor, so our system is very good at it. Reducing emissions...I'm not so sure that's the same class of problem.

And there are definitely Pollyanna cries that are worth heeding, like asteroid defense. I don't think we can categorically deny them all.

I think you got the Polyanna word backwards. Nevertheless, when the "community" stops throwing people like Bjorn Lomborg, Pielke Jr or Lennart Bengtsson under the bus is the moment where I'll "sound" less "irresponsible" or whatever. (As if not being an alarmed misanthropic catasthrophist is being irresponsible...)

[Scotty]

I think the point Battuta was trying to make there, Luis, is that you're rejecting one extreme of the spectrum by taking shelter in the opposite extreme, and further stating that you will remain on that extreme until the other extreme has fallen out of favor.  It would amuse me how political your position is if the matters weren't so serious.

As with most things, a more reasonable position probably lies somewhere toward the middle.

[Luis Dias]

This is what makes me furious. Because I dare not to be in that warmist "side", I am called an extreme. I even called on this behavior before you did it yourself. Yet, can you point out one single extreme thing I have said so far?

One?

Just one for ****s sake. Come on can't be that hard, since I'm that ****ing hardcore.

Bonus points: tell me where my "political" leanings side since you know oh so much of me. Come on I dare you.

[General Battuta]

Yeah, I'm an idiot, I flipped my Chicken Littles and my Polyannas.

I'm not sure we should count on some kind of unforeseen negative feedback mechanism kicking in to stabilize our climate. It's a definite possibility, and it'll lead to decades if not centuries of conspiracy theories and wrong-headed condemnation of scientists, but we can't assume it exists.

(I don't think the truth is always in the middle)

[zookeeper]

On the contrary, the truth is always in one extreme... often the spectrum itself just doesn't make much sense.