Fake Science

youtube-Logo-4gc2reddit-logoOff the keyboard of RE

Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666
Friend us on Facebook

Published on The Doomstead Diner on December 4, 2016


Discuss this article at the Science & Technology Table inside the Diner

Recently we published an article about Fake Newz here on the Diner.  This concerns itself with all the false or misleading information you have to sift through when either watching on TV or YouTube or reading either the MSM or alt-media Blogs.  If you are a person who is looking to ferret out the "TRUTH" with a Capital T, it can be mighty difficult at times.  You are just as likely to get a completely false story from the New York Times or the Washington Post as you are to get one from Zero Hedge or Infowars. It might even be more likely since Da Goobermint is always feeding Propaganda stories out to the MSM to promote a particular agenda.  The nonsense about Iraq and WMDs would be a typical example. You pretty much can't believe anyone on anything until you do a lot of drilling down and researching other websites and links, which can be a mighty time consuming task on any individual story, much less trying to get a handle on a complex topic like Geopolitics or Climate Change.  It gets even worse if you try to pull it all together to get a comprehensive view of what is occuring with collapse.  Many articles every day on many topics, and you can only click and read so fast on any of them!

http://net2.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/einstein-and-his-blackboard.jpg The problem isn't strictly confined to the Newz either, it is perhaps even worse in the field of Science.  We live in a society where the "Scientist" is revered as someone who is knowledgeable and who you can trust to give you truthful information.  Science has ruled our world since the Enlightenment and brought us all those wonderful inventions over the years like the Automobile and the Iphone, so for the average J6P the Scientist is almost God-like in perceived wisdom.

On the internet as you discuss issues of Collapse, you periodically run into people who claim the Mantle of Scientist and use that to justify their opinions and beliefs.  They wield this term like a club, it's known in argument as "Appeal to Authority".  No matter what complete bullshit comes off their keyboards, you're supposed to buy it because they are "scientists".


Now, what makes a person a scientist?  Generally, they have a Ph.D. in some particular‪ field of science like Physics, Chemistry or Biology, but not always.  Sometimes people with Engineering degrees also claim to be scientists, and they may not even have a Master's degree, just a B.S. in… Bullshit.  lol.  But they work in some field like Geochemistry where they are part of a team publishing papers in some Journal, and so this makes them "scientists".  Sometimes people in the Medical professions also claim to be Scientists.  They studied a lot of science of course to get the ticket to be a Doctor of,,,something.  Could be investigating your anus for the presence of polyps, could be drilling your teeth to nail those nasty carries giving you a toothache, whatever. Doctors generally speaking do science by investigating your bodily orifices and then fucking them in some way.  Probes, Drills, Catheters etc they got plenty of fucking tools.  If there are not enough normal holes to do investigative science, they cut some new ones.   Nurses study "Nursing Science", so they can claim to be scientists too!  On the scale of Scientists though, Nurses generally fall pretty low in respect, and the Doctors shit on them every day.  The Nurses then shit on the EKG  and Ultrasound Technicians and they shit on the Janitorial Scientists who keep the toilets clean in the hospital.  The IRONY here is that it's probably the toilet scrubbers doing the most important scientific work in keeping everyone alive in said hospital and keeping Super Viruses from escaping into the general environment.  The Pharmacist scientists don't shit on anyone, they're too bizzy counting out pills.

Once you claim the mantle of scientist, people are supposed to listen to you and BELIEVE you because you are an "expert".  But are scientists experts in reality?

https://scontent.cdninstagram.com/t51.2885-15/s320x320/e35/11371201_1646285965660739_489162669_n.jpg?ig_cache_key=MTExNjI4OTQyNzEyMTE0NjA5Ng%3D%3D.2 "Science" is a very broad term covering many fields of study.  The prototypical scientist has an undergraduate series of courses which cover the basic areas of science and math, then picks one area to specialize in and does further study to get a Ph.D. in that area.  It further specializes from there, because the Ph.D. candidate has to pick a specific topic within the area of study to write her/his Dissertation on.  Then assuming said student is awarded a Ph.D. and gets a job either in industry or academia, they go on to a career of looking at a specific topic and publishing papers on this topic.  So, a student who majors in Physics might go on for a Ph.D. in Astrophysics and then write a Dissertation on Black Holes and spend the rest of his life researching how Black Holes affect the Magnetosphere surrounding the Earth, or something like that anyhow.

Does this highly specialized knowledge make this person any more competent to decipher economics than a typical math major with only a B.A. who maybe has a a job as a bookkeeper?  Not in principle, not really.  In fact, such a scientist might be LESS competent, since they had to specialize so much in learning all along the way.  All you can say is this person is probably generally intelligent since they managed to jump through the academic hoops necessary for getting a career going as a scientist, but other than their own particular area of expertiese they aren't any more expert than anyone else with a reasonably good knowledge of the basic sciences in anything else.

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/2009-8-5-Spy_vs_Spy_9432.jpg So OK, we got scientists out there to be sure, and they are generally smart but very specialized.  They also have opinions like everyone else does, and they have different agendas depending who they work for or their own particular set of beliefs.  So in the area of Climate Science for example, one scientist who get his funding from Exxon-Mobil will come up with a hypothesis and paper that says one thing, while another scientist who gets his funding from NOAA will come up with a different one.  So now it is Scientist vs. Scientist and you have to decide which one you WANT to believe.  I stress the word WANT here, because generally speaking most people do not have enough background to understand all the modelling that was done, nor do the papers always make clear all the underlying assumptions of the model.  So you really don't have the information necessary to make an informed decision, you just pick the one that sounds right to you, based on your own preconceived notions.

https://1888.org/images/2013/03/28/10591/the-weight-of-evidence-poster-a.jpg The other way the non-scientists out there try and decide who to believe is on the "weight of evidence" method, where you pick the side that has the MOST papers out there or the MOST scientists who seem to more or less agree on a topic.  So in the area of climate science for instance, most scientists seem to believe that climate change is real and anthropogenic, but they don't agree on a lot of other important things, like how fast it will occur, what might be done to mitigate it or whether it's possible to mitigate at all.

You have a similar effect going on in the world of energy, where there are a whole bunch of scientists who say we are resource constrained with fossil fuels and then others who say, no, there's plenty of fossil fuels still in the ground to dig up.  Then there are some scientists who say we can substitute renewable energy sources for  fossil fuels and others who say, no, we'll never get enough energy that way to maintain our current energy usage.  These scientists then all produce papers to demonstrate their POV is the correct one, and which one do you WANT to believe?

I bring this topic up here today because I have issues with two people who claim the Mantle of Scientist as a validation of why THEY should be believed.  One is a radical former Biology Professor now turned Extinction Guru, Guy McPherson of the blog Nature Bats Last.  The other is an Anonymous contributer to the Diner Forum who goes by the handle MKing and I often refer to as "Professor Moriarty", who claims to be a World Class Expert Geochemist and King of Frackers.  I tend to give Guy a little more credibility than Moriarty, because at least he lets you know who he is, but generally I find neither one of them very credible.  They are on complete opposite sides of the spectrum as well, Guy on the one hand believes that due to the burning of fossil fuels Homo Sap will go Extinct by the year 2025 in his now latest timeline I am told.  Moriarty on the other hand believes there is plenty of fossil fuel energy left in the form of Natural Gas mostly that we can still frack up, and then transition to a fully renewable energy system into the far future.  He obviously doesn't believe we'll go Extinct in the near term, nor does he think further burning up the NG that can be extracted will do any damage to the environment.  Regardless of what his credentials are, he's not a scientist, he's a shill for the Energy industry.


http://markmaynard.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/doc4f26f64895efd1869159641-300x243.jpg     https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/12/c3/4b/12c34be363e8de9bb6f7aa9ef0b7a4a2.jpg

        REAL TITLE: Extinction Guru                          REAL TITLE: Energy Industry Shill

extinction-buttonBeginning with Guy, first off his area of science was not Climatology, it was Biology.  He's never done any research in the area of Climatology, all he ever does is cherry pick the journal articles of other scientists who specialize in climatology. He's a walking, talking database of these articles and he can spit them out faster than an AR-15 on full automatic spits out lead.

Here is how a typical lecture complee with Power Point Slides on a Big Screen TV  from Guy goes:

"On page 74 of this article published by Dr. Joe Brilliant in the Journal of Nature, Volume 9, issue 6 published on Dec 21, 2012, Dr. Brilliant's graphs reveal that Global Temps will rise by 1000C before I finish this lecture and you will all be fried to a CRISP!"

Up goes the slide with Dr, Brilliant's graph for maybe 10 seconds, then Guy is on to the NEXT reference!

"Professor George Genius in this article published on October 18, 2008 in the Journal of Applied Stupidity, Volume 66, Issue 666 shows clearly in the tables that NO HOMO SAPS can possibly survive a 6.66C  rise in temperatures so every single one of you in this room will DIE by 2025, so just live with it and Live a Life of Excellence for the next 8 years!

I'm not fucking kidding here folks just Google up the lectures! Rat-aTat-aTat, the shit comes at you so fast you can't even take a breather much less have a sip of beer!  I will say I have never personally attended one of Guy' lectures, but I watched plenty of the videos up on the web and I DID try to have a reasonable discussion with him during the period I hosted his website.  Epic failure there.

Now, after having been treated to one of these exercises, about how many of the people leaving such a lecture actually go and dig up all these references and read through 75 pages of justifications for a a given conclusion?  Answer:  The number asymptotically approaches ZERO.  So you are either buying the shpiel or not here and accepting that His Guyness has thoroughly vetted all these articles he cites and they are all TRUTH with a Capital T.  The likelihood of this one also approaches ZERO.

However, he'll never brook any argument to counter his hypothesis, he'll just brandish his mantle of Scientist and call you a deluded fool who is filled with Hopium.  This type of argument techinque does not inspire me with confidence to believe a fucking thing he says.  The conclusions he draws on the timeline to extinction are also FAR ahead of any other scientist out there researching the topic, although there are a few out there who will say it could come by the end of the century if we don't change our ways.  Who am I supposed to believe here and why?

Moriarty is even less believable than Guy from his side.  First off he CLAIMS to be a scientist but never backs up his claim because he won't reveal his real identity.  He doesn't appear to have any more knowledge than the typical internet devotee of Peak Oil related websites who has spent a few years browsing these sites and reading some technical journals.  His arguments also run counter to just about everyone else writing in these areas from other scientists who actually do publish their names and stand behind their work like Arthur Berman, David Hughes, Ugo Bardi, Richard Heinberg, etc, etc, etc.  When confronted with this fact, he basically just calls them idiots. Since he won't reveal his identity, I can't even set up a debate between him and one of the many people he has insulted over his years trolling the Diner, which besides the scientists he thinks are idiots also includes the bloggers he thinks are idiots and the other Diners he thinks are idiots. Plus he also claims to have STALKED me incognito at the SUN☼ Booth at the Inman Harvest Festival.  This behavior is not particularly scientific and does not inspire much confidence in his opinions either.


On a more general level than just Guy McPherson and Professor Moriarty though, the problem of what is "Real Science" vs what is "Fake Science" is just as troublesome in trying to ferret out the TRUTH as the Fake Newz vs Real Newz problem.  There are just TONS of theories being pitched around out there, a real popular one is that there is a Planet X on a collision course with Earth and that's what is causing all the geological disturbances that appear to be on the increase.  There are theories that Oil is abiotic and will replenish itself over time, although the timescale on that one does not appear to be fast enough to make up for the current depletion rate.  There are theories that Cold Fusion is possible coming from Italian scientists.  Elon Musk has theories that he can produce enough Batteries to run EVs forever, and build a colony on Mars too!

Can I possibly vet all these theories and say, "yea, that's GOOD science and TRUE" and another one is "BAD Science and FALSE"?  Even if I wanted to TRY to do that I wouldn't have time for it in the day.  So generally speaking for myself, I read as much as I have time for and then use my Occam's Razor of COMMON FUCKING SENSE (CFS) to decide what I WANT to believe.  Which is hopefully as close to the Truth with a Capital T as I can get.

For all the rest of you out there, you also have to use CFS when reading either Newz stories or Scientific theories.  When me or some other Diner publishes something, it may or may not be vetted for its accuracy, and the posting probably reflects the bias of the poster, one way or the other.  Only you can figure out for yourself what is the TRUTH here, and buying the opinions of "scientists" just because they claim that mantle is a fool's game.  Some "scientists" like Guy McPherson and Professor Moriarty have clear agendas they are putting forward, and this is not science in any way, shape or form.  It's opinion, argument and propaganda and must be viewed as such.  Besides that, they're both assholes. 🙂

21 Responses to Fake Science

  • Pintada says:

    Science has a mechanism whereby the Truth can be determined.  That is, a scientific theory is falsifiable.  A theory that is not falsifiable is not science.  The statement "They're both assholes.", while it certainly may be true, is not science because no matter how decently they behave in the present, inevitably they may exhibit further assholeish behavior making the statement unfalseafyable.  The statement/theory, "Humanity will be extinct in 10 years." is science.  So, if you and Guy are alive in 10 years, you can write him a scathing letter because his theory will have just been proved false.  It would be interesting at that point to test your asshole assertion.  By my way of thinkin', an asshole would reply that, "No, im not wrong – blah blah excuse." a scientist would say, "Yuup, wrong.  My new expiration date is …".

    I've watched Guy for a while now, and I've watched his tipping points and feedbacks go from meaningless to exponential. Two recent papers come to mind – one from the Russians that have found that their methane bubbles are bubbling faster in the Laptev, Kara and Barentsz seas, and one that says CO2 is evolving from previously frozen soils at a high rate.  If either of those phenomena continue to completion, and there is no reason that they will not, he will be very close to correct.

    Guy has set himself in a very radical position, and almost certainly will proved wrong since if someone is still alive by January 1, 2027 the species will still be extant after 10 years.  On the other hand, if that person dies by 2028 does the distintion indicate a difference?  In fact, if there are thousands of people left after 1/1/27, and they form some sort of viable hunter/gatherer society that lasts thousands of years, I think he would still be largely vindicated.

    When I wore an engineer hat, I always thought that working from general principals was the best way to reach the Truth.  And I am not as optimistic as you are, RE, because:

    1.  Ice melts.  In fact anything (including methane clathrates) in a temperature/pressure regime where the temperature at a given pressure has reached high enough will melt.

    2.  Arrhenius proved that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere back in the 1800's.  I do not need to repeat his experiments and rederive his equations to use that as basic fact.

    3.  The oceans are warming.  I know that is true because of the fact determined by Arrhenius, and because it has been measured.

    4.  There are a bunch of methane clathrate deposits on the ocean floor.  Some say 4000 gigatons, but a "bunch" is necessary and sufficient to end this civilization and it is easy to find large quantities of the stuff.

    5.  The methane clathrates will melt.

    6.  When they melt, the earths temperature will rise.  (If the sceptic wishes to deny the idea that methane is much more efficient than CO2 in trapping heat, he is free to do so here.  There will be plenty of CO2 available when the methane oxidizes as it must.)

    7.  When the temperature of the planet goes up, the temperature of the oceans goes up.  Inevitably, all of the methane will melt, because ultimately, the oceans will all be at a temperature that will melt the methane.

    8.  Humanity in its present state is doomed.   qed

    Unfortunately, general principals will not tell me what things will look like after all the clathrates are melted.  For that one must turn to the geologic record that shows several times where the temperature of the planet has reached +12C or more.  To show that extinction (or its practical equivelent) follows a +12C temperature rise one must use CFS – which is what you said.      javascript:grin(':wink:')

    • RE says:

      The statement "They're both assholes.", while it certainly may be true, is not science because no matter how decently they behave in the present, inevitably they may exhibit further assholeish behavior making the statement unfalseafyable

      I never made the claim that this was a scientifically derived conclusion.  It is JMHO.

      Second, Guy's date now for extinction is apparently 2025, not 2027, so he has only 8 years here before we need all Dead People for him to be proved correct.  I will do my best to stay alive this long to say "I told you so".

      I can see a 50% population knockdown by 2025.  Short of a collision with Planet X, 100% of Homo Sap dead in 8 years is not gonna happen.


  • Pintada says:

    "Second, Guy's date now for extinction is apparently 2025, not 2027, so he has only 8 years"

    Right.  Seems pretty short, but "no one understands the exponential function".   javascript:grin(':neutral:')



    • RE says:

      I understand the exponential function just fine.  The problem here is that the function suffers a discontinuity once you get a crash.  It does not have any predictive value for what the population will be after the crash.  It could be 50%, 10%, 1% or ZERO.

      I am in the 50% camp as of 2025, 10% camp as of 2100, 1% camp after that.


      • Disaffected says:

        I'm in the camp that says percentages are largely irrelavant at that point regardless, although I'm also in the camp that says "What the fuck do I know anyway" too, so I guess I'd have to stick with the latter.

  • Pintada says:

    "I understand the exponential function just fine."

    I was just trying to be "light", and so wasnt communicating very well.  The exponential functions that I was referring to control the global warming that we will soon be seeing.  There are several of course that we are all familiar with:

    Will the Western Antarctic just sit there, or will the melting accelerate exponentially.  Given that most of the ice in that area is below sea level, it appears that exponential increases in melting are likely.  But actually, sea level rise will be hard on the economy, but not a direct force for extinction.

    The prime example of potential exponential change comes from the methane clathrates, and CO2 from melted permafrost.  Assuming that they do in fact go exponential, the climate will go absolutely bonkers very quickly.

    So, there are two examples, and perhaps the prime examples of exponential change forced by continued warming.  You can probably think of a dozen more off the top of your head.  Guy refers to 50 or 60 (or more) most of which are pretty weak or founded on weak arguments.  I often am struck with the observation that no amount of climate change that has been shown to be possible by the geologic record by itself will cause a lot of deaths.  Its all the other stuff that causes the deaths in the scenarios that I have envisioned – overpopulation, water, food, finance, war, etc.  For that reason, Tverberg, and her site seems to be more useful than any other (except the Diner of course) for getting "reasonable" ideas about "reasonable" futures (If you are able to read around Fast Eddy        javascript:grin(':mad:').

    For arguments sake then, I can create a scenario whereby extinction by 2025 or so can happen.

    1.  50 gigatones of clathrates erupt tomorrow increasing the methane concentration from ~1800ppb to 3ppm instantly.

    2.  Panic sets in at the stock markets, and they crash by 70% or more.  All the too big to fail banks fail.

    3.  With no finance, drilling, oil production, coal production, and international freight stops, or slows significantly.

    4.  Next summer is very very warm – probably +2C because of the methane.  Crops fail in several of the worlds breadbaskets including Thailand and Russia.  Refugees out of the middle east through Turkey are met with razor wire and machine guns at the Turkish border (the south border if Turkey remains solvent, or the north border if not).  With all that methane in the air, the Arctic sees its first blue ocean event.   — millions dead —

    5.  Long about October of 2017 another 200 gigatons of methane is released.  Methane concentration is now 8-10ppm.  Western finance is on the rebound, since all of the central banks have gone all in with helicopter money.  In the developed world food is expensive but available.  In the third world there is no food, no transportation, and in India no power.  The Chinese economy is way down, but they are still burning a shit ton of coal.

    6.  October 2018 the average world temperature is +3C and climbing because of the slowdown in the Chinese economy has allowed a lot of global dimming to be reversed.  The African continent has become a killing field of immense proportions.

    7.  October 2019 the average world temperature is still +3C.  President Trump anounces that global warming is over.  1500 gigatons of clathrates are released as the result of the first ever hurricaine in the Arctic ocean.

    8.  October 2020 the average world temperature is now +4C.  Nearly every crop on the planet failed because of flooding, or drought, or just too much heat.  The wet bulb temperature of much of the land near the ocean reached 35C or more for much of the tropics.  A super hurricaine a la Hansons "Storms of My Grandchildren" erased all mamalian life from Florida with 200mph sustained winds and 50 feet of storm surge (it doesnt really matter, since most of Florida suffered 37C wet bulb temperatures for most of July anyway).  Ditto the Philippines.  The economy of China and India has completely crashed, and there is no source for the particulates and SO2 that created global dimming.  5 billion dead

    9.  October 2021 – another release of 1500 gigatons of methane (thats 3050 gigatons total so far), there are probably 3000 gigatons left.  The average global temperature now that global dimming has stopped is now 6C.  7 billion dead

    10.  October 2022 – At this point, the area within 20degrees of the equator is simply too hot for any mammal to survive.  The thermohaline circulation has stopped, and the oceans are beginning their transition to the Canfeild ocean state.  Already, large areas of northwestern US and Canada have been sterilized by H2S.

    11.  October 2024 – The global average temperature is now +8C.  It is only that because the global temperature cant rise faster that it has been rising.  The rest of the clathrates have evolved off, and the world is headed for +12C.  Farming is now impossible since there are no definable seasons.  When do you plant?  Temperatures of 100F have occured at both poles.  Something happened to the Pine Island and Thawaits Glaciers and sea level popped up by 5 meters overnight on April 12, 2024.  A catagory 6 hurricane hit Taiwan and mainland China with 300mph sustained winds which lifted 3 – 5 meter boulders 20 miles inland.  There are raindeer herders still operating in lapland, and one guy is farming potatoes in Nepal.

    12.  December 31, 2025 – The temperature in Lapland in August averaged 112F.  The raindeer (and the herder) all died of thirst.  The guy in Nepal was hit by a grapefruit sized hailstone in September.  The human race is extinct, the average global temperature will not max out for another couple years.  Greenland will still have some ice for another 300 years, and Antarctica will retain some ice through the warm period.  90 – 95% of the oceans have converted over to an anoxic state, and nearly all oxygen breathers are long dead.


    "I am in the 50% camp as of 2025, 10% camp as of 2100, 1% camp after that."

    Yeah, me too – more or less.  How can anyone know?  Which, of course, was the point of the original post.  I had to invoke several really impossible ideas to make my pro-Guy scenario work above.  First, I dont think the earth can warm more than 1 degree C per year regardless of the amount of CO2 or methane present.  Second, I think hunter/gatherers or hunters with herds in very remote northern areas will be really hard to kill off.

    Regardless of the impossibility of predicting the future, because of those two new papers (Russians on clathrates and the CO2 from soils one), I am very confident that any financial crash will not save human civilization.  Of course, purposeful mitigation of the climate problem has not been possible for some time. 

    • RE says:

      I have never denied the possibility of a rapid warming event coming from positive feedback loops, that is certainly within range of possibility.  What I call into question is whether such an event could possibly extinguish the life of all Homo Saps on Earth everywhere by even his old date of 2030.  It just won’t work that fast.  While some locations in the tropics will likely go above Wet Bulb temps and not be survivable, there are places in the arctic regions that will be more survivable.

      An extinction level event of such a magnitude takes time.  2100 is believable, 2025 is not.  Not simply from climate change, no matter how rapid that goes.  Collision with a Planet Killer asteroid could do it though.


      • Pintada says:

        RIght.  Seeing the scenario that must play out for a 2025 expiration date for humanity makes it feel really unlikely.

        My extinction and the extinction of my little tribe is more of a concern.  Where am I going to get all those calories???

        • JJ says:

          Calories are currently cheap in the form of raw grain- wheat paticulary is easy to store (the tombs of the pharos had grain stored in clay urns that was able to be sprouted by some scientists, not a great germination rate, but enough to show nutrients still exist). It is possible to buy a years worth of calories in the form of wheat (depending on location) for less than a weeks worth of average 1st world wages. Do that every other month and you will have 6 years supply of wheat in a year. Do that for 3 years and you will have 18 years worth of wheat. The big problem is storing in pest & mosture resistant containers – Old broken fridges could work, as can dry canning, as can any number of other options that can be as cheap or as expensive as one wants.\

          So calories should not be a huge concern, nutrition should be a bigger concern. Beans/legumes to suplement the grains is not to much worse for price than the grains, properly dealt with should have a decent shelf life as well. Greenhouses / cold frames to make micro growing climates that will be more stable than the future weather conditions should also help provide nutrition. And then trapping, hunting, herding, or in extremis canabilism will provide the remainder of necessary food. Of course if you are in a tiny apartment in a major megapolis you probably wont have the space for more than year or twos worth of food – but that should be long enough to see most of your neighbors leave or starve in a sudden sharp die off (be sure not to let them know you still have food…)

          So it is completely possible that even in M.Guys most severe predictions that places with lots of grain available can still have human habitants for a long time past his doom date, especially as extreme wet bulb temperatures are very survivable in super insulated or underground shelters. The temperature of the planet has been geologically much higher and much lower- the suddenness of the change will cause many things to go extinct but human capacity to plan and adapt may be a big enough advantage to allow at least some to survive for decades after a massive and abrupt climate change. And since 2015 didnt see the massive and abrupt climate change I expect 2025 or even 2030 wont see the final extinction of the human race.

          2125? much better odds for final extinction. 

          • JJ says:

            And as I mentioned above, wetbulb temperature only matters if you do not have appropriate shelter. The current wet bulb temperature where I am is lower than -20F. That temp spell death in just a couple of hours. I am wearing a short sleeve light weight T-shirt. Shelter with heating makes all the difference in the world. 

            The heater here (at work) only runs about once an hour at this temperature. Insulation, air tightness and ventilation control offset the need for the heater to work longer. There is also a little thermal mass in the masonry structure. When it is 110F out in about 7 months from now the AC will work  about as much as the heater. 

            People who plan for even more efficient shelters will build their shelters into the ground and take advantage of the thermal battery effect and airtightness that provides. The earth shelters around here are able to be habitable year round even in the most extreme climate events (except for the few that are built too close and low to flood zones) with simple clothing adaptation (warm clothes in winter, less clothes in hottest summer) with no real need for heating or cooling as long as air and moisture is controlled. 

            Temperatures alone will not extinguish the human race (short of venusian temperatures beyond any in the earths geological records). Disruption of food supplies, diseases, and wars, will kill a larger % than all the overheating/freezing, tornados, hurricanes, lack of water, or other directly weather caused events ever will.

            Food can be stored by the wise, diseases avoided while the population dies back, wars can be hidden from or won, etc.

            Even if 99% are killed by all the above, a 1% of our population of @10 billion will be enough to keep the human race alive while the rest of the world adapts and recovers from our catastrophic mistake. Global Industry is probably doomed – but the species? Not in the foreseeable future  unless some group of people gets together to deliberately extinguish the species including themselves and their descendants…

  • Anti Troll says:

    Supersmarty sciency qualifications aside, let us ask which are more sensible locations to move to in the face of exponential global warming:
    Alaska, which is now less bitterly cold in winter and has longer growing seasons or
    New Mexico, soon to have unsurvivable lethal hot summers or
    Belize, which is always hot with a very limited safety margin for temperature rise until it becomes completely unlivable?
    So in the real world where did the guy with common fucking sense move to and where did the Guy with supersmarty sciency qualifications move to? What can we conclude from that?
    I simply cannot understand why McSerpent has so many ardent admirers when he is obviously an overeducated fool

    • RE says:

      We got some snow here the last couple of days but still no negative numbers on the temps so far this year in the Mat Valley..  It’s relatively comfortable if you are adjusted to this temp regime. I can walk outside and spend 10-15 minutes in just my pajamas at these temps.  Kids here run around in shorts until it drops to about 20F.

      A 10C increse in avg temp here would be uncomfortable for me, but certainly not lethal in the near term.It would mean winter days mostly around 40F and Summer days mostly around 80F.


    • EtyerePetyere says:

      When The "Ant"s concern becomes to survive in the summer . You know there is an issue right there . While from the other corner of his mouth he is still spews poison like "fake scientist Mcserpent" and such .  Thats where he goes from survival owerdrive mode into a conflicted split personality . Thats also called "Losing It "

  • Anti Troll says:

    EmptyPempty: your endless stupid opinions are extremely boring. What I found fascinating however is your declaration that your TROLL activities here are "excellent" (??!!??!!??). I mean, really?? You also said you had "many" excellent aspects to your life. Well pray tell us, what are they?

    Hint: If you claim McSerpent has praised you for giving excellent head, we may concede that as a valid skill. However if you claim that pushing your beat up shopping trolley full of urine soaked blankets around Stanley Park while muttering to yourself is "living a life of excellence"…well…not so much (even though we know it is true)

  • EtyerePetyere says:

    Your assuptions about me and my circumstances even whereabouts is just erroneous and misplaced as your insulting profanitys  I can`t be   fazed by these . I am laughing .  That i find is excellence  in itself .  I have also addressed RA  in this same thread but he was not up for daring to publish it . I must have hit a nerve there . So did i with you . ouch !  As of Mc serpent He cant be dismissed .  In fact his whole domain is what mostly being discussed here and thats because it is the most valid and plausible scenario for the immediate future . And as much you wish you cant invalidate it . You can deny  argue fight and than accept it just like the elisabeth kubler stages of grief process . At this point you are stuck in the stages of the former two .. Thats why you are here and thats why i am also here to get you moving on .

  • K Dog says:

    Guy Mcpherson does not claim to be a scientist.  He describes himself as an educator.  That is what he told me.  Guy encourages people to go down the rabbit hole themselves and make their own conclusions.  He is not perfect, who is?

    You do not see the value of Guy.  It is better we have someone who is overly concerned about methane relese than to deny the possibility altogether.  I think of guy as lubrication, a drop of oil in the mental machinery.

    I understand RE, that you understand, that to move forward in life one cannot become mired in depression and you see Guy’s message as depressing. Perhaps there needs to be a bit of sugar in his truth sauce. That could be true!


    • RE says:

      In MANY of his responces to me he claimed to be a scientist, whatever he said to you.

      If he would put a SLIGHTLY more realistic timeline on thisI would not  be near so critical of him.  Even 50 years would be an improvement.  8 years is ludicrous.  He’s just pandering to people’s sense of hopelessness.


  • AntiTroll says:

    EmptyPempty: It is rich you accuse me of being profane when it is YOU who has the original track record of profane, vulgar and abusive language. Don't try to deny it, it is all well documented. You acted like a schoolyard bully by wordbashing other people, but you whine like a miserable coward when you get back the same. Typical bullying coward. I make no secret of the fact that you disgust me. I guess apart from being an excellent village idiot, you are also an excellent hypocrite. "Excellent" obviously being a completely Orwellian term in your deluded world.

  • SomeoneInAsia says:

    With respect to climate change / environmental degradation, I don't really need any science to be persuaded. I just need a modified form of Pascal's Wager: Better safe than sorry. At most I only need the additional fact that we collectively burn tens of billions of barrels of oil annually. This again isn't really science, just a figure — and it's frankly hard to believe burning that much oil annually won't have any negative impact on the biosphere. Sadly, my butt happens to rest on the same planet as that of a whole bunch of idiots hell-bent on ruining the biosphere in the name of 'progress', and I've nowhere else to go.

    As for resource depletion, here again I don't need any special science to be persuaded, just the basic arithmetic of indefinite exponential growth. Frankly, if we need anything else to be persuaded of the suicidal errors of a way of life based on such growth, then humanity at present is a lost cause indeed.

  • InAlaska says:

    RE, just a point of fact.  In your article you reference McPherson and say, "He's a walking, talking database of these articles and he can spit them out faster than an AR-15 on full automatic spits out lead."  AR-15s are a semi-automatic assault rifle, meaning they do not have a "full automatic" setting. The shooter must pull the trigger each time.  Fully automatic means that you hold the trigger down and it shoots until you release the trigger. The AR-15 is the civilian version of the venerable M16, which does have an automatic setting when manufactured for military applications.  You can, in fact, convert an AR-15 to fully automatic, but that takes the assistance of a knowledgable armorer.  In either case, I'm still pretty sure that Guy McPherson can spit out articles faster than an AR-15 which, although slower than a fully automatic machine gun, is still pretty damn fast.  LOL.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Knarf plays the Doomer Blues


Support the Diner
Search the Diner
Surveys & Podcasts


Renewable Energy


" As a daily reader of all of the doomsday blogs, e.g. the Diner, Nature Bats Last, Zerohedge, Scribbler, etc… I must say that I most look forward to your “off the microphone” rants. Your analysis, insights, and conclusions are always logical, well supported, and clearly articulated – a trifecta not frequently achieved."- Joe D
Global Diners

View Full Diner Stats

Global Population Stats

Enter a Country Name for full Population & Demographic Statistics

Lake Mead Watch



Inside the Diner

Quote from: Golden Oxen on Today at 04:29:53 AMQuote from: RE on Today at 04:01:11 AMQuote from: Golden Oxen on Today at 03:07:22 AMWe will all be equal soon.   ...

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/2-days-after-legalisation-canada-pot-stores-run-out-of-supplies-19342892 Days After Legali...

The first thing to understand about crypto markets as a general phenomenon is that they aren't driven by the US market. So it's important to understand exactly what is going on.As I said, bitcoin is all about China.....but cryptos are all also driven ...

Quote from: Golden Oxen on Today at 04:29:53 AMQuote from: RE on Today at 04:01:11 AMQuote from: Golden Oxen on Today at 03:07:22 AMWe will all be equal soon.   ...

Quote from: cernunnos5 on October 18, 2018, 10:22:43 PMDon't be jealous guys. Permies was backing my play long before I got here. (well, maybe only a quarter of their mods)I am all about connecting people. That is how we survive...

Diner Twitter feed

Knarf’s Knewz

Quote from: Eddie on March 13, 2018, 05:21:10 PMAl [...]

Quote from: knarf on March 13, 2018, 03:33:01 PMAU [...]

Quote from: knarf on March 13, 2018, 03:25:04 PM [...]

A new study found that the Great Recession correla [...]

From 2003 to 2005, Gina Haspel was a senior offici [...]

Diner Newz Feeds
  • Surly
  • Agelbert
  • Knarf
  • Golden Oxen
  • Frostbite Falls

Quote from: Surly1 on Today at 03:56:05 AMFor Next [...]

Hellfire- This Is What Our Future Looks Like[html] [...]

Quote from: Surly1 on Today at 03:41:05 AMQuote fr [...]

For Next Weapon in Anti-Protest Arsenal, US Milita [...]

Quote from: Eddie on March 13, 2018, 05:21:10 PMAl [...]

Quote from: knarf on March 13, 2018, 03:33:01 PMAU [...]

Quote from: knarf on March 13, 2018, 03:25:04 PM [...]

A new study found that the Great Recession correla [...]

From 2003 to 2005, Gina Haspel was a senior offici [...]

I just boil 'em in a vat of Drano. Poof. Noth [...]

Quote from: Eddie on Today at 11:21:44 AMIn a pinc [...]

In a pinch you can also click on to "full aut [...]

Quote from: Golden Oxen on Today at 04:29:53 AMQuo [...]

Quote from: Golden Oxen on Today at 04:29:53 AMQuo [...]

Alternate Perspectives
  • Two Ice Floes
  • Jumping Jack Flash
  • Error

The Honor Box By Cognitive Dissonance   It is commonly said the fish rots from the head down, meanin [...]

Animal Spirits and Over Extended Markets By Cognitive Dissonance     Animal spirits is the term John [...]

  (Edit: I've tried to write on this subject for a while now and failed, realizing I would not, [...]

Mother Nature Shows Off Her Stuff By Cognitive Dissonance     Mrs. Cog and I live on the edge of the [...]

Control the Narrative and You Control the People By Cognitive Dissonance   It is extremely difficult [...]

Event Update For 2018-10-17http://jumpingjackflashhypothesis.blogspot.com/2012/02/jumping-jack-flash-hypothesis-its-gas.htmlThe [...]

Event Update For 2018-10-16http://jumpingjackflashhypothesis.blogspot.com/2012/02/jumping-jack-flash-hypothesis-its-gas.htmlThe [...]

Event Update For 2018-10-15http://jumpingjackflashhypothesis.blogspot.com/2012/02/jumping-jack-flash-hypothesis-its-gas.htmlThe [...]

Event Update For 2018-10-14http://jumpingjackflashhypothesis.blogspot.com/2012/02/jumping-jack-flash-hypothesis-its-gas.htmlThe [...]

Event Update For 2018-10-13http://jumpingjackflashhypothesis.blogspot.com/2012/02/jumping-jack-flash-hypothesis-its-gas.htmlThe [...]

RSS Error: This XML document is invalid, likely due to invalid characters. XML error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 1, column 9109

Daily Doom Photo


  • Peak Surfer
  • SUN
  • Transition Voice

Twelve More Years To Do Nothing"The future is changing, with or without us."When the latest IPCC report landed with a thu [...]

How Joe Hill came to coin Pie in the Sky"When Christine Blasey Ford spoke of sound-memories embedded in the hippocampus she was attempt [...]

Ponzinomics"Tolerable parasites are those that have minimum pain and cost to the host."DONALD TRUMP, [...]

Somewhere, a Tiger Yawns"Simple, scalable, and shovel ready. China is moving negative emissions from laboratory to fiel [...]

Cherry Blossom Soap"China’s real wealth is not yuan but cherry blossoms."No longer having a television at hom [...]

The folks at Windward have been doing great work at living sustainably for many years now.  Part of [...]

 The Daily SUN☼ Building a Better Tomorrow by Sustaining Universal Needs April 3, 2017 Powering Down [...]

Off the keyboard of Bob Montgomery Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666 Friend us on Facebook Publishe [...]

Visit SUN on Facebook Here [...]

To fight climate change, you need to get the world off of fossil fuels. And to do that, you need to [...]

Americans are good on the "thoughts and prayers" thing. Also not so bad about digging in f [...]

In the echo-sphere of political punditry consensus forms rapidly, gels, and then, in short order…cal [...]

Discussions with figures from Noam Chomsky and Peter Senge to Thich Nhat Hanh and the Dalai Lama off [...]

Lefty Greenies have some laudable ideas. Why is it then that they don't bother to really build [...]

Top Commentariats
  • Our Finite World
  • Economic Undertow

Depressions were common place 100+ years ago ... but then economies were much simpler animals. Since [...]

And these are the scientists whose numbers are constantly quoted by the MSM.... How totally f789ed u [...]

Well that means that you should be more willing to accept their findings - because they are less lik [...]

Fracking has been deemed by the el ders a TBTF industry ... and they are subsidizing it. [...]

BMW Cuts Profit Forecast, Shares Dive BMW shares dived up to 6% Tuesday after the Munich, Germany- b [...]

The author's gist seems to be that we should keep investing in shale because - all other condit [...]

Thanks for the article Steve. As usual, perfect - almost eldritch - timing. One question, what do yo [...]

What do you think of the author's reasoning? So the initial production rates from a well in the [...]

Here"s one: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4210065-shale-oil-ponzi-scheme-evidence-decline-cu [...]

@Dolf Can't disagree with your solution for many people. But f you are involved in producing an [...]

RE Economics

Going Cashless

Off the keyboard of RE Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666...

Simplifying the Final Countdown

Off the keyboard of RE Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666...

Bond Market Collapse and the Banning of Cash

Off the microphone of RE Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666...

Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?

Discuss this article @ the ECONOMICS TABLE inside the...

Singularity of the Dollar

Off the Keyboard of RE Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666...

Kurrency Kollapse: To Print or Not To Print?

Off the microphone of RE Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666...


Off the microphone of RE Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666...

Of Heat Sinks & Debt Sinks: A Thermodynamic View of Money

Off the keyboard of RE Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666...

Merry Doomy Christmas

Off the keyboard of RE Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666...

Peak Customers: The Final Liquidation Sale

Off the keyboard of RE Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666...

Collapse Fiction
Useful Links
Technical Journals

Forest management based on sustainability and multifunctionality requires reliable and user-friendly [...]

Nitrous oxide (N2O) is a potent greenhouse gas (GHG). Although it comprises only 0.03% of total GHGs [...]

This study presents a method to investigate meteorological drought characteristics using multiple cl [...]

El Niño–Southern Oscillation strongly influences rainfall and temperature patterns in Eastern Austra [...]

Follow on our http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/