JohnB

You know, there was a flash and I've totally forgotten why I came to this thread.

Greg, so far you have only been making statements; If the facts are so widely accepted and easy to demonstrate, why haven't you done so? So far only two papers have been referenced in this context, both supplied by me and both disagreeing with what you say. It's not about giving me a "basic education in ecology" it's about you providing proof to back up your assertions, and so far you have failed to do so. So could you please provide some sort of references? (preferably peer reviewed) Then show the proof, that's all I'm asking. (BTW, the term is "tenet". The meanings are: "An opinion, doctrine, or principle held as being true by a person or especially by an organization.", "a belief, opinion, or dogma" and "a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof." )

So all you have to do is show how the lynx numbers in Hudson Bay effect the hare numbers on the Alaskan border, some 1,500 miles away. Can you provide proof of this inevitability?

A couple of points. Firstly, and I could be misunderstanding, but the concept of "ecological balance" appears to derive from the previous "Balance of Nature" concept. These relatively static concepts were challenged by J. Wu in the 1995 paper "From Balance of Nature to Hierarchical Patch Dynamics: A Paradigm Shift in Ecology". Wu argues that the static models don't accurately reflect the true population data. Interestingly he mentions Hall 1988 in the context of models and a comparison of the data to the modelled outcomes. (I hope the link works) Hall compares the models, specifically mentioning the "Lotka-Volterra Model". Specific in this case is the Lynx/Hare relationship shown in the pred1 link above. This is apparently a standard in textbooks for justifying the Lotka-Volterra models. The graph in the link is adapted from Saunders 1953, but others have used the same data. Hall uses a similar graph from Smith 1980. (Figure 5 in the Hall paper) He points out; But the real killer is; (Emphasis mine) While it is obvious that both populations were cyclic, it is impossible for there to be a predator/prey relationship between the two. Therefore the graph is not supporting evidence for the idea of an "ecological balance" in the populations. What I find interesting is that after a few hours on google scholar it appears the concept of "ecological balance" is something that is simply assumed as being correct, the term is used quite frequently in the literature. Hoever it appears to be something that "everyone knows" and there is little on whether it actually exists. Those papers I could find concerning the existence of "ecological balance" or "Balance of Nature" were unanimously against the concept. I'm willing to be shown to be wrong, but the "balance" concept seems to be an idea that is still hanging around even after being disproven by empirical evidence. This is actually the focus of Wus 1995 paper.

You must have been editing your post as I was writing mine. If this were true, then there would be no extinctions. For example the sabretooth died out because it was a forest hunter and with the changing climate the forests became grasslands and it could no longer catch prey. Constantly changing regional and global climate as well as competition and evolution means that the forces on the ecology can never balance. Similarly with the more recent descent into and climb out of the Little Ice Age. As the weather got colder, then northern species would have moved south and put pressure on the more "equatorial" ecologies. Even if there were originally a balance in the equatorial regions, it would have been thrown off by the incoming species. If they then arrived at a balance then it would again be thrown out as the world warmed up again. Nature and ecologies are dynamic rather than static and therefore can't be in balance. Ecologies must always be changing and adapting to changed circumstances and can't be balanced. Edit. We're definitely cross posting. I'll call it quits for the night and answer tomorrow night. Otherwise we'll both be editing posts all night long.

In that post I made no accusations. I pointed out a possible unintended consequence of what was proposed and asked a question. I also pointed out what I see to be a flaw in your basic assumptions. Have you neither answers or rebuttals?

Fair enough. Your points are all valid, I think we are looking at different scales though. Rather than individuals, I'm looking at it from the POV of the entire tribe or society, as an average behaviour. The family line might end with the last male child, but the tribe continues.

Greg, after a bit of a chat, I can agree that my comment was wrong. However you will need to give better reponses than "Blah, blah" to opposing points. If you can't do that then you aren't here for discussion or debate, but to attempt to soapbox your ideas without opposition. As you have said you aren't advocating forced sterilisation. However I think an unintended consequence of tying aid to fertility reduction in the third world would result in those governments acting along those lines. It's happened before. Presumably there would be some sort of "targets" or markers to check on the progress of the program, what happens if a gov finds itself falling short of the targets and in danger of losing the aid? I also think that your basic premise is faulty. There is no "ecological balance", there never has been and never will be. It's like a stable climate, it would be nice to have but it doesn't happen. If we take the basic grass -> Herbivore -> Carnivore pattern. Rain falls and the grass grows, this allows the number of herbivores to grow. The larger number of herbivores will then support a larger number of carnivores, but these numbers are never in balance. There is always too much or too little grass for the number of herbivores and either too many or too few herbivores to support the carnivores. This is because the increase in a population lags behind the increase in the food supply, ditto with a decrease. There is never a "balance", especially once you add competing species of both herbivore and carnivore into the mix. There is no "ecological balance" to maintain.

I do sometimes wonder if the West wouldn't be better off picking politicians by a random draw of Social Security (or their equivalent) numbers. Considering the clusterf*ck that a number of "democratically elected" governments have made of their economies, it's kind of hard to imagine a bunch of amateurs picked at random doing a worse job.

I don't think that a lack of gain under inheritance laws equates to females being expendable. Even in medieval societies the females were valued both for the lands they held (which would pass to the husband) and for their use in strengthening ties between families and nations. I'm not aware of any current societies that view women as expendable, so if you can supply some examples I'd appreciate it. WRT China, the one child policy and the resultant preference for males has already led to a large imbalance in the ratio of males to females. Tens, if not hundreds of thousands of men will never marry due to the lack of females. Coupled with a one child policy this will inevitably lead to a major reduction in population in the near future. (Within say 50 years or so) Once this happens there won't be enough people to actually do the work of keeping the society running, people will literally work until they drop dead and there won't be someone to replace them. this may yet cause the society to fail. Societies fail and fall at different rates depending on the initial populations, conditions at the time, climate, all sorts of reasons. Tiahuanaco had good farming techniques and a fair population and fell in 50 years. The Harappan society had a large population and fell in less than 200 years. The Tasmanian Aboriginal took thousands of years to fall, they lost tool making about 1500BC and fire about 1500 AD. Just because a society that devalues women is around today with that practice doesn't mean it will be around tomorrow. My personal opinion is that it's all about genetics. Treating women as expendable reduces the reproductive possibilities, this leads to inevitable inbreeding and genetic defects and thus the fall of the society. It might take centuries depending on initial population but the result is foregone. Only by valuing and protecting the women does a society maximise reproductive possibilities and genetic variance and thereby ensure its survival.

Are Americans that divided though? I would have thought that if the majority of supporters (rather than pundits) were asked (or were sitting down having a beer), they would pretty much agree on most things. It strikes me that the Glen Becks and Young Turks and the rest are making all the noise, but don't really represent the majority thinking. From the outside, having watched some Beck, MSNBC, etc, it is plain that the most objective and reasonable political reporter in America is Jon Stewart. Having seen him interviewed by both left and right pundits, it's plain that the pundits view him as being in the same category as they are and he's a comedian. I think this should be of great concern. Frankly I think the "Great Divide" in American politics is a media beatup and the people aen't that divided at all.

I find that there isn't a problem with Tea Party movement unless I serve prune juice with the Earl Grey.

I take your point. However notice I said "often" and not "always". I think the general "survival" thing is a holdover from previous times. The forces that formed it are no longer prevelent in todays societies and so it is attenuating, basically behaviour like organisms, evolves. A second point to consider is that the "survival reflex" (if I can call it that) doesn't require that all women treat girls better than boys, simply that most do. In a similar fashion. The survival of of a herd gazelles in a lion hunting area doesn't require that all gazelles be faster than the lions, simply that most are. It sucks for individuals who aren't part of the "most", but that is nature. It is worth noting that the only culture (AFAIK) that didn't follow the general path were the Tasmanian Aborigines. They viewed their women poorly and were quite happy to trade or sell them to whoever came along, whether it was whites or the mainland tribes. They are now gone. While some do blame whites for this, it is worthwhile to note that on the archaeological evidence it is highly likely that if Tasmania hadn't been discovered until now, it would have been found to be a land empty of humans. History shows quite plainly that societies that don't generally value their women over their men fail, all modern societies are evolved from those who did.

Second! Don't keep us in suspense. You've challenged the basic assumptions in your field but you haven't told us what the field or assumptions were. Do tell. Or at least advise when there will be a paper to be read. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm as curious as hell. It's exciting!

Girls are often "treated better" than boys simply because women are more important to survival than men. This probably goes back to the very early times, pre paleolithic. A tribe with 30 women and 5 men can produce 30 new tribespersons per year, provided food is available, however a tribe with 30 men and 5 women could only produce 5. Having the women survive a disaster with only a few males ensures the survival of the tribe, whereas having the males survive with only a few females does not. Put very bluntly, for every new tribemember next year a tribe requires one woman, it does not require one man per new tribesperson. Ergo, females are more important to survival than males. For a modern version of this, read John Wyndhams "Day of the Triffids". In a world struck blind those trying to rebuild could support a number of women who could not see because they would have babies that would, the same could not be said for men who could not see.

Hi Essay, thanks for the links. I had seen the first article but found the writing style soporific and never read it to the end or read the comments. Too often there is an article but those involved don't join in the conversation, thanks for pointing me to them. The replies of "Abilitytoreason" would imply to me that he is either Roy Spencer or William Braswell due to the comment AFAIK, these two are the only ones publishing on this particular topic. It doesn't quite sound like Dr Spencer though, the writing style is sometimes quite similar to his blog postings and at other times quite dissimilar. I did enjoy the comment by "DrDadPhD" that "Spencer is out of his field". One of the guys responsible for the UAH Global Temperature seris is "out of his field" talking about global temperatures? It's great to see Dr Denning contributing and continuing the process begun by Dr Curry over at Climate Etc. Any way you look at it, the climate debate is a major thing and will set policies around the world for decades. The more scientists actually involved in the debate the better from my POV, especially since they can answer questions and clarify points as they arise.

This is getting a lot of views from Oz. Reporters should really read the background of people they are interviewing. And he was so polite too.

Arete, you might want to read this article before defending Anderegg et al too strongly. http://www.pnas.org/content/107/52/E188.full Number 1 on Andereggs list of "sceptics" is Dr. Roger Pielke Snr, here are his thoughts. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/comments-on-the-pnas-article-expert-credibility-in-climate-change-by-anderegg-et-al-2010/ If you aren't aware, Dr Pielke is one of the planets leading climate scientists. His son is also a climate scientists, his take is here; http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/06/new-black-list.html The comments from scientists under the article are very interesting. A rather interesting point about the paper is that it ranks people according to "expertise" in climate science. Which is kind of funny when the lead author, William R.L. Anderegg, was a student at Stanford (maybe one of Steven Schneiders students?), the second author Jim Prall is a "Senior Systems Programmer" and the third Jacob Harold is an MBA (again from Stanford) who lists "School for International Training Tibetan Studies Program" as part of his CV. In his spare time Mr Harold has also been a "Climate Campaigner at Rainforest Action Network", "Global Warming and Energy Campaigner at Greenpeace USA" and a "Grassroots Organizer at Green Corps". So a blogger, a student and a Greenpeace activist are competent to review the work of climate scientists and decide which of those scientists have the most "expertise". Just the sort of crew you would expect to publish "unbiased" papers, surely. Even better is the method used to decide "expertise" Using that metric Mills and Boon authors are the greatest writers of English Literature. Similarly the metric means that a researcher who writes 10 wrong papers is better than one who writes 2 correct ones, a situation that I hope science hasn't descended to. Even the first sentence of the paper should ring loud warning bells; (Emphasis mine.) To quote from the Free Dictionary; Beliefs, opinions and dogma have no place in science. Neither do headcounts. What matters is proof and reproducability. What is the data, what are the methods and are the results reproducable by others, if you don't have these things then you don't have a science you have a philosophy. Speaking as one of the resident sceptics here I really don't care if either side proclaim that they have 50,000 signatures on 50,000 letters or petitions, or whose opinion is worth more than whose. I care only about the evidence, data and methods. I only care about whether the predictions match reality. Nothing else is important. I have a concern with climate science that Dr. Richard Lindzen phrased very well; Simulations and programs are tools, theory and observation are science. A number of people in the field of climate seem to have forgotten this vital difference.

Your prediction is wrong. I came across this while reading arab news sites during the protests. I had no idea that this situation existed. The nations involved here are part of the Nile basin. In 1929 there was an agreement to divide the waters of the Nile, assuming a flow of 84 billion cubic metres, Egypt was guaranteed 48 bn cu m. At the time Egypt was a British satellite and the British fought for Egypt to get the lions share of the water. The agreement also gave Egypt the right to inspect the entire length of the river and the power of veto over any project that took water from the Nile. At the time of this agreement only Ethiopia had a functioning government, although binding on another 6 nations it was signed before they became independent and nations in their own right. In 1959 there was a second agreement between Egypt and Sudan that basically split the water between them. Egypts share went up to 55.5 bn cu m while Sudan took 14.5 bn cu m. Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Congo, Ethiopia, Burundi, Rwanda and evaporation get to share the remaining flow of about 14 bn cu m between them. Egypt is the economic and military powerhouse of the region and both Egypt and Sudan have used the threat of war to prevent projects that might draw water from the Nile. Also the World Bank, which to a degree represents the international community will not fund any project unless Egypt agrees. This is why there are no hydro dams, pipelines and large scale irrigation projects. Some articles on the situation; http://www.ntz.info/gen/n01799.html http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2010/world/africa/nile-basin-countries-fail-to-sign-river-treaty-again/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/26/egypt-nile-water-negotiations While not germane to the topic of increasing population in the region it has a major bearing on the recurrence of famines. A nation cannot create large scale irrigated farmlands if the only source of water is denied to them. The situation in the horn is more complex than appears at first glance.

No, I'm sure the availability of contraception in the west had contributed to the lower birth rate. However the choice whether to use contraception or not and which method to use remained with the individual woman and/or her partner. It was a free choice. There were no incentives used to influence the womans decision. Note also that in the west the women had the choice, something they might not have in other areas of the planet. So that would be a "No" then? You can't provide a scenario? This isn't about the West. My comment was about tying a particular reproductive outcome to aid provision in the third world. This is coertion and as such violates the 4th Principle adopted at the UN Human Rights Convention in Cairo in 1994. One of the reasons for the Cairo conference was due to the outcry against just such deals as are being suggested here. I direct you to Chapter VII of the Cairo Report. (Warning, very slow opening 10 meg pdf) It states; The bottom line is that even contraceptives are not 100% reliable, nor is there any way to be sure that they will actually be used. The only way to ensure a given reproductive outcome is by sterilisations, either forced or non consensual. Like it or not, this is the truth of the matter. Tying reproductive outcomes to aid has led to severe human rights abuses, specifically forced or non consensual sterilisations in Congo, Kenya, Bangladesh, Peru, Uzbekistan and other nations. Note that the 1999 "Tiahrt" Amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act in the US specifically forbids this sort of thing. Quoting from the USAID document on the amendment; (Emphasis mine) The original proposition was to tie reproductive outcome to aid provision. Firstly I have shown that the only way to ensure those reproductive outcomes is by forced or non consensual sterilisations. Secondly I have shown that this is a violation of both US law and UN conventions on Human Rights. I have responded to exactly what was written; This isn't sociology, it's mathematics. If you "save" 4 million lives through vaccines, how are you going to ensure at least 4 million pregnancies are prevented? If the deal was to tie aid to allowing the distribution of contraceptives and setting up family planning clinics, I wouldn't have a problem and would wholeheartedly agree. However that wasn't the deal, was it? The deal was to tie particular reproductive outcomes to aid and the only way to ensure those outcomes is by forced or non consensual sterilisation and that is abhorrent. So neither a strawman nor a false dichotomy. Just a simple declaration of what such a deal would entail. PS. Let him go DoG, he's going to quote Doran et al 2009, for sure.

DoG, it's like arguing religion. The religious say that their religion is "one of peace" and when you point out all the atrocities done by that religion their defence is "Oh, but they weren't true followers of our religion". All you need do is substitute communism for religion, it's the same nothing argument. Although the idea that "State Socialism" is a stepping stone to communism reminds me of one story about why the old Soviet Union fell. The Russians had built the worlds most powerful computer, a phenomenal thing that took up an entire underground base. They fed it all the possible data they could, Mathematics, populations, economics, the lot. This system was so powerful might have been the one "Deep Thought" was based on. So they had the worlds most powerful computer, linked to every database they had, the sum total of human knowledge at the time. Then they asked it a question "How far are we from true communism?" After about a week it replied "12 miles". Now this made no sense to the scientists involved, so they asked the question again, and got the same reply. "12 miles". Three times they asked and three times the computer gave the same reply. Disappointed, they thought that the computer was an abject failure and were wondering how to report this failure and not finish up in Siberia. So they delayed reporting as long as they could, all the while looking for the fault and worrying about their futures. Pressure was growing and things were looking pretty bleak when one young scientist rushed in declaring that he had solved the problem and the computer was fine, the answer was correct. "How?" They asked "12 miles? It doesn't make sense". The young man replied "Yes it does! Remember comrades, the President told us that every 5 year plan brings us one step closer to true communism." On getting the final report, the Soviets gave up.

Sorry swansont, it wasn't a strawman it was a bald statement of consequences. The deal offered was The only way that this can be fulfilled is by sterilisation or aborting of pregnancies. How else are you going to be sure that "at least one pregnancy" will be "prevented"? Even if you give the woman 5 years supply of the pill you cannot be sure that "at least one pregnancy" will be prevented. Note that this was tied to foreign aid and the words used were "for every life saved". Contraception and family planning do not save lives, food and medicines do. In a nutshell the deal is "For every life we save with food or medicine then at least one pregnancy should be prevented." As I pointed out above, there are only two ways for the prevention to occur, sterilisation or termination. Similarly you could put the deal as "We will supply aid if all women in your nation are sterilised after the birth of their third child". Again this is the only way you can ensure that "at least one pregnancy" is prevented. The concept is repugnant. However, I will accept "strawman" if you can come up with another scenario that fits the deal as outlined, "That for every life saved at least one pregnancy should be prevented", that does not involve involuntary sterilisations or terminations. For Greg when he is able on post on this topic. So? We have one of the lowest population densities on the planet. Do you really think another 3 million is going to overcrowd us? Another assertion. This is a science forum and we require proof, not just your opinion. Please provide some sort of legitimate proof. Incorrect. People in poor nations can't buy things, like food. Only by increasing their economies and personal wealth will they be able to afford more and better food and housing. 10,000 years ago the human population was around 1 million and had an entire planet to feed from, are you seriously saying that cavemen lived better than we do? BTW, if your idea was correct then Cambodia should have had a massive increase in standard of living after Pol Pot got through with the "surplus" population. Similarly the recent UNEP report says that So we need to raise GDP to at least $10,000 per capita. Now if we look at Wiki GDP per capita we get some interesting figures. The Democratic Republic of Congo has the lowest GDP of $349.049 USD and a population of 65,966,000 (according to Wiki) So by using your method to bring their GDP per capita up to the minimum UN standard (The same amount of wealth and food spread shared amoung less people) requires their population to be reduced by 63.6 million people to 2,309,000. Not bad, that's killing more people than World War 2 did and puts you on a par with Stalin. Here is the list of nations that will require their populations "reduced" to bring their GDP per capita up to UN minimum levels. ($10,000 per capita) DRC (Already mentioned) Liberia Burundi Zimbabwe ERitrea Central African Republic Niger Sierra Leone Malawi Togo Madagascar Afghanistan Guinea Mozambique Ethiopia Guinea-Bissau Comoros Haiti Uganda Rwanda Mali Myanmar Nepal Lesotho Burkina Faso Benin Tanzania Zambia Bangladesh Kenya Chad Senegal Sao Tome and Principe Tajikistan The Gambia Mauritania Cameroon Cambodia Kyrgyz (How do you pronounce this? Can I buy a vowel?) Papua New Guinea Nigeria Sudan Laos Yemen Djibouti Pakistan Ghana Timor-Leste Solomon Islands Uzbekistan Moldova Vietnam India Cape Verde Iraq Philippines Mongolia Fiji Honduras Indonesia Congo Bolivia Vanuatu Morocco Guatemala Syrian Arab Republic Swaziland Armenia Paraguay Geogia Sri Lanka Bhutan Jordan Angola Egypt Kiribati Ukraine Algeria Namibia Guyana Turkmenistan Tonga El Salvador Albania Belize Ecuador Bosnia and Herzegovina China Jamaica Maldives Dominican Republic Suriname Thailand Tunisia Peru Columbia Every single one of these nations is below $10,000. I believe that we should do everything in our power to help them develop so that there is more cash to go round and so raise their living standard. You believe they should reduce their populations. As a concept it sounds great. Until you actually look at the figures and realise just how many people have to die for it to work. BTW, on Page 17 of that UN report you'll find a section titled "Economic growth is a precondition for poverty alleviation". I suggest you read it. In passing I have noticed over the years that every ecological disaster would apparently be so much easier to solve if there were less coloured people in the world. I used to think it was a coincidence, I don't any more. E- You will need to do better. Try answering the question or reponding to the comment rather than feeble attempts at name calling. F. A rather borish tactic to deflect requests for some actual proof of your assertions. Except that on Easter Island, rather than ecological disaster, disease and slave raids killed or removed enough of the population that the society became unviable. The Mayans and Romans didn't have their populations increase to above the level they could support, rapid climate change led to reduced yields. The problem wasn't increasing population but reducing yields. You should realise that until the latter half of the 20th C climate was thought to change too slowly to be a factor in the demise of civilisations, so if there was no evidence of warfare, etc disappearances were put down to the causes you suggest. Now that we have better records of the paleoclimate we know that climate was a major factor in the fall of many of the ancient societies. I will grant that you are in essence correct though. The thing is that societies always go through political instability in times of stress. Lack of food is only one stress out of many, war, religious upheaval, earthquakes, etc also caused political instability in ancient societies. Had an earthquake? Maybe the King isn't the right King, or is worshipping the wrong God, instant political instability. Putting it all down to food is simplistic and ignores the myriad of other factors. F- You only get one chance to make a first impression and impress people with your ability to argue from facts. Not doing too well, are you? The difference is that I agree that they should have the "choice", you don't. You want to make it a condition of aid and that is the affront to humanity. As to the other, well if standing up for the basic right of a woman to control her fertility makes me sanctimonious, then sanctimonious I am. F- Repeating yourself? Already? What, nothing of any substance to offer besides unsupported opinions? Maybe, maybe not. But the choice must be theirs, not mine, not yours and certainly not some well meaning NGO with an ideological axe to grind. And should not be a precondition of humanitarian aid.

Greg, I realise that facts get in the way of a good story, but the West has been below replacement fertility rates for some time now. Except for immigration numbers, most western antions would have declining populations already. Any even cursory look at childberth numbers shows instantly that as the economy and health services improve, then people have less children. People in the third world have 7 kids because only 2 or 3 will survive. By reducing the number of children born before you increase the economy simply means that you are condemning those who already live in appalling conditions to more death and misery. If you want to "solve" the problem, then the best way is to help the third world develop as fast as possible. You might want to have a look at the Wiki page on population densities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density Kenya with 69 people per square kilometre is obviously in dire need of help compared to say, Italy with 200 per square kilometre. You started this thread with the assumption stated as fact that there is actually some sort of "population problem". How about proving that the problem exists before expecting people to listen to or discuss your "solutions"? BTW, "political instability, war and genocide" have been around since the caveman days, there is no link to over population at all. If you're surprised at michels comment you shouldn't be, your proposition is an affront to humanity. Let me rephrase your number 2 and see if it still works. 2) By simply facilitating woman in the first world to make similar choices to other woman in not being pregnant and raising children for the majority of their lives through provision of free contraception and family planning services as an integral part of needed services, i.e. for every life saved by a fireman or paramedic, at least one preganancy should be prevented. How does that sound? Any better than your "We'll give your child malaria vaccine if you let us sterilise you"? Disgusting.

Then communism doesn't work, does it? You've essentially said that communism as a human political construct doesn't work with humans. Therefore it is pointless and wishful thinking at best.

Hi POL, long time no see. Do you have a cite for those "DEEP Climate Studies"? FFS, to predict (sorry project) human societal and technological development for the next 50,000 years? What did they use? A Ouija board? It is quite possible that 50,000 years from now mankind will be spread over hundreds of planets and "Earth" will be nothing more than a half forgotten legend. This is part of the problem I have with sections of climate science. That these sorts of wild and woolly thinking and absolutely useless "projections" can be even thought of as "science". They are junk pseudoscience. While many, if not most, branches of science use models in one form or another, models have some sort of V & V process, something that climate models sadly lack. To even begin to waste time on a 50,000 year projection the first question has to be "How was the model tested and verified?" The quick answer is that it probably wasn't. Since the spread of projections for the model ensemble used by the IPCC is somewhere between -4 degrees and +10 degrees by 2100 compared to now, how big are the error bars going to be after 50,000 years? The spread would cover every possibility from Earth going down to absolute zero to being hot enough to melt steel. Useless navel gazing and not a sred of "science" about it. However, even it was correct, what exactly is the problem? The next Ice Age is cancelled and New York, London and most European cities won't be covered by a mile of ice? How is this bad news? Yes, we will run out of coal, and reach a peak before then, but I don't see your solution as a good one. As coal becomes rarer it will become more expensive, this will force the change to cheaper forms of energy in a natural process. The idea of changing now (especially using subsidies) is a fools game. Firstly since the industry is strongly subsidised there is no incentive to reduce the price or become more efficient. (Just pulling figures out of the air here.) Why would an industry being paid say 70c/kwh for power (mostly in subsidies) bother trying to reduce costs so that they can sell for 10c/kwh like coal power? You might believe that companies that make a profit will cut their prices by that much (and give up their subsidies to boot) out of the goodness of their hearts, but I don't. Flannereys geothermal outfit has had $90 million from the taxpayers and has yet to produce a single watt. I'm sure he'll be both trotters in the trough for some of Gillards $10 billion for "renewables" as well. Secondly and more importantly changing now locks us into current technologies and this is bad. We might finish up with pissant little windfarms dotting the landscape while the rest of the world moves over to fusion power. Look at the stupidity of the NBN to see how a gov mandated change locks a nation into poor and outmoded technology. You must also realise that 30 years from now the "renewables" industry will be well entrenched and will fight tooth and nail to stop any new forms of power generation that threaten their market share. It is far better to make the change later when coal is getting more expensive and we can choose from the best and most effective technologies available rather than doing it now on the premise and promise that these subsidised technologies will work out. Thirdly. The only way out of the poverty trap for the poorer nations is cheap and abundant power, without that there will be no growth. Those nations can't afford expensive power, their economies simply aren't strong enough. Wind and solar simply don't generate enough power for those nations to develop. How many in the Third World are you willing to condemn to disease, poverty and early deaths? So let them develop and burn all the coal they want. It will run out faster and the change to other forms will come sooner, but those economies will them be strong enough to make the change. What we owe our grandchildren is a civilisation where rolling blackouts are rare and not the norm. Where the idea of throwing a switch and having light isn't the stuff of legend and "Grandfather Tales". We owe them a future where they have more than we do and not less. You were the interviewer? Cool. BTW, I'm a Brisbanite and Peak Oil Man is a Sydneysider. There are more than a few Aussies here. There is quite a bit of work being done concerning the Sun and its possible effects. For example Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change by Nicola Scafetta. Another paper of his is Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications. What is interesting here is the fact that temp changes are cyclic and do match quite well with cycles within the Solar System. The exact mechanism by which the cycles have an effect he doesn't know. The correlation is very strong but correlation does not imply causation, a mechanism must be found. However his P values imply that his "Solar" model will easily outperform the GISS Model E climate model. WorldOfBiochemistry, Are we? Of the three warming periods since 1850 only the most recent (1970-2000) is believed to be anthropogenic. The rate of temp rise in this most recent period is indistinguishable from the rate of rise of the earler two warming periods. Each period was of 30 years duration with a rate of temp rise of circa .160/decade. Where is the acceleration? The mild warming since 1850 (.7 degrees in 150 years is mild) is left for dead by the wild swings shown in the ice cores.