Human extinction? Not so much.

Hello Alex,

The last two weeks were especially great! Excellent questions and very enjoyable responses and discourse. Im sure Guy probably gets frustrated at the response response, but then it's pretty impressive that he is as calm as he is. Personally, I believe he provides an excellent service. Someone needs to be in the "what if" category, and absolutely believe it to be convincing. His lectures should serve as a means to ensuring we do something about a possible outcome like the one he predicts. I do agree that it does make you want to give us sometimes, but then, when framed against this week's conversations, it does make you want to be a bit more vocal and "do something".

The march was mentioned next week. KMO's girlfriend's concerns were well attributed. People who are interested in that should read Christopher Hedge's piece about that on Truthdig (The Last Gasp of Climate Change Liberals) . Speaking of… any change you could interview him? That would be incredible. It is apparent he has great concerns about the environment of the future, and should fit in nicely with the conversion. Just don't bring up Kevin O'Leary.

You and Guy offer great insight. I'm very pleased I found both of your sites. I think I found Guy's from your interview actually. Personally, I suspect that Guy might be correct. If not 100% annihilation, perhaps the vast majority… eventually. Industrial civ will most likely crack or collapse under the various global pressures (book: Commonwealth) and that will probably push up the temperature by a couple degrees over night (aerosols). It's the sudden changes that are hard for the planet to deal with, and thats when environmental affects really take hold.

All the best ~ …JavaK

Beckwith told me directly, to my face, that he believed we'd survive a global-average temperature rise of 16 C. Alex, your continued disparagement of my work, which cites the work of many others, is profoundly unprofessional and disingenuous.

Your approach is clear: Find anybody to disagree with the science, and claim they're disagreeing with me. You prop up the credentials of Scott Johnson and KMO are not scientists, but they aren't scientists, they don't cite any science, and they disparage my work based on opinion, not fact.

KMO uses an incorrect title for me, and you don't correct it. I'm not a former professor.

I'm starting to think you have an agenda, Alex. Sadly, science doesn't seem to be part of it.

Alex, thank-you for another great podcast. You and KMO are Wednesday favorites for me. Climate change is a frightening subject for all of us believers. It is difficult to understand the deniers. Surely they must see the changes happening around them. Are they so afraid of a possible carbon tax they will throw the planet under the bus? Namaste,Deborah D. Summerville, SC

Based on my research of human nature, power, systems theory, etc. over the past 20 years or so, I tend to identify with the Guy Mc position. However, I have fun thinking about how we could have avoided the ugly landscape we now have and the the less than hospitable future that we now face. We would certainly have to be less anthropocentric than we are now. I'm also not sure that it involves extensive online discussion/confrontation about just when our demise will occur. Those who bother to think about these things — regardless of where you fall with respect to the time frame of our demise — should realize that you represent less than 1% of the population…

I envision a campus/college network where there are no cars or bureaucracy and where residents could move around to avoid the Magic Mountain (Mann) effect. It would be top quality — think Esalen Institute (without the bureaucracy) — and be able to produce and process gourmet food. BTW, I'm reasonably serious about making this happen.

Thanks to Guy for getting the message out and to Alex for his mediation…

In memory of Dan Treecraft…

Matt in Spokane

P.S. I've noticed here in Spokane that many of us who think that we humans are done are those who chose not to have children. Any thoughts on this? Cause or effect? Does having offspring lead to denial?

Gail's comments "nailed it" to my view of things, although I'd say ecosystem collapse is more a symptom of climate disruption.

Either way, in pretty much every way possible the planet is deteriorating from human presence. Our population is greater today than it has ever been, and looks certain to increase indefinitely until massive plagues, famine or war come into play.

As for NTHE, it's one tough enough to connect the dots and accurately forecast the future.
But predicting the "when" is many times more difficult than foreseeing the "what". For example Malthus and Ehrlich weren't necessarily wrong in what they predicted, just when they predicted it to happen. Their "whats" got dismissed b/c their "whens" were wrong.

Whether Guy is right or wrong about the 2030 thing, humanity is clearly on a completely unsustainable path in many ways and shows no sign of the ability or will to address or correct its ways. How far off the multiple storm clouds facing us are is anybody's educated guess at best, but there can be no doubt those clouds get bigger and closer every day.

"It is based on irrefutable, irreversible trends and a view of history unclouded by wishful thinking (or hopium, a perfectly legitimate coinage IMO)."

And there you go. These ultra-doomers (who, interestingly, seem to count very few actual scientists among their numbers) are in sole possession of The Truth and to question The Truth is to commit heresy. Nothing cultish or religious about the way you deal with or defend your beliefs, is there.

"The date you give is when the article was first published. Why have you not corrected your records?"

Because it's already correct, as you point out with your absurdly Orwellian statement.

As already mentioned in this space, no mainstream scientist will mention extinction. They like their jobs. But there's no surviving a rapid rise in planetary temperature to 4 C above baseline. And 4 C is locked in, soon.

The clathrate gun has been fired, as clearly demonstrated by abundant evidence. To deny this evidence is truly inane at this point, and just what I expect from you many others.

Thanks for the link and the consideration.

My broadest point is that McPherson is not "like" a denialist. McPherson IS a denialist. The phenomenon of denialism has a long history in the interface between science and society; anti-Darwinism being the earliest clear example. When people don't intuitively agree with science, many of them cast about for reasons to disbelieve it. They cherry pick evidence that supports their position and ignore that which doesn't. Then they claim that the evidence supporting their own position is overwhelming.

Regarding feedbacks, certainly they can be coupled in complex ways. One feedback can ameliorate or exacerbate another, though formally you have to put even more information paths in the model for that to work.

But they can't literally "multiply" in the way McPherson advocates. If they could, one negative feedback, no matter how tiny, could reverse the stability of the whole system by multiplying all the feedbacks with a negative number.

You'd end up with a system whose stability depended on whether the number of negative feedbacks were even or odd. It basically turns into a mathematical monster that bears no resemblance to what scientists call a model. In short, that idea is not useful.

If you are talking about whether a system is or isn't stable, you have to go with the mathematics of stability, with which McPherson appears to be unfamiliar. No crime in that unless you bluster your way to scaring the pants off people. Which maybe ought to be a crime. It certainly strikes me as reprehensible.

As the article pointed out, I am very concerned about our future and unhappy about our trajectory, but it seems to me that the way through is to use the best possible information. Science is not infallible, but the consensus of the professional community is by definition the best you can do at any time.

I am happy to report that McPherson (along with Beckwith and Carana and that whole gang) is totally off the reservation. You should no more attend to them than to Tony Watts. We have to give up on carbon. If we don't, the ecological stresses will continue to mount.

Gradually on human time scales, though abruptly on natural ones. Indeed it is exactly the mismatch of time scales that makes this problem so hard for us to deal with.

I started a group on Facebook called The Panic Room. (Don't freak out Michael it's meant ironically) precisely to provide a safe haven for people to discuss the multi-faceted subject of extinction…in whatever timeframe. I was tired of attacks calling us Cassandras things like "reprehensible" and worse. Biologists agree that the sixth great extinction has begun. Only typical human hubris and a religious faith in technology could lead anyone to believe that our species will escape the fate we are inflicting on all or nearly all the others. Whereas climate change is expected to accelerate and perhaps finalize this new age of the Anthropocene, what is driving it right is the usual mundane habitat destruction, pollution, and extraction. Anyone who would like to check out TPR drop me a line.

I'll have to let Guy clarify that but to me there is no inconsistency, rather, perhaps, a weakness in what is merely a metaphor. I take "has been fired" to mean that it is now inevitable that the bullet is going to exit the chamber. The velocity is unknown.

No, Gail, you are being overly generous. It is not merely a metaphor (except that there is no actual gun). McPherson writes in his "Climate-change summary and update":

'Malcolm Light concluded on 22 December 2013, “we have passed the methane hydrate tipping point and are now accelerating into extinction as the methane hydrate ‘Clathrate Gun’ has begun firing volleys of methane into the Arctic atmosphere.” According to Light’s analysis in late 2013, the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere will resemble that of Venus before 2100. Two weeks later, in an essay stressing near-term human extinction, Light concluded: “The Gulf Stream transport rate started the methane hydrate (clathrate) gun firing in the Arctic in 2007 when its energy/year exceeded 10 million times the amount of energy/year necessary to dissociate subsea Arctic methane hydrates.”'

That is what he is insisting on, with no evidence. That is what he uses to draw attention to himself and NTHE and away from real information such as that you cite from Mann. I hope you can see the difference in approach and in validity.

Very embarrassing answers from Guy here. When someone is not prepared to concede any statement they make is wrong or debatable, you can be sure that they have lost the plot and aren't interested in actually seeking accuracy or reasonableness.

Contrast his comments (including petty complaints) with those of Scott Johnson and Michael Tobis. The contrast is marked.

Submitted without further comment:

From Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

When [James P.] Kennett analyzed fossil shells from the Santa Barbara Basin using mass spectroscopy, large spikes in methane appeared coincident with periods of abrupt climate shift [Dansgaard–Oeschger interstadial events]. The American Geophysical Union published a book on what Kennett calls his clathrate gun hypothesis in 2002 (3). Kennett acknowledges that the potential climate-shift role of methane clathrates, the more technical term for hydrate, was and remains controversial. “Methane hydrates have and will continue to play a key role in climate change,” he predicts, “[but] the climate community has largely not accepted the idea of a role.”

Kennett believes that the greatest potential of rapid methane release into the atmosphere is from sediments under the ocean, not in wetlands as others propose. He explains that estimates suggest up to 11,000 gigatons of methane hydrate reserves versus 5 gigatons of reserves of all fossil fuels. “There are arguments about almost everything in this field because it's so young,” he says. But Kennett sees methane studies as outside-the-box thinking, saying, “Eventually, it's likely to be seen as part and parcel of global climate change through time.”

3. Kennett JP, Cannariato KG, Hendy IL, Behl RJ
(2002) Methane Hydrates in Quaternary Climate Change: The Clathrate Gun Hypothesis (Am Geophys Union, Washington, DC).

Further comment:

1. Let's keep it sweet. We're all in this together.

2. There is the possibility that the clathrate gun may be smashing ants with the hammer of god.

3. Gaze at the stars and then reassess the importance of life as we know it.

4. Ah, tragedy.

I became completely jaded with McPherson when he started flying around the world to hold sparsely attended, poorly filmed gatherings. Why would he do this if, according to him, it is already too late to stop our demise? Besides his gaining ego satisfaction from the attention and creating a personality cult in the process, the only point I can see for this wasted effort is that it has enabled him to escape his dreary existence at the “mud hut,” which is not an accurate description of his household anyway. This man is such a natural at hyperbole.

Secondly, it has always puzzled me why a supposed expert (Professor Emeritus of Natural Resources and Ecology & Evolutionary Biology) would choose to settle in New Mexico. Even I, a non-scientist, have always known that area was going to run out of water in very short order, NTE or not.

Also, why does he not ever address overpopulation head-on? Since great suffering is in the immediate cards, according to him, then the best recommendation for humanity would be to stop reproduction entirely and now. He demurely (with no active participation) became a member of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement's FB site but seems very afraid to offend his fans, many of whom are hard-core "professional" parents, so he remains mute to appease them. He's not as radical as he thinks. Again, if he believes we're done for, why doesn't he make an effort to stop unnecessary future misery or at least bring it up occasionally?

Now I consider McPherson a dark source of comedic relief for myself, not for the many he depresses and demoralizes while speaking down to them with the meaningless, vague “live a life of excellence" or "we're living in a time of hospice." On the other hand, I suspect that his disciples, most of them aging, financially comfortable, and non-expert in hard scientific knowledge, acquire peace of mind from his beliefs: By accepting that all effort to save the planet is for naught, they are off the hook and can live as comfortably as they always have in a consumerist world, including McPherson himself, who relies on and spends a great deal of time with the monetarily secure. Plus, they have the additional bonus of being able to pat themselves on the back for being so-called realists, superior outliers, forward-thinking iconoclasts without having to lift a finger.

Is the planet in dire trouble? Yes. Is it sensible to accept McPherson's opinion as the only option? No.

——————————-

That most people still have not given up idling (drive thru's, after school pick-up) and power mowers / blowers for their lawns is all the evidence I need that we will NOT address the CO2 problem in a timely manner (or the coming energy crunch). The fruit doesn't hang much lower than that, but we can't be inconvenienced to pick it.

So regardless wether the clathrate gun has been fired or how fast world temps rise, here are two predictions with a general time frame included:

1) we will see the day when cars are used more for shelter than transportation

2) we will all end up broke and hungry

Michal Tobis, is your smug conviction it won't happen working well for you?

It is insane that either extreme is barfed up against the backdrop of the other as if that proves something useful for any of us at this point.

I wonder if barfing up extreme conviction against another's opposite extreme conviction can be added to the positive feedback list?

Q-Who needs extinction or non-extinction so badly that anything important is set aside?

A-The fossil fuel industry.

We may not see human extinction in our lifetimes, but we are well on the way to termination of civil society and, thus, a technologically advanced existence…

And as one who has been a fan of the exponential function since my first encounter with it, I think it is grossly under-implemented with respect to the interaction of possible positive feedbacks.

SA defines the essence of the problem with these words…"NTE theory refutes the human experience. It's WAY outside the boundaries of knowledge that can be readily accepted." I agree with this. Humans cannot imagine the world without them, so they refuse. They stick their fingers in their ears and scream la-la-la-la as the evidence mounts that we alive in this moment have the unique vantage of viewing all history from the peak of everything anthropogenic. We can see the downslope if we choose, but most do not. Really, most cannot.

I have seen Guy be impatient, testy, stubborn and respond curtly, but I have never seen him spew the epithets and insults and character assassinations at others that I have seen him receive here and other places. Even something as contemptuous as "get back to your goats" – I've never seen him respond in kind. Maybe you can point to an example.

And as far as serious consideration of the science well, anyone who follows the archdruid and his magic and homeopathy really ought to think twice before leveling that charge.

I also agree with chipshot. I was following up on some of Michael Mann's other articles and the one just prior was written about his family vacation to Yellowstone. Did they get there from PA by walking or horseback? Not to pick on him because the only climate scientists I know of who have pledged to reduce their own carbon footprint are Alice Bows and Kevin Anderson. The rest are praying for a mythical technology that will enable this party to continue.

I should have been more specific and said "pledged publicly to eschew air travel". And more generally called for a reduction in leving standards in the wealthy nations.

I highly recommend this easy by Dave Cohen which explains why that will ever happen… http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2014/09/adventures-in-flatland-part-ii.html#more

While no disciple of anyone, having followed Ecoshock and Nature Bats for years, I was surprised at how personally I took Janus' comment that "On the other hand, I suspect that his disciples, most of them aging, financially comfortable, and non-expert in hard scientific knowledge, acquire peace of mind from his beliefs: By accepting that all effort to save the planet is for naught, they are off the hook and can live as comfortably as they always have in a consumerist world, including McPherson himself, who relies on and spends a great deal of time with the monetarily secure. Plus, they have the additional bonus of being able to pat themselves on the back for being so-called realists, superior outliers, forward-thinking iconoclasts without having to lift a finger."

That's a classic ad hominem attack. So is most of the rest of the post, even though A) In public communications McPherson has a hard time stepping out of his role as professor, and B) I was surprised when he moved to NM too. The comments in general are rife with personal digs, and in that I suspect personal motives not reasonable discourse.

I hope Janus enjoyed writing that post. Sometimes I take great pleasure in chopping apart a fool's worldview. But I try to remember that it's the very definition of cruelty, and I do my best to choose other pursuits.

I don't know when humanity will "leave", and I hope that McPherson's data IS fudged to be "doomer-porn". But while I'm not a scientist, I sense that McPherson is rational and genuine, and that his professional studies have given him a keen ability to look at the dozens of diverse studies coming in and form broad conclusions. While he is by no means the "best" brain on the block, his presentation and citations *on the whole* are compelling.

I'm saddened by the comments that disparage him for stating that, to paraphrase, "by reviewing a big pile of literature I've concluded NTHE is baked in and we may want to deal with this honorable." Duh. I hope he's wrong, but even so this does not induce me to fatalism and I don't think he suggests it. The fact is, *I* am going to die, and I'm of an age that I can imagine this happening in a very real time frame. This certainty (much more certain than NTHE) has not caused me to give up on living, nor will it. Why disparage the message with a red-herring conclusion?

That said, anyone who just got a full interview on Radio Ecoshock with excellent questions, no time limit, no interruptions, played in full has no business calling Alex Smith "disingenuous". Kudos to Alex to interview a guest he respectfully doesn't fully agree with. That he filled the next episode with critics is a genuine work of balance. I hope Alex understands that Guy is under a lot of stress for his message, but I hope Guy finds more compassion for those who are honestly skeptical and even for those who just don't care to think of such things objectively. Note that none of these comments were directed at co-guest Carolyn Baker.

Guy, ask Carolyn how she'd of handled this bunch — don't just complain about "a conspiracy". Humans are self-absorbed enough to kill off the planets capacity to support us. Thanks for enlightening us. But to expect such idiots to here the news and then accept it like the weather report?

Alex, thanks again for your great interviews.

Graham,

Earlier, Guy said:

"Writing for the 3 September 2012 issue of Global Policy, Michael Jennings concludes that “a suite of amplifying feedback mechanisms, such as massive methane leaks from the sub-sea Arctic Ocean, have engaged and are probably unstoppable.”

There you have it. A refereed journal article concluding the clathrate gun has been fired. Will it be the final nail in the deniers' coffin? Undoubtedly not, even though it follows years of overwhelming evidence in similar fashion.

<a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/j.1758-5899.2012.00193.x/>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/j.1758-5899.2012.00193.x/</a>&quot;

Guy thinks that this is proof positive that the clathrate gun has been fired.

This does

Tim,

I also used to think Guy rational and genuine. I had the greatest respect for him. But his repeated refusal to engage his critics seriously, instead of dismissing them as deniers, has definitely lowered his reputation and makes me think that he is neither rational nor genuine. He claims to want to be proven wrong but his actions suggest otherwise.

Although he doesn't promote fatalism or giving up, his message can clearly have that effect, if taken on board. He often says something like "you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, so do", which is no different from ending it with "so don't". In the face of extinction by 2040 something, any response is valid.

"The hold that McPherson has over some people is strange." ~ Graham Wells

Well you can hold me too if you wish. But I naturally respond to certain kinds of holds.
Anyway, aside from the fact that Guy's kinda cute 😉 the hold he has on me, if there is to be one, is, rather, symbolic or vicarious of the hold that mother earth has on you, me and everyone else.

——–

For PMB (from Fractal Planet blog):

"After all, the shallow coastal areas that people are worried about *are* ice-free in the summer. Why should that have no significant effect, but removing the last ~4 million km^2 of sea ice in the middle of the Arctic Ocean *suddenly* flip a switch?" ~ SJ, (from Fractal Planet blog. Select 'older entries')

"I think it might be called a tipping point? Like maybe the straw that breaks the camel’s back?
From what is understood, open arctic water is far more heat-absorbing than arctic ice. Once we get that, then what? Also, I would like to inquire how much fossil fuels have been burned since humans began burning them, and what kind of an explosion might that be in a relative geological time-frame sense (IOW, the blink of an eye.)?
What’s that kind of explosive energy like? If it’s relatively large, like, say, a meteor impact that finished the dinosaurs, do we really believe that nothing’s going to happen?
I am unsure we really need to be scientists to figure what kind of scales we’re talking about…" ~ Glomerol

There was no reply by SJ at the time to my response.

How fast is science and responsive government action by the way? Faster than a climate-change bullet? This also assumes appropriate and effective action regarding the bullet as opposed to mostly greenwashing.

—

"I can assure you there wasn’t any science in that debate." ~ SJ
"…I would wager that more inaccurate sentences were spoken than accurate ones during that event." ~ SJ
"This was the one with H. Leighton Steward, right? I’m not sure you could pay me to watch that thing…" ~ SJ
"I will never argue that ignorance is preferable to knowledge." ~ SJ

"I am unsure it matters anyway… Science might look good on paper, but it falls apart in the hands of humans.
All the science in the world and look at the mess." ~ Glomerol

Glomerol,

Like McPherson and many of his fans you have abandoned science, leaving you to believe anything you fancy. That makes rational discussion impossible.

" It's not a cautionary tale, it's near term human extinction by mid century." ~ sofistek

Where did 'tale' come from? A Freudian slip? Because the only other place where it was found previously-mentioned was this fine quote from PMB about Scott Johnson:

"And how is it helpful to fill adults with fairy tales. We’re a culture more concerned with entertainment than with reality.

The points Scott raises above give us a view into how his mind processes the physical world around him which is why we must be very careful in accepting even his most rational points." ~ PMB

My contention, again, is that we already are essentially dead. (I mention CRASS' 'You're Already Dead' song on SJ's blog regarding this, incidentally.)

We've become, in part, in effect, infantilized, and more or less don't know how to grow our own food, make our own clothes, or build our own shelters, or even raise our own children in these crony-capitalist-corporate-gutted mall-fringed pseudo-communities, while we continue to degrade our options for survival, such as toasting other, and potentially keystone, species, as we sit on one thumb with the other in our mouths.

NTHE has already begun from a shifting baseline/boiled frog/death-of-a-thousand-cuts standpoint.

Some people's questionably-useful qualms aside, Guy et al still seem to be batting for the right team, and to need support, and a reduction in in-fighting to boot.
I suggest we consider sucking some things up and letting them slide and/or approaching some kinds of things somehow differently. We might do better, or end up going the way of Michael C. Ruppert before out time.
If we want to nit-pick, how about with members of the so-called 1% or .1%, their governpimps and/or their police/military thugs? Tax revolt. Establish safe houses. Join DGR.

"In modern usage, ‘science’ most often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself. It is also often restricted to those branches of study that seek to explain the phenomena of the material universe… over the course of the 19th century, the word ‘science’ became increasingly associated with the scientific method itself, as a disciplined way to study the natural world, including physics, chemistry, geology and biology…"

Yes, that is how I used the word.

"Yes, that is how I used the word." ~ Graham Wells

That's not all that was written, Graham.

"That's not all that was written, Graham."

That seemed to be the only part requiring comment, Glomerol. The Foss quote I agree with. Is there a specific point you would like addressed?

"Graham, do you not understand the difference between the 7.1 Billion in the headline to the article, and the ABBREVIATED url link that leaves out the dot as assigned by the great intertubus is the ethernet?"

No (or should I say NO), I was not aware of that. Seems scarcely believable.

So you agree with, admire and respect aspects of what McPherson is doing.

Your third paragraph is indisputable.

While the term "plague species" seems unnecessary (we are a part of nature), it seems that your point in which it appears is very likely true. And yes, I think economic collapse is likely to forestall the worst of AGW by preventing extraction of most fossil fuels.

But sorry, I still don't know whether you accept McPherson's prediction of NTHE.

"And yes, I think economic collapse is likely to forestall the worst of AGW by preventing extraction of most fossil fuels."

But extracting fossil fuels, and AGW, are not the worst impacts humans are having on the rest of life of the planet.

Eating and polluting, logging and fishing, paving and tilling and agricultural burning and acidification of the soil, water and air are, in the short term, what is killing life on earth right now. AGW has yet to kick in with ferocity in other than a few localized extreme weather events.

Gail, I think many (all) animal species are hardwired to grow and consume, if the resources are there to allow it but usually there are dampening pressures (like predators, weather, etc.). Remember that humans experience little growth for most of their existence.

If industrial civilisation is dismantled, the means to strip the world of anything would be greatly diminished. I look forward to that.

"GRAHAM the DOT in the URL would lead to a non existent link. The DOT was automatically removed in the URL and is has NOTHING TO DO WITH the headline of the parody."

Okay, Gail, OKAY. It was a MISTAKE on my part. I was WRONG. I SHOULD have realized.

"I don't think it matters HOW SOON humans go extinct. They will and very soon, if there are any survivors, they will envy the dead.

"This circumstance will certainly occur within the natural lifetime of my children and their age cohort – ages 1 to 35."

The above means that you don't accept McPherson's prediction regarding NTHE, including whether humans are certain to go extinct. It leaves the question of why you seem so reluctant to say so directly. Perhaps McPherson regards all expressions of doubt as apostasy now, and banishes the guilty from his online domain.

"But extracting fossil fuels, and AGW, are not the worst impacts humans are having on the rest of life of the planet.

"Eating and polluting, logging and fishing, paving and tilling and agricultural burning and acidification of the soil, water and air are, in the short term, what is killing life on earth right now. AGW has yet to kick in with ferocity in other than a few localized extreme weather events."

Current use of fossil fuels multiplies by many times those "worst impacts" that concern you; and the human die-off that will follow economic collapse will serve to reduce them further. Not much we can do about AGW that is "baked in".

It doesn't matter whether Guy is right or wrong. He cuts through the noise and gets heard. I came across Guy because he had the most interesting title on a page of youtube suggestions: "Near Term Human Extinction". Seemed crazy but I thought, why not? And I was introduced to a confident, thoughtful, roundly-informed individual, aware of and integrating multiple aspects of science and social issues. Calling out the popular icons of climate science for being too conservative in their projections. Since then, getting to the bottom of the reality of climate change has been my over-riding passion. To the great detriment of the rest of my life!! Well, it wasn't much anyway. LOL

At the time I came across GM, I was an avid ars reader. But I noticed a decided nonchalance in their climate change articles. Everything's OK. Attention paid to the lesser issues. Safe discussion. In short, see Chomsky on manufacturing consent—his critique (with Ed Herman) of education, the media, and the intellectual elite. (Or, see this Wikipedia entry on The Propaganda Model: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model ) This then led to immoderate, provocative posts on ars comments pages and a private discussion over issues and facts with Scott Johnson, and finally, Scott announced to me that he would be starting a blog to expose the mistakes
and bias in GM's essays.

Since then, much has happened in the world of science and on the planet Earth. Climate change continues apace,
faster and faster. The feeling that originally spurred GM to action and speech. The feeling that every time you
turn around it's worse than it was. That's what is true about Guy. That is what he gets right. The rest, to me, is immaterial. If he cherry-picks, misrepresents, errs, lies… it doesn't matter. You will find the same sorts of things in Scott's critique and discussion. Everyone is biased. But GM does bias better than most. LOL

DO YOUR OWN DUE DILIGENCE.

“However clear or simple be it,
Finder or doer alone may see it.”
— J.W. von Goethe

"Keep thine own counsel"
— W. Shakespeare

I still love GM and I don't forget who it was that opened my eyes and put me on the climate change learning path.

GM reminds me in some ways of the Unabomber, a prophet who resorted to terror.

He also reminds me of a girl I knew who told the truth with lies.

There's been a tipping point in opinion. Everyone knows the situation has become critical. We don't know exactly how critical, but chances favor the worst.

It would take a lot to extinguish all human life. But ALL civilizations have died. Heinberg makes this point in some of his videos. Not all cultures, mind you, but all civilizations. Noam Chomsky is listening for the death knell:
"It is not pleasant to contemplate the thoughts that must be passing through the mind of the Owl of Minerva as the dusk falls and she undertakes the task of interpreting the era of human civilization, which may now be approaching its inglorious end."
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/26000-owl-of-minervas-view-isis-and-our-times

When I first came across GM's NTHE video, it was unique, different. Now there are scores if not hundreds of all kinds of extinction and disaster videos on youtube. GM was the leading edge.

Janus, sweetheart, I presume you had to post twice to get the system to cram all those words in? Is Guy really worth that much effort for you? Wow! ^u^
You might do well to consider getting out more or something, in part because Guy may be missing from that tree you're barking up.
You might find a squirrel, though, that have, incidentally, gotten along fine and this far with some nuts and without science. 'u^

I guess some of us can leave the question of Guy's halo, and whether the hut is actually a hut and made of mud (or straw bale), to Graham et al while the rest focus on less important issues. lol

Many people's (often-manufactured) 'credibilities', including your's and janus', might go well with a side-order of red herring and grain of salt.

Mr. McPherson's academic background shows that he has achieved accreditation in Range Science and Forest Resources – in other words he has a lot of expertise that could make a one-person difference in the world. As such it is a shame that the message he carries is nihilistic – that essentially the best one person can do today is accept the truth of the death of the species, rather than attempt improvement. A shame to squander the expertise one actually has in order to foster hopelessness in an area where one actually may lack the expertise to see clearly. Hopium or not, it seems like the definition of defeatist behavior to me.

That was Part I. I also recommend Part II, which begins:

Recently I wrote about my awakening from doomer porn stupor. This week, I would like to talk about positives in the doomer community. Stuff that keeps me hanging in with this at times panic stricken, over-the-top folk.

There are two good things I can think of off hand. First, the doomer community is past denial and awake. They see the clusterfuck of crises heading our way and don’t flinch. It can be pretty cool to hang out with people who do not require tutoring or persuasion regarding the predicaments we face. and continues – The second good thing is… a lot of doomers are doing something interesting, useful and catching. Whether learning to keep chickens, putting food up, cultivating old timey skills, or starting local currencies and barter, doomers have a lot of nifty projects going, projects that will, in a pinch, come very handy. They are learning and sharing skills and ways of being useful at any time life must pull back and decomplexify… and it looks like that time is now.

http://leavingbabylon.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/doomer-mania-ii/

Cheveyo Lone Eagle,

Would you think that a caring and humble person would react to criticism by slinging insults (see Janus's last but one post for an example)? Would you expect such a person to reject all opportunities to calmly discuss the science that he says leads to his conclusions?

I certainly wouldn't. His attitude towards anyone who doesn't agree with him 100% is unconscionable.

Janus, I checked out the flyer for his New Zealand visit. It says that he is an "internationally renowned climate scientist". I don't think so; except in his own mind, perhaps.

it's a terrible thought that citizens of New Zealand, home of unique natural beauty and bastion of conservation, could be convinced by Guy's Earth Memorial Service to just roll over and stop making an effort. I hope at least one or two people show up at his speaking gigs to ask a few tough and well-informed questions instead of swallowing his slideshow.

Very hastily-thrown-together updates on the fun and games of Dr. Doom, Inc.:

His latest NBL post has "abundant" (a word he criminally overuses) material to concern us all.

http://guymcpherson.com/2014/10/pauline-schneiders-film/

McPherson's introductory quote for an amateur film about the romance of hopelessness: "Pauline Schneider’s film, 'Going Dark,' is embedded below. Password is Going Dark. Please support her efforts at the tip jar. She’ll not recover her costs, much less earn money, so you needn’t worry about her becoming financially wealthy on this effort."

As usual, he talks down to regular folk with this smooth disingenuousness. Of course they shouldn't worry about her wealth: She already has it. This person owns a house worth over half a million dollars in one of the most expensive counties in the country while traveling extensively without full-time employment. McP knows his credulous acolytes won't bother checking background information first before handing over government fiat. On the Fundly site alone, $4,125 has been raised towards a $10,000 goal.

Next on the agenda is his visit to Paul Henry's show in New Zealand. I liked this: "Yes, McPherson will show up for a wake at a funeral (apropos for one who thinks about death constantly) if he can gain an audience. Unemployed, he's always available anytime, anywhere. The genuine scientists are actually working in the field. The planet is in trouble, folks, no denying that; however, paying attention to this unbalanced soul is not the way to proceed."

And I loved this (I think she is reading this blog…just like McPherson**): "Some of his past predictions: peak oil hit in 2005 with complete societal collapse by 2008; dark ages by 2012; stone age by 2018. Wow, I'm sure he's right this time! And his blog, Nature Bats Last, has some heartwarming posts like "Contemplating Suicide? Please Read This" and "Why We Should Welcome Our Demise–and Soon!" And here I wondered why he has NO research articles peer-reviewed by real climate scientists concerning near-term extinction. I think he's having a very public nervous breakdown (he does quote Nietzsche a lot, a telling sign, haha!)."

Next, poster fun!

Noticing the whimsically punctuated and capitalized content of both advertisements in general, we should take note of this particular example, presented as sloppily as his own belief system, in the first poster: "…where he has [had] taught for over twenty years…is also an internationally reknowned [renowned] climate scientist…speaks out about…his own research [well, the research of others that he aggregates in an extreme cherry-picking style much like right-winger Matt Drudge of "The Drudge Report"].

It ends with the request*** for money that we have come to expect from McP and Company: "this tour is completely self funded. if you would like to donate, please visit…"

**The elegant McP also keeps up with Fractal Planet: "In this space, you claim you don’t deny the possibility of abrupt climate change. That’s impressive since it’s clearly under way. But when you’re fawning to Scott Johnson on his website under another name, you deny abrupt climate change." 10/20/2014

***Euphemisms abound, such as tipping or crowdfunding, but let's call it what it is: old-fashioned begging. I'll give my cash to the truly needy, thanks. The world is saturated with genuine suffering.

•

Here's a fun read: http://robinwestenra.blogspot.com/2014/10/guy-mcpherson-lecture-in-auckland-new.html

And he is wrong about methane. It is climbing at a slightly slower rate than it did up to about 2000, but resumed rising around 2006, after a short period of stability.

The guy who commented at the end of that piece is also stating that the extinction rate of 200 a day (that Guy uses all the time) is a fact, when it was an estimate. There have been other estimates since the UN one and, though all are worrying, none state the rate as a fact but give a range. The rate could be a lot less but still 10s or 100s times the background rate. Guy doesn't care about stating something that isn't (known) fact as fact.

Begging addendum:

Amateur filmmaker's message on her Vimeo site (notice the whining at the end that peeks out from the loving restraint beforehand!):

"If you enjoyed this film, don't forget to tip! Many people helped participate and donated their time (babysitting my child and pets), money (thank you!), and craft to make it. It was a labor of love [,] and the donations received to help make it were wonderful but barely covered the cost of the equipment."

Help her out, McPherson minions! Gosh, how is she going to afford that upcoming vacation?

Speaking of vacations… A handler has set up his begging bowl on Givealittle to pay for McP's current NZ escape from the tedious "mud hut." They're both giddily enjoying their adventures (it's fun to tell folks that they're going to die soon and their children/grandchildren will live short lives of torturous misery!!). Here's a verbatim quote from McP's newest bosom buddy/handler on FB: "Were having a ball, we're pretty cheerful doomers, even the DJ thought so."

This merry effort has garnered $935 NZD from those too ignorant to know better. As the description says: "The purpose of this tour is to raise the alarm and inform people of our dire circumstances." Good times!

Another McP comment: "Nietzsche’s maxim comes to mind: 'What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger.'" (Actually, considering McP's reputation, I think it is "What doesn't kill me kills me.")
—
Scott Johnson's excellent, concise critique: "Do I really need to explain, yet again, why it’s not good to have someone telling people that all the climate scientists know we’re all about to die, and there’s nothing we can do about it, so you might as well retreat to a hut in the woods to buy a couple years time before the radioactive zombies (artistic license) get you? When that story is just bullshit? And we are instead at a critical point, needing to push for change? And a number of people are being sucked into whirlpools of panic and depression, believing the bullshit this person presents as common fact?

He’s not 'almost right.' He has painted a green sky with spiky, metal clouds. Blurring isn’t the problem. This argument is beyond ridiculous. It’s like defending someone proclaiming that an asteroid will destroy life on Earth next Tuesday by saying, 'Hey, at least he’s reminding people that asteroids exist.'"
—
Another disingenuous McP statement: "… I do like the person I see in the mirror. I dropped out of empire because I don’t believe in empire. Although I had no influence, and continue to have none, my conscious (sic) is clear. I continue to practice and promote a gift economy, rather than grubbing for fiat currency."
—
Another McP comment: "With respect to my views on climate, they are supported by abundant science.” (Arghhh!)
—
I'll leave you with the best representation of the sacrifices made by Our Man in New Zealand, a photo of him sitting by a typical fan's swimming pool, eating cake, without his crucifix:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10204081101440502&set=p.10204081101440502&type=1&theater

Hi gang

Really I hope blog comments will regain their focus on the scientific argument for or against an early extinction.

I get that some posters don't like Guy's approach, but do we need to shoot the messenger? I encourage people to stick to the argument, rather than going after Guy or his followers personally.

Alex

Readers may be interesting in this email that I received in response to my last comment. It claims to come from Guy R McPherson but surely an emeritus professor wouldn't use such language, would he?

I don't misrepresent the science, asswipe. That's you.

Go fuck yourself, Tony. And shut the fuck up for a change.

Note the misrepresentation of Beckwith's position.

Just an update on my exchange with Guy. Aside from the insults, he insisted I apologise for claiming he misrepresented Beckwith's position. I contacted Beckwith and discovered I'd pretty much got his position accurate; that he thinks surface temperatures could rise that quickly, based on paleo-climate data (though, elsewhere, he's been careful to say that future research might invalidate that other research – or reinforce it), not that he's saying it will rise that quickly over the next 10 years.

Guy then claimed he always uses the word "could" when referring to Beckwith's position. However, I pointed Guy to a recent talk he made, in which he didn't use the word "could" but did use the word "prediction" (about 23.5 minutes in). So he may believe he represents Beckwith's position fairly but that's not what the record shows. Guy didn't respond to the point except to claim that I misrepresent his views and that his patience is wearing thin.

Oddly, he referred to Paul Beckwith as probably the leading authority in the world on Arctic methane and its effect, which was a bit of a surprise to me. He may be right but I wouldn't have thought so.

Make you're own judgement.

Guy, if you think this misrepresents you, then please be specific about what is being misrepresented and why, rather than descending to insults, which seems to be your normal mode of response, these days.

Janus, thanks for the quick reply. When I go to the link I can't see the post you mention. I have to go back to 8 October for the first mention of McPherson. Perhaps it's been deleted?

I'm just curious about whether it actually is his property that's up for sale.

I guess that the way Guy treats his critics encourages the sorts of behaviours you mention, Gail. If he could act maturely in his dealings with those who criticise his ideas, then maybe others would treat him with more respect.

It's a shame that it's impossible to get a sensible discussion with him about his ideas.

Alex, you've been more than obliging in letting this thread continue. I think it's been a public service, but there's no reason you should suffer any negative consequences because of it. Regarding 'slander' or 'libel', it's my understanding that truth is the crucial element, but I understand why you felt the need to remove a number of posts.

Your ground rules are very reasonable. If everyone complies with them I for one would appreciate your keeping the thread open. If someone wishes to set up a "Facebook page to carry on questioning Guy and his motives" it might be a good idea. I wouldn't know how to go about it.

I am a young mother. I actually had a short conversation with Guy over facebook, about his findings etc. Look I am not stupid, or a sheeple, etc. I do find it incredibly heart wrenching, sad, depressing, etc that my son will not be able to grow up and explore the world like I was able to. Children are such beautiful creatures, they learn so quickly, and grow so fast. And they are so filled with innocence, and kindness. So yes,as much as I want to think that none of this will come to pass, I am also an open minded thinker and observer. I see the destruction that has been caused to our beautiful earth, as much efforts as I who came from a mother who always tended to her trees and gardens with such care and love, others didn't and now we have irreversible damage. Yes, it hurts my heart more than anyone will be able to know that my son, and our beautiful earth and animals, and plants won't have a much longer future. Live while you can, and hope that your end doesn't have much suffering, I hope to have my son in my arms and my husbands around us.

12/22/2014

I don't currently have a FB account, but I may have to sign up again since I'll be retiring shortly with a full pension (I didn't even have to beg for it!). Graham, you may want to take a look at the FB VHEMT page.

There's a discussion going on there. Also, on NBL.

valhala,

Just who, and what, are you referring to? It doesn't take denial of climate change to deny human extinction by mid-century. It doesn't require a belief that nuclear war or nuclear meltdown will have little impact to assert that we don't know how the nuclear issue will play out. Citing the Doomsday clock is not proof. Referring to increased tensions with Russia is not proof.

What many here are saying is that McPherson has not made the case for near term human extinction (indeed, he goes further in that all life will be extinguished, except, maybe, thermophiles).

"Can't happen, won't happen" is in your mind, not what anyone has written.

Valhala,

Thanks for the tip about Michael Mann's interview; I'll take a listen.

I agree with your last line. What I don't agree with are McPherson's conclusions, partly because he has NEVER provided the line of reasoning that goes from his presentation of the science (some of that presentation being debatable) to near term human extinction. I doubt whether many here think it's going to be a ride in the park and tipping point refers to having set in motion some process that can't be stopped until natural negative feedbacks start to make themselves felt (which could take thousands of years), but it doesn't mean that the only end point of that process is near term human extinction. McPherson can't see the future in detail, no-one can. He believes in his message (apparently) but that doesn't make it true; it makes it his belief.

valhala,

Yup, we're fucked. The nit-pick with McPherson is that he thinks "fucked" equals "near term human extinction". So far, I don't think that has been anywhere near proven. Like McPherson, you seem to think that anyone who disagrees with McPherson's conclusions must be a climate change denier or must think that we can sail through what's coming.

What does a belief in near term human extinction lead to? Well, just about anything you decide to do with that belief is valid. I don't really know what McPherson expects people to do with the message he delivers, other than the vague hope that people will do what they love and pursue a life of excellence. That doesn't necessarily translate into doing anything to help or promote mitigation, however slight. It doesn't necessarily translate into being as prepared as one can be to get through the coming bottleneck, if it doesn't lead inevitably to the death of all humans and an uninhabitable planet.

By the way, the climate change denier senator is James Inhofe.

Sorry about the misspelling of the Senator's name Imhoffe. probaly still get it wrong. Anyhow I disagee with McPherson leading a life of excellance summation, I think it will be a fire in madhouse not a "Lovecircle".
I think Guy came to this live lives of excellance BS because people kept saying, What do we do, What do we do?
See I look at it like a Dr giving a Terminal cancer diagnose-he just tells you the truth. What you do with that truth is your own choice and beeswax.
Guy went off the rail after attending the grief workshop. And trying to deal with peoples grief on the matter.
So I would put to you, then what do you suggest be done? I'm -for geoenginerring myself. What do you propose?

Yes, the melting Arctic leads to the conclusion that there will be an ice free Arctic in summer (and, perhaps, year round). What it doesn't do is lead to the conclusion that humans will become extinct in a couple of decades. That "conclusion" is more akin to a belief. Even more of a belief is that all life will become extinct (with the possible exception of thermophiles) due to warming. There is no precedent for that in the history of this planet.

(The senator's name is Inhofe, not Imhoffe)

So, you don't agree with Guy as to leading a life of excellence and love until the end. My point is that Guy's message leads to no particular way of dealing with it (if you're convinced that it's true). That may be irrelevant, of course, but Guy is not just telling "the truth", he's telling his view of the world. No-one – absolutely no-one – knows how this will play out, other than in a very rough way (massive change and pain over the next few decades to centuries). But Guy doesn't engage with critics and is as sure as a preacher is that his message is the whole truth. So why is he spreading this message? Just because he thinks it's the truth and that people ought to know? But why? There is no point to people knowing that whatever they do is now irrelevant. Guy must be on something to hope that the message leads to people filling their remaining time with excellence and love. But he's a bit smarter than that, so what is his motive? Maybe we'll find out some day.

Valhala,

In the Permian mass extinction, it is thought that over 95% of sea species went extinct and two thirds of land species went extinct. That is explicitly NOT the same as extinction of ALL species or of all species except thermophiles.

The hypothesis that 450 nuclear reactors melt down all together is just an hypothesis. I've no doubt (which is a belief) that some or all of them will do over some period of time but we don't know how many and over what period of time, so that limits the potential impacts. Equally, not all parts of the world will be impacted the same way.

The comparison of Guy's message to a doctor telling a patient of a terminal illness is not valid. Not in the least. To Guy, not only will the listener die in the next two decades, so will all of his friends and family, including children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. There are some ways to prepare for the end, with a terminal illness (including getting one's affairs in order, saying goodbye to loved ones, etc). Perhaps we can all say goodbye to each other but there is really no comparison between the two.

"People deserve the truth". Really? Whose truth and why do they deserve it? But it's not the truth, it's one guy's interpretation of what the future holds based on his interpretation of the science. His interpretation is debatable and can't be stated to be the truth.

I don't ask Guy what we should do but I do question his motivation for spreading a message that he must know is just one interpretation. If he doesn't know this then his "conclusion" is definitely akin to a "belief". Just like holders of religious beliefs, Guy is convinced, in his own mind, that his interpretation of what the science is saying is absolutely right and all who question it are deniers.

Beckwith, AMEG and Shakhova do not agree with McPherson, so I don't know where you got that. Yes, Guy uses those people as some kind of evidence but he misrepresents them if they also think that life on this planet won't last beyond a few more decades. Heck, Shakhova even acknowledges that there is not enough data to conclude that the clathrate gun has fired, which Guy has been convinced of for years. There is little to back up his view and certainly no continued uptick in methane concentrations.

So, just to repeat: Guy is not telling the truth; he is telling how he sees the future unfolding. If you choose to believe him, that's up to you. But it isn't the "truth", since no-one can see the future.

valhala,

Given that no significant action will be taken to halt emissions, warming will continue for a very long time. I don't know if we'll get even more abrupt warming than we're seeing but I suspect not (at least not for several decades). However, I expect increasingly extreme events (both in frequency and strength). I expect some places will become, essentially uninhabitable and millions, eventually billions, will have to move. I expect wars to be fought over resources, including land, and for retribution. It will be very ugly and very destructive.

This is just my opinion, of course. Other paths are also a possibility and one thing is certain: I will be proven wrong, as the real future unfolds.

Ha! Who are you talking too? I'm the most ecological boy on my block. Yes, I have done the Electric bike, Solar panels on my house, Rainwater collection, system, Garden and planted trees! And I'm doing Bio Char this week.
You seem to have the impression that I say we should just shit in our beds, in our kitchens-I never said that.
With that being said you demonstrate the narrow focus that Scientists and most people show. Climate Change/Global Warming is not the only way man can go extinct.
We are in a proxy war with Russia Right now. Each side with thousands of new and improved nuclear weapons that could make the rubble in your city bounce more then once. So silly person you don't think humanity will go extinct 100 years from now, how about next week if someone mess's up and press's the red button that ends civilization on this planet? That could happen any time pardner. LOL

Shit in our beds is just slang for polluting the enviroment ie FuckUshima for example.
China Diplomat just told US to back off of Russia.
http://rinf.com/alt-news/featured/china-warns-u-s-stop-ukrainian-proxy-war-russia/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+RinfAlternativeNewsMediaDailyBreakingNews+%28RINF+Alternative+News+Media%3A+Daily+Breaking+News%29

valhala,

Please don't put words into my mouth. I did not say "Guy is wrong". All I've said is that Guy hasn't made the case (IMO) for his view and he does sometimes misrepresent the science (IMO). He may be right but it doesn't look like it. You are just the same as Guy; you think if you come up with enough ways that humans could become extinct, that will make it a certainty. It doesn't. Guy may be right in his conclusions but he hasn't made the case (IMO).

Of course I can imagine cities being annihilated; in fact, I think it's a certainty that they will be, but how that comes about, and how quickly, is open to debate and we will never know, until it happens.

valhala,

The difference between me and climate change deniers, when I say that the case hasn't been made, is that I've actively looked for and asked for an explanation from Guy as to why the things he lists in his monster climate change essay lead inevitably to almost human extinction within a couple of decades. I haven't found one and Guy has never answered my requests about that. If you think the case has been made, I'd be keen to see what that case is. Just saying "look at all these positive feedback loops, surely that must lead to NTHE", is really not an argument at all, even if Guy's presentation of those feedbacks is correct.

So, when I say he hasn't made the case, it's not that I simply wish it wasn't so, as climate deniers do, I have looked and asked but have never seen how the science leads inevitably to NTHE. If you can point to such a rationale, then I'd be happy to check it out.

I think the climate change battle is lost. I like to compare it to WW2. First off the effects of climate change has been know since the late 1950's. Scientist have testified in Congress at the time that in the future mitigation will have to be done.
In WW2 the US was attacked and immediatly declared War. Immedaigly the populatce went into war mode with men joining military in masse, Children collecting scrap metal, Auto factories converted to war materlials, SCientist, Movie stars, well just about everybody was contributaing to the war effort.
The goverment allocated whatever funds needed for the War, they certainly didn't give Bankers all the money like they today.
Now in comparison it would be if the US was still arguing if there was a reason war, Some say there isn't some say there is, Well with that kind of Inertia we would be walking around now saying Heil Hitler.
If we had done something similar to WW2 for climate change I think we would have half a chance, but I think even if we did it is too late now. We have squandered any lead time so now it is just a losing battle.

Well as we both know after many run ins with climate change deniers and endless citing of Scientific papers, Data Sets, Sattelite photos, Ice core samples noting makes a dent with them. You got the same bogus claims that the Scientists are bought off by the Oil companies as insane as that sounds, that according to Fake "Lord" Moncton Climate Scientists are closeted Communists, it's the Sun. Co2 is good for plants therefore the more the better, LOL the endless list of wrongheaded psuedo Science craps is mind boggling and you just end up giving up. So again if you can see that there is no winning here, that lends credence to nothing will be done the Climate will tip and we are done. I don't think I even need Guy Mcpherson to figure that out.

It means try making your melted Ice Cream go back to it's frozen state after it has melted to goo on a hot day in July. Once the Arctic goes we are done. I am writing this now with a foot of new snow outside my door in Lousiville Ky. on March 5. I have never seen it do this by March 5. It looks like mid January outside.
Something is very wrong.

That's up to you, Gail. Personally, I'd prefer to see some scientific rationale behind such a conclusion. I think there is already enough science to tell us it's going to get really bad but NTHE is a step too far, in my opinion; and who knows what black swans there will be in future? NTHE might become VNTHE or it might become VLTHE. No-one knows and I think that is the main point here; no-one knows.

valhala,

I sometimes wonder if you've read previous comments. It's not a cop-out, it's the truth: we don't know how this will pan out. The ONLY thing that looks certain is that we'll continue damaging our environment and that the deterioration will cause everyone a lot of pain and probably many premature deaths (and an increased rate of extinction), via the four horsemen. Guy could be right but only by coincidence, since he has not mapped out how the science (i.e. what we have a high confidence of) leads to the conclusion he's come to. I thought we'd pretty much nailed that but apparently not.

valhala,

I'm not really making predictions. The reason we can say with near certainty that a dire future awaits for all is that climate change and environmental degradation is already wreaking havoc in some areas. It really doesn't take much to extrapolate, given that "we" aren't doing anything about mitigation.

Please show your working in reaching a conclusion that there is a 99% probability that Guy is right (I assume you mean his "conclusion" that near total extinction will occur within two or three decades). That is much more of a prediction than I've put forward. Guy has no scientific data that I've seen to "back up" his conclusion. Sure, he has pointed to scientific data backing his views but, as I'm mentioned numerous times, he hasn't showing how those data lead to NTHE. Some places will likely become uninhabitable, or have ecologies severely stressed, on a BAU path but extinction is another matter.

I hope this is clear, because you keep coming back with the same stuff, over and over. I'm probably done on this thread, unless you have something new.

I suggest everybody go see the latest Mad Max Movie "Fury Road" to get a glimpse of the future when the light go out.

Thank you for correcting the spelling of "vahalla," Graham: Details are important in science, language, and character analysis, as we both know.

And as this scientist knows too:

http://www.cowichanvalleycitizen.com/news/global-warming-hysteria-or-reverse-climate-denialist-1.1973851

Graham, So many are always myopically focused on one particular topic or subject when coming to your conclusion. What I am getting at is that you folks seem to agree that the environment is degrading terribly and there is no doubt about that. Well if one was a climate change denier they could use the same logic you apply to Guy McPherson, you are making baseless suppositions. You know the typical climate change denier BS that Man has little impact on the planet, you are just hyping up the So called "Climate Change" so you can tax us more.
Back to my original point about you being myopically focused on Guy's assertions of death by Climate Change/Global warming. Well that isn't the only thing going on that could bring an ELE. Extinction Level Event. Since the 1950's according Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists we have existed under a Sword of Damocles, the Sword being atomic weapons and lots of them that could pretty much kill most humans if not all on the planet.
The "Bulletin" in moving up their famous Doomsday clock to I believe it is 4 minutes to midnight have cited Nuclear war and climate change a real possibility for our future.
The Nuclear war can happen any time. One minute your typing on a blog the next you are vaporized into loose atoms. What a way to live knowing that your life can be extinguished anytime because some Asshole in Russia, China, Israel, UK, France, Pakistan, India decided Fuck those bastards.
So as far as I am concerned everyday we have dodged a bullet with our names on it.

Yes, valhala, but irrelevant to 2040 NTHE, the topic of this discussion.

Oh really Graham, well check this link out. enormous methane plumes, well geyser videoed on a Candadian Golf course. the methane is venting freely now. Look at this and realize we are done. McPherson is right an possibly conservative in his time frame.
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/watch-golfer-discovers-natural-gas-blast-in-pond-/52963/

valhalla, if "methane is venting freely now", why don't we see it showing up at measuring stations? Is there some magical sink which is removing it? If so, then there isn't yet much of a problem with methane as a GHG. Remember though, that McPherson claims that the methane gun was fired in 2007. So you can't claim that he's right, when methane is only increasing at the rate it was near the end of last century, or even a little more slowly. McPherson is wrong on that and, likely, wrong on NTHE by mid-century.

Janus, would you mind saying who wrote that comment, and under which NBL article?

Graham, a friend e-mailed that quote to me, but now it can't be found since McPherson probably deleted it. Apparently, the beginning of the comment contained a reprimand concerning McPherson's rudeness toward RE of Doomstead Diner (something about a doomer poll) and the fact that McP wasn't exemplifying love, which is all that remains, ya know.

Janus, that quote is still there. It was from a comment by "Joe D" under a May 15, 2015 piece headed "Interview in Zurich, Switzerland".

Funny how some surprising things get through the censoring process.

Vertebrates are the least of the extinctions going on. Amphibians are by far the worst off and then there are plants too. Re read what you wrote.

7/6/15

I'm not Tony, but thanks for the compliment! I was also labeled gay by a longtime McP supporter on FB because of my interest in him (sadly says a lot about those he attracts). But for argument's sake, if I were bisexually inclined, I would never subscribe to the polyamory viewpoint, otherwise known as cheating. I had the good taste to pick a quality woman decades ago and honor and love her. As Paul Newman wisely said, "Why would I go out for a hamburger when I have steak at home?"

I perused McPherson's "Desconstructing [sic] 'The Newsroom' Video Clip" and noticed his announcement: "Those of you seeking a response from me at the NBL Forum will be [sic] continue to be disappointed. I’ve never visited. I doubt I will." Looking at the majority of the content, I understand perfectly.

Yes Graham, Whatever who cares. I'm partying fuck you guys we are dead.

Interesting…looks like Daniel, a former loooooong-time fan, has awakened:

Daniel Says:
March 30th, 2016 at 6:52 pm

@ Tom

Thanks for the considerate response. Allow me to clarify a few things if you will. I by no means think Guy is currently “making a fabulous living”, in fact, I’m sure just the opposite is true, which is why he most likely wishes he had never walked away from empire in the first place, and that’s just one of the problems I have with Guy, which I believe I’ve reiterated several times now.

I’m particularly keen on the role money plays in our lives, and while you may not think it makes much of a difference as to what someone says while they’re high on the hog, compared to what they say when they’re no longer, I however very much do. If someone’s ethical stance is married to how much money they have in the bank, how much integrity do they actually have? In fact, Guy no longer even advocates living simply.

Now as to “mistakes being made”, who here hasn’t made endless mistakes? That’s not the issue; it’s our ability to admit and learn for our mistakes and Guy seems to be someone who is not only incapable of admitting his mistakes, but seems painfully removed from being able to learn from them. And Guy doesn’t seem to have learned a thing from his past failed predictions, especially given thousands of people committed the same error. Wouldn’t you think that should at least merit an essay that explores humanity’s nature in making false assumptions and how that might be affecting our current understanding of NTE? But all we get from Guy is “mistakes were made”. Ever heard what George Carlin has to say about those who use that very term; it has something to do with BS.

Remember Tom, Guy is the only person who has toured the world telling people they’re all going to be dead in fourteen years with virtually zero evidence to back that date up, other than the use of Light’s shabby unscientific paper. And in spite of all the things Guy has gotten right, you honestly don’t see a problem with that?

Now as to who is or isn’t “going off the rails”, or maybe something closer to the point: who believes they’re in a position to know the difference? Am I “harboring a personal grudge” as you claim, or am I pointing out something so obvious, it hurts us all to look at it, because we’re all too invested in believing “we” somehow know more than we do, especially Guy?

We are all adults here, or at least most of us. This is an open forum, and if people think we can’t openly question someone who claims to know when life on earth ends, then I suspect those very people have let their emotions get the better of their critical thinking.

No scientist worth his/her merit would have used Light’s date of 2031.4 to advocated NTE, yet Guy very much does and it’s been the crux of his presentations from the start, therefore, isn’t it valid to question Guy’s merits? Because while Guy claims the evidence backs him up, where’s the evidence we’ll all be dead in fourteen years? There isn’t any, and that’s why it’s not about the evidence and it very much about vanity and Guy’s claims to the contrary.

And one more thing, almost all of Guy’s credibility results from his Ph.D—we are meritocratic society after all—even though that same doctorate has allowed him to repeatedly make massive mistakes, yet, here we are, still giving him the benefit of doubt, because………………well, he must know more than us because he is an “expert”.

Tom, Guy hasn’t a clue to as what’s going to happen or when, any more than anyone else, we just want to believe he does and ultimately that’s the problem here. If we question ourselves long enough, eventually it becomes clear that none of this has anything to with whether or not Guy is accurate, and has everything to do with “us” believing anyone has the ability to be accurate in regards to such a highly complex system.

People.. Sofistek, Noel, I pray you guys shut up already about Guy. Jocular mood aside, I feel I’m going to have to go on and say what I think and just be plain rude. I feel nothing but contempt for your pathetic nitpicking and idle bickering. Guy is just a guy with an opinion based on his interpretation, I repeat, his interpretation of available scientific evidence. He’s not a loon and he’s entirely entitled and invited to speak his opinion as outspokenly as he’s sees fit just as you’re entitled and invited to stop speaking so damn much. When people have a view, an opinion, a belief, a conviction or whatever, it’s only natural that they believe in it most deeply and maybe (why the fuck not?) also go around the world to let others know. They’re also entitled (why the fuck not?) to aspire and day dream that others will acclaim them and look up to them as brave heroes for their truth- telling and iconoclasm. It’s natural and human that we of the homo callidus like self-worth and recognition immensely; even us doomers. Let’s show some understanding, some bit of ”compassion” for the beliefs and persuasions of just another human existence which, regardless of whether NTE happens or not, is unique, one of kind and transient in the world. I wish to remind you of this: scientifically educated folks are irrational apes too. Take Michael Tobis for instance and the heaps of BS he spews in his ”refutal”. In order to polemicize against Mcpherson he even manages to say that if all arctic ice melted that wouldn’t accelerate warming.
Methane leaking out of the arctic is very real and very credible threat. All the evidence and counter-evidence presented by professionals on the matter writing for AMEG and Sam Carana’s blog is solid regardless of what Scott Johnson et al. say.
Climate change has theoretically at least the potential to wipe us out. We cannot survive a 6C or higher degree rise in global average temperature whether it takes place within a few decades or centuries or millennia. If it happens and it could theoretically happen, we’re done for. Heat is an ice-cold killer (pun intended). Period.
To be honest, I find what McPherson says about love and excellence to be trite bullshit but that’s the least of my concerns because the science and the points that he presents to us in his missive are really OK. Extinction or not however, modern human civilization won’t outlive the century. What it takes to understand that is the following: basic (very basic) knowledge of the trends in energy and consumption as well as the anthropogenic ecological and climatic impact. That means the vast majority (in the very least) of the human population will die in a holocaust without parallel in our history as a species which will happen in THIS century and not the next. Mainstream scientists refuse to accept that and they do so not out of grounds of ”evidence” or intellectual superiority as they like to believe but for far more banal (and human) reasons.

A remarkable historian wrote: Hoffnung und Angst versperren den Einblick in die menschlichen Dinge, dabei läßt sich die Hoffung viel schwieriger als die Angst überwinden.

First off, let me thank Alex Smith for such an insightful in depth program looking into claims of human extinction. Your program, Ecoshock, is quickly becoming one of my favorite go-to sources for climate change news. I too have looked with skepticism on Guy’s claims of extinction. I haven’t looked into the data as much as Scott Johnson and others, rather my skepticism is from Guy’s propensity to go on the attack against anyone who disagrees with him. That’s a big flag for me. Anyways, I was wondering were that leaves us in terms of potential warming scenarios by 2100. The show mentions 4C, coming from the IPCC, but in the intervening time between when this show came out and now, some peer-reviewed scientific papers have come out showing substantially higher rates of warming by 2100. Here’s one that came out in 2016 showing that global temps could possibly warm as much as over 7C by 2100 because as the globe warms up it is more sensitive to forcings and subsequently temps could rise much quicker than the IPCC estimates. Here’s the Independent article with the scientific paper linked inside of it. Would Scott or Alex care to comment on it?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-change-game-over-global-warming-climate-sensitivity-seven-degrees-a7407881.html

Thank you and please keep up the excellent work Alex!