« Remedy du Jour -- February 19, 2011 | Main | Inequality, Debt And The Financial Crisis »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Long story short, the root cause of our problems is global over population. We are simply consuming our limited resources at an increasing rate, and consuming non-limited resources at a rate faster than they can be replenished. The only real debate is, how fast we reach the point of our on self destruction. As with the dinosaurs, the planet will be here long after we are gone. Perhaps the biggest issue, we can't seem to face our own mortality. Nothing demonstrates this more than America's health care system.

I would also like to point out, contrary to the assumptions of many, there is not an unlimited supply of CHEAP fossil fuels, meaning the equation is self limiting. Once the point of self limitation is reached, the planet's human population will decline rapidly. I believe we are closer to that point than most people want to admit, and can handle.


As per Timothy Garrett it is unclear that we can do anything to reduce CO2 without causing an immediate civilization collapse. I am disgusted with climate change deniers, but I am equally disgusted with the well educated "green growth" crowd that believe addressing climate change will be easy.

I sometimes wonder if the uneducated deniers intuitively sense the dishonesty of the green growth crowd and thus respond in the emotional and irrational fashion that we observe.

I think we need a grown up fully honest conversation about our situation, what needs to be done, and the full implications of mitigation actions.


I dropped the Wall Street Journal when Rupert bought it, and haven't regretted it. It was once a good paper. Now it is just another propaganda yellow sheet.

As for CO2 - if one looks at oil production figures, civilization will be collapsing soon enough. Present decline rates are about 7%, if I recall correctly, which means we'll have half of today's oil flow in 14 years. Civilization won't survive that.

Julian Colander

I am happy to consider the argument that says that man made emissions are changing the climate, but attempting to stem climate change is pointless while virtually everyone subscribes to the religion of economic growth. Radically change society so that we all get by with less stuff, and work far fewer hours, and the reduction in climate changing emissions will take care of itself. It will never happen, though.

Also, like many people, I instinctively detect that the climate change movement is just too damned convenient for businessmen and politicians, and anyone who fancies hitching up to the bandwagon - and that includes scientists! I am of a scientific bent myself, and my built-in bullsh*t detector goes off the scale when these 'climate scientists' open their mouths or try to justify their research grants.


Following up on BJ's comments relating to population — go to Radio Ecoshock for some interesting interviews on population, climate and growth. In one show host Alex Smith interviews Paul Ehrlich.

A couple years ago Alex Smith interviewed Dave on radioecoshock here's the link:

Tony Weddle

I'm dumbfounded when I hear or read people refer to climate science as a bandwagon. Not only does it denigrate hard working scientists, most of whom genuinely want to understand the world (rather than creating their own reality) but it completely ignores the fact that most people and most heavyweight lobby groups, not to mention what's left of governments, don't want to believe in an anthropogenic cause for current climate change.

It's a shame that the so-called head-to-head ended with a word from Christy. Unfortunately, the guy who moderates the "debate" has to be very good at his or her job. This one wasn't.

Alexander Carpenter

Dave, your probity and general well-informedness are unmatched in social and economic commentary. I find you a guiding light in those areas and value your blog above all others (except perhaps for theautomaticearth.com). Your present comments on climate change, however, are an embarrassment. Since I do not accept the notion that only specialists are entitled to comment on technical matters, I don't challenge your inclusion of this matter on your blog. Nonetheless, when one ventures outside one's areas of expertise, one must expect to take some lumps, and so I must wonder what has happened within your psyche that you do not apply the same quality of critical thinking to this area as you do to your usual subjects. Why are you able to see through the "consensus" reality in political/social America but unable to do that within a scientific area, where "consensus" is an irrelevancy? I believe that you are smart enough to interpret the actual facts about climate change accurately enough (given that there are no facile resolutions available) to be sensibly agnostic about it, as are most scientists and science-savvy non-scientists. Why would you accept a political consensus about climate change but not about the economy and the corruptions running it? In other words, what closet religiosity is running you on this? What subtle weakness to being culturally blindsided is being manifest here?

With highest regards,


The anatomy of a born again cc denier...
My congressman has selective science disorder, by Kurt Cobb

John D

Another one to watch is Rush Limbaugh. He ridicules anthropogenic climate change saying that 'God would never let mankind ruin the Earth' and his millions of cult followers believe him.


For the unbelievers, did you know there is a Pentagon study of global warming? It says global warming/climate change is a greater threat to the world than terrorism! Does that sound like a hoax to you?

The reason there is disagreement, scientific or otherwise, is that our media is corporate controlled and truth interferes with profit.

The comments to this entry are closed.