# pete best Says:
18 May 2009 at 2:44 PMRe #707, You are talking about western life but that is not the lifestyle that we need to live now is it. What we need to live is the same as it was in Europe 5000 years ago in the Neolithic where we consumed zero net carbon. Farming was adequate and the population was small and could never grow much more.
The billions presently on the planet will be curbed if the energy begins to run out but even so we will do enough to sustain a global population of many billions just not all watching wide screen TV’s and driving around in cars eating hamburgers for entertainment. China’s and Indias population have been large evne before coal, oil and gas were used.
So, is Pete suggesting we need to revert to the stone age? Or is he saying we just need to stop watching wide screen tvs, driving cars and eating hamburger for entertainment? (I eat hamburgers for nourishment myself. I guess it’s also more entertaining that a diet of maize, maize, maize, amaranth and maize.)
Beer was invented in the Neolithic. I guess the era has its charms.
“in the Neolithic where we consumed zero net carbon. ”
Duh, we did consume carbon as in cooking on fires among other things and eating carbon based life forms.
Now beer contains dissolved CO2 which is released as we drink it. Also when it is brewed, so I guess we cannot have beer either. Oh yes and bread releases CO2 when it rises. You just can’t win!
Well, the devil is in the definitions, no?
On a planetary scale, we are carbon neutral, no matter what we do. On an eco-system scale, if there are only small, isolated populations of humans who use basically zero fossil fuels, the carbon we would use in survival-level activities would be from veggie and animal carbon, so beer and bread, and to communal fire pit, may pass muster with the carbonistas.
But of course the near-extinction-level event that would take us back to a neolithic level should pay the survivors forward for a few centuries on their AGW-authorized carbon budget.
But since in the neolithic, the reports to and from the AGW command center was very slow, it will be difficult to not only report on the carbon budget. It will also be difficult to reduce those new carbon rations into a petroglyph format easily understood by the pesky survivors.
Human nature being what it is, I doubt this or any other civilization will be willing to voluntarily cut back on creature comforts. I’ve always found this to be a fatal flaw in the argument about curbing emissions; people talk about it, and some are sincere, but how serious would they be if it drastically impacted their lifestyle? Driving a hybrid ain’t gonna cut it. Can anyone think of a civilization that voluntarily scaled back it’s emissions?
And I’ll hold out for the Bronze Age; I gardened this weekend and hoeing is not something I’m gonna do with a rock on a stick. Ol’ Pete can do that if he wants, but I need a bronze hoe!
I like the “WE consumed zero net carbon”. WE did?
Apparently, Mr. Best hasn’t gotten over being replaced in The Beatles. WE were a great band, weren’t WE? 😉
Andrew
Doug,
Don’t you dream of spending your days curing hides with urine? Or living in a carbon neutral existence in a sod hut carved into the side of a hill in Wisconsin playing checkers all winter with your cousins and then occasionally dashing out to drill a hole through the ice so you can spear a few fresh fish for dinner? Sounds like a dream to me!
I wonder if they had invented cheese during the neolithic? Wisconsin just wouldn’t seem like Wisconsin without cheese curds and schnapps.
He is either making fun of them backhandedly, or a truly disturbed person.
BTW, how do you consume zero carbon when you are made of C, O, and H and a few other elements? Someone needs to go back to grade school biology.
Don’t worry, the suffering doesn’t last long. I bet that many of the commenters would be dead already, isn’t the average lifespan for that time period something like 35-40? So yes, lots of suffering and hardship, but it’s over quickly.
Hey! Didn’t they invent a way to control the human population in that movie “Logan’s Run”? We could all just kill everyone who reaches 30, and the rest of us could have random sex. Just like the movies! Whee!
The amazing part is that this sort of crap has been spouted since Malthus and some people still think it is a new idea.
And he was saying this using a computer? Didn’t know they were invented in the Neolithic. Plenty of land out there what’s he waiting for? Grab a spear and go. On the other hand if he wants to reduce population I’ll be a gentleman and let him go first. If he’s past 20 he’s probably past his life span for that time period anyway.
Sorry, Andrew from Florida. Pete was not being funny. He is a AGW true believer from way back. The misanthropes seem to be attracted to an ideology that puts the planet before the people. There is no higher purpose for any planet than to support sentient beings, yet they long for some non-existent idealized balance of nature that leaves man out of the equation.
three words — toothpaste, toilet paper.
deodorant
Andrew
Joel–
The irony is that sometimes, the reason we are supposed to chose to live in the stone age conditions is to…. keep future people from ever having to live in stone age conditions.
There is not a whole lot of sense in that.
Taken collectively, I don’t have any idea what Pete was really trying to say– what with the notion that we need to live in the stone age being followed by some of the billions being deprived of wide screen tvs. I suspect many billions of the earth’s inhabitant already don’t own widescreen tvs, and don’t drive around eating hamburgers for entertainment.
I wonder if pete is correct that India and China’s large populations predate use of coal? Wikipedia suggests the coal has been used in Tajikistan since the time of Herodotus. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal ) So.. maybe he means the large populations predate coal fired power plants? Who knows?
Here’s one from John Sarette Says: 18 May 2009 at 8:34 PM
My answer is “Carbon Credits”.
(Ok… if you have any idea what point John Sarette was making, let me know. The link is http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/the-tragedy-of-climate-commons/langswitch_lang/fi#comment-124750 . Also, I’m pretty sure he doesn’t know what the word < a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/contrafactual">“contrafactual” means.)
Monsieur Sarette was doubtless making the observation that everyone hates those damn talk radio show hosts. And where he is, I’m sure they all giggled and thought “Yeah, stupid ditto heads, we are so much smarter than them. I ditto what you just said regarding how stupid they are.” “Ditto.” “Me to.” “And me.”
Watching parrots mock others for being parrots is…amusing…
And no FORTRAN, assembler, or C to build those climate models with. Instead, you sit around the campfire with your fellow neolithic climate modelers and stare deeply into the flames while chanting in unison over and over, “Warm go up. Warm go down. Warm go up …. Warm go up …. Warm go up.”
Scott, thanks a lot, now I have a nose bleed.
I note that he closed his post at RC with:
Let us all pray that he doesn’t.
Lucia When are you going to do a posting on current NH and SH ice like last years? It was fun the betting and all LOL BTW just to let you know: NH ice
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
SH at “Cryosphere Today” but 2 weeks behind.. still 20% ABOVE
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg
and an ” ice checking adjustment site” Please take with pinch of salt) here:
http://mikelm.blogspot.com/2007/09/left-image-was-downloaded-from.html
Geez, reminds me of this classic Iowahawk post, though they didn’t even need AGW to motivate them:
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2005/03/college_profs_d.html
“College Profs Denounce Western Culture, Move to Caves”
Martin: Thanks for that link and idea. I am a university professor and have thought of moving to a cave but there are none that I can find in Evanston. I wonder if profs who do move to caves retain their tenure?
Yours,
Glug
Lucia: If technology ever slipped beneath 19th century levels you’d see this cheesehead migrating to warmer climates post haste. But in answer to your question, cheese is considered to be a Neolithic food, dating to the domestication of sheep. So, we’d have cheese and beer. Sounds like a tailgate party to me!
Ah Iowahawk. Lord of the internet, brilliant humorist.
Douggerell-A tailgate party without the tailgate, you mean?
Wasn’t the stone age the period of time when we caused mass extinctions almost everywhere? But we were in tune with Mama Nature then.
RealClimate is funny.
Every entry starts with a strawman argument:
– smoking causes lung cancer therefore dangerous global warming
is real.
– they overfished the cod stocks and couldn’t stop themselves and therefore dangerous global warming is real.
– paper comes from an author who once bought gas and is therefore funded by the oil industry and therefore dangerous global warming is real.
– just look at this chart with a line going up and therefore dangerous global warming is real.
And then it degenerates into a completely endless discussion of renewable energy, the same one they had in the previous entry the week before.
Oh… comments are getting better and better! Here is someone giving Gavin grief because “Climate Change: Picturing the Science” (Gavin’s new book) was printed in China by a company that doesn’t have sufficiently high environmental standards:
So, I take it the UN, GISS, NOAA, Hadley and various research groups around the world are supposed to create a new publishing company that figures out how to print books with lower carbon footprints so that Gavin’s new book will be greener. Would the regulations enforcing the lower carbon footprint mean smaller print? Thinner paper? No photo’s or illustrations? Less information?
Maybe “A note for Gavin” can do his part and check books out at the library. That way, the carbon footprint will be shared by many.
Lucia,
This is off topic but I noticed your little tet a tet with Tamino regarding Lorius et. al. What you encountered was Tamino going into defensive mode and sidetracking the argument. You played him beautifully and your last comment was spot on. I have been banned from his site after just such an interchange regarding oceanic pH levels and whether they have been declining since the 1750s. I was right (they were) but obviously I switched a “sacred cow” switch and he got abusive and then banned me after I gave in to his rantings.
Contrary to the title of his site, Tamino does not have an open mind. He has preconceived notions that are inviolate. Challenge them and expect abusive retribution.
I guess, unlike myself, you being a prominent blogger, get a more respectful (though still abusive) treatment than myself as a non-prominent blogger.
I just wanted to say that you got him hook, line and sinker. Congratulations!
Andrew_FL: OK then, a Wagongate. Assuming we’re allowed wagons. And we can watch football played the way it’s supposed to be played, with a rock.
Richard–
I’m familiar with Tamino. Hansen did not “predict” the lag. Oddly, one of the paper he cited did, in the sense that it shows a figure where C02 lags ocean temperatures. But if you look at all the plots, you’ll see “interesting” features of the climate.
Or…. a least I think so. There may be some goofs in the figure captions. But if you read Saltzman http://www.springerlink.com/content/x64528v1m63r2221/ you’ll see that in his involved curve fit to data in 1986, the CO2 lags ocean temperature. But, it looks like surface temperatures were supposed to plunge over the past 1000 or so years. So, I don’t expect people are going to be “explaining” the lag using that analysis.
The fact is, scientists rarely predict future what we will specifically see in peer reviewed papers. Reviewers don’t value predictions. They value explanations of what has already been seen. If you read the Lorius paper, you’ll see the words that supposedly “predict” the CO2 lag say nothing about the lag. They simply interpret the existing correlation. The paper specifically says we don’t need to worry about what lags what.
Doug–
I wonder whether we will be permitted to create pottery. We’ll want mugs for the beer. The Neoliths made pottery, but maybe the carbon footprint of heating the kiln will be excessive. Maybe we’ll have to carve mugs out of naturally felled trees. I’ve seen many of these when hiking in Wisconsin. Drop some off when you pass by on your southward migration toward Arkansas.
R Steckis: Thats why WUWT and CA won best science blogs and RC, Tamino will never get anywhere. LOL
“we’ll have to carve mugs out of naturally felled trees”
There is another Beatles connection here.
Way down South they had a jubilee,
Those Georgia folks they had a jamboree.
They’re drinkin’ home brew from a wooden cup,
The folks all dancin’ got all shook up.
This is getting weird. 😉
Andrew
The irony is that technological progress is the key to improving environmental quality. People in Africa have small carbon footprints. The die from breathing fumes from burning grass and animal crap. I’d call that pollution which is harmful.
Power of poop!
Lucia: I plan on using the urine-cured stomach of whatever animal I can hit with a pointy stick as a drinking flask. Sigh. With my leet hunting skillz that would probably be a chipmunk. Although I can see you designing a “Lukewarmer” pottery mug.
Doug– Opossums are probably easy to spear.
Lucia: Yeah, but have you ever drunk beer out of a possum stomach? OK, I haven’t either, but ewwwww.
Carbon neutral? Hah. Land use/land cover changes, at least according to Pielke, Sr., are as or more important than CO2 emissions in terrms of climate effect. Growing rice, much less raising cattle, makes methane, so no agriculture. But even hunter/gatherers do things like burn forest undergrowth. Then there’s the effect of making everything from wood would have on forests. What they’re really proposing is the Twelve Monkeys solution. And even that failed in the end.
The people who talk of going back to simpler times invariably live in cities, and survive parasitically on the backs of the technological world. Like the hippies who joined communes to farm, and then sat on their asses all day playing guitar and waiting for the food to be somehow delivered. What greater irony that complaining about the results of modern technology by way of the US Defense Department-funded internet. If all the truck drivers in the United States went on strike for a month, most of these people would starve.
MarkB-Ayn Rand described such people as “looters” and I call them “leeches”-If Atlas shrugs-or the truck drivers go on strike, that is, those who actually work-their house of cards breaks down.
Don’t go knockin’ ‘possum or even ‘coons until you try them.
Muskrat is pretty good, too.
They al can make a good gumbo, and as for drinking implements, at least they will make the AGW over lords happy.
But what about the PETA people?
Oh, the inhumanity of it all.
Andrew_KY (Comment#13760) Actually, that’s Chuck Berry not the Beatles, who by the way, was definitively not carbon neutral. I’ve been to more than one of his concerts where the place ended up ankle deep in beer… Which brings up an interesting question: how carbon neutral is a concert where everyone tokes up and then waves cigarette lighters in the dark?
Lucia,
About Gavin’s book being published in China, that poster may well be reminded that we owe China the invention of both paper and printing. On the other hand, we owe England the industrial revolution, and the widespread use of coal (plus of course a number of other nasty things like colonialism). As a matter of fact, before the industrial revolution, or rather the coal revolution, China was the technological leader of the world, and had made the best use of available resources.
“Climate Change: Picturing the Science†(Gavin’s new book)…
So, THIS is way he spends his time, along with all the blogging? Writing a BOOK? Yet, he complains he doesn’t have ANY TIME to document Model E? This really takes the cake – and is one of the reasons why GISS (and climate science in general) is so screwed up…
Francois–
I think the commenter was concered about the carbon footprint of shipping. I think Gavin should have assured him that all books would be shipped using sailboats operated by crews of vegetarians.
Paul Linsay,
Yes. That is a Chuck Berry song. The Beatles covered it, though.
It’s gotta be rock n’ roll music if you wanna dance with me. Take note, ladies. 😉
Andrew
Lucia – I went to your thread at Tamino’s blog – what an a**hole. He and most of the posters there are more interested in ad hom attacks than science. I don’t know why you bother even posting over there.
Keep up the great work!
(PS. – I bought one of your mugs!)
Chuck is just mugging for the blog owner…
Chuck,
Thanks for buying a mug.
On the last round, some seem to have pretty well conceded to Hansen didn’t predict the lag, but decided that no one should care who did. Well…. ehrmm… No one would care whether or not Hansen predicted the lag except for the fact that Tamino claimed he did. (Eric at RC seems responsible for this ridiculous claim.)
I know there isn’t any point in going back. Some of them have moments of rationality. But they really don’t get the point that actually making up fake stories about whether or not Hansen predicted the lag is counter productive. It’s an odd thing that people who will recognize that Monckton is unconvincing when he makes up IPCC projections don’t recognize that Tamino is unconvincing when he makes up facts to buttress his position.
re: Gavin’s book:
Did you notice his rationalization for the enormous carbon footprint,
“Getting good quality at a reasonable price is very hard, and had it been printed elsewhere the costs would have been much greater.”
I’m going to start using that quality and cost line for everything I buy that’s not made locally. Especially from countries that receive free-pass carbon credits 🙂
Paul Linsay-It depends if they are flint or butane. 😉
Francois O,
Now here’s a good topic for research. Which provided the greatest benefit, the Industrial Revolution or paper and printing?
Should be good for many years funding:-)
Can’t have one without the other first, Dave.
“Carbon” is a misnomer – the only problem is “fossil carbon”. We’ve probably been using that in very small quantities for thousands of years, too of course. Nobody I trust projects a stone-age future; quite the reverse, given the solar system’s abundant energy resources. But fossil carbon’s end has to come one way or another given its nonrenewability; my hope is only that we can quit long before we come close to “using it all up”.
Arthur–
Yes. Fossil carbon has to come to an end, and I think we can easily avoid having to return to the Neolithic to do it. Heck, ideally, we can avoid returning to the technology of the 1900s!
Arthur,
Everyone agrees that we need to find non-fossil fuel energy sources. The problem are the absurd deadlines which AGW alarmists keep pushing and the fact that they try to deny us access to viable alternatives like nuclear.
It is clear to me that a soviet style collapse is the only practical way to meet the AGW alarmists deadlines and many enviromentalists see this as a good thing but the ‘earth’ will be saved.
“many enviromentalists”
Calling these weasel words is insulting to weasels, imo.
Arthur,
“Fossil carbon” will indeed come to an end, from technological advances, or lack of supply. Why then does so much time, talent and treasure get wasted trying to prematurely end (curtail) its use? To call that illogical is to give it too much credit.
Arthur,
I should add that I am in Canada. Reducing or eliminating the use of “fossil carbon” in the near to mid term will necessitate the depopulation of my country. As you can imagine, I don’t like that idea one bit, nor do most of my compatriots, and since we have enough domestic “fossil carbon” for hundreds of years, I don’t plan on moving. Annual pilgrimage to the west coast of Florida excepted.
Arthur,
“Carbon†is a misnomer – the only problem is “fossil carbonâ€.
So the people who have been spouting the word “carbon” all these years have not been telling the whole story?
I’m stunned. 😉
Andrew
Mug Haiku
I received my mug
It’s nicer than its picture.
My tea tastes better.
Too funny! Glad you like the mug.
It’s about time I got credit for inventing this policy. You people keep calling it Marxism or Communism. Well, it’s not, it’s much more than that. I implemented this policy very successfully on a massive scale and got nothing but criticism for it. But my time is coming, my ideas are on the rise. A prophet is never recognised in his own lifetime. Soon you will all be on “Holiday in Cambodia”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot
“During his time in power, Pol Pot imposed a version of agrarian collectivization, forcing city dwellers to relocate to the countryside to work in collective farms and forced labour projects, toward a goal of “restarting civilization” in “Year Zero”. The combined effects of slave labour, malnutrition, poor medical care, and executions resulted in the deaths of an estimated 750,000 to 1.7 million people, approximately 26% of the Cambodian population.”
By the end we were Carbon Neutral.
Kind regards,
Pol Pot
Okay, who dug up poor old Pol and stuffed him with straw?
Zeke–
With all the straw around climate blogs, we should turn it into biofuel!
Sorry guys, but with respect, your statements about “fossil carbon” “running out” are wrong-that’s just economically fallacious. Yes, there is a literal limit on the oil we can consume-but we won’t consume it all and no realistic scenario would ever suggest this. The reason is that quite simply the price increases that inevitably occur when supply diminishes are countered by the fact that, as prices increase, demand diminishes in response-in other words, with no intervention whatsoever, people will look for alternatives, and companies will develop them.
I know I have no hope of convincing a Kossack like Arthur of this, because after all,
“You are an immigrant-bashing Republican because you use the words “supply” and “demand” in the same sentence!”
Ah the progressive truth generator-never fails!
Andrew_FL,
“George W. Bush made Rosie leave The View so that SUV drivers could oppress minorities.”
http://www.buttafly.com/bush/index.php
Andrew
LAWLZ! Bush Conspiracy Theory Generator! Now that’s funny!
Zeke,
The same sort of people who have been promoting the idea we are facing a climate catastrophe.
Bill Illis (Comment#13753) May 19th, 2009 at 7:55 am
There is no evidence that modern man caused any extinctions during the transition from the last ice age up to and including the mid Holocene.
The notion that they did is the flawed theory that “man is the root of all evil” mindset pervades many of our sciences.
MartinGAtkins-One could just as easily say that the idea that they didn’t is the religious notion of environmentalists that the “noble savage” was born in an Eden without sin and harmed not his environment. Especially those Native Americans who came over on the Bering Land Bridge-after all, they were such good conservationists that the evil white man exterminated!
In reality, I might ask you-why did Mega Fauna in the Americas suddenly start disappearing when people arrived? Might not the “environment consciousness” of the natives have come from their previous enviro-genocide?
Andrew_FL
I said there was no evidence. Religion or purity has nothing to do with it.
“enviro-genocide”? Let me see if I can understand where you are coming from. Modern man invaded north America because they didn’t like big hairy things with tusks?
Only certain types of mega fauna died out, Cloven hoofed animals didn’t and nor did their predators. Modern man was one among the later and more flexible in diet.
We followed the herds and prospered by our agility. In a rapidly changing environment it is those who were most adept to change that survived.
Okay, “genocide” was a poor choice of words. So, what did happen to the kinds of Mega Fauna of, say, Giant Tree Sloth type?
I tend to agree that we can’t know that Humans hunted, say, Mammoths, to extinction. But given the fact that early humans were dealing with a world filled with commons and no property rights concepts, the idea that they would act in such a way as to destroy the commons of these species is not too far fetched to me.
As far as I’m aware Giant Tree Sloth type animals where not common in Eurasia or north America leading up to the Holocene. South America had until recently, it’s own unique environment. It doesn’t seem to have had the conditions that lead to migratory behavior in large terrestrial animals. Australia is another example.
I would think that ownership of land would be a difficult concept to grasp for any people who followed herds over huge tracks of land. Ownership of the animals may have been a source of conflict but I don’t see how this would lead to extinction of any species.
You speak of the commons but don’t say how destroying them would benefit us. Ownership of land would be important only when farming took hold. This was long after the demise of what we now call mega fauna.
Perhaps during the last ice age, large body bulk offered some advantage in maintaining core temprature.
Okay, I see that I was vague and didn’t explain what I meant. If people had owned and used the animals they were hunting instead of competing with one another to hunt them, they would have incentive to breed them as opposed to eliminating them. I’m not talking about property rights with regard to land but livestock.
So “Ownership of the animals may have been a source of conflict but I don’t see how this would lead to extinction of any species.” is correct-but that is the exact opposite of what I meant to imply! I’m saying species could have gone extinct from over hunting because nobody owned them.
“…..it becomes apparent that the writers of the cap and trade bill are very clearly aware that this bill will cost thousands of jobs. So much so that unemployment benefits for those losing their jobs because of it will go for THREE YEARS, 156 weeks. Obviously they are not expecting these hapless folks to find new work easily! The Washington examiner reports that these victims of Washington DC legislation and Congress will get 80% of their insurance premiums paid, a 1500$ relocation allowance, and job search expenses of up to 1500$.
If this is an energy bill… which by the way, is being sold as legislation that will create higher paying “Green†jobs, in higher numbers than those lost, then what are unemployment benefits for up to three years doing in it?”
http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m5d22-Cap-and-trade-bill-includes-unemployment-benefits–Largest-tax-increase-in-history
Andrew_FL
Nobody owned the cattle and deer type animals but they flourished even though we hunted them. We where just another predator amongst many.We didn’t have the numbers to cause mass extinctions across the northern continents.
You are making the mistake of thinking that mega fauna were defenseless victims. They were not. They had developed over thousands of years and in the mammoths case become one of the dominant species of the ice age. The Neanderthal did hunt them but didn’t make a dent in their numbers. They used the only successful tactic that could be used, namely ambush and brute force attack. They paid the price, horrific injuries are evident on nearly all their fossil bones. They used a stout shafted spear with a strongly attached wide bladed head and literally bayoneted them.
We didn’t use that type of spear. Ours had a long thin shaft with a shorter and narrower blade. This indicates that ours where designed to be thrown. Mammoths had a thick coat of hair and a hide to match. Throwing a spear and one of these brutes would just annoy him. Our pray were the herds of the newly open plains and later the expanding forests.
If man is was a danger to these animals, why do they still exist in Africa and Asia. Ask a native of Africa if you can go hunting elephants with a his spear. He will say yes and be sure to take your money first.
Okay pal, you win this one.
| And no FORTRAN, assembler, or C to build
| those climate models with.
Wasn’t Stonehenge a climate model?
Fraizer: “Wasn’t Stonehenge a climate model?”
.
Well, possibly to the extent that circular reasoning was used to design it.
.
Otherwise, if we can believe the archeologists, Stonehenge was constructed for making astronomical observations and for performing various ritualistic activities.
.
But I wouldn’t care to speculate as to what the paleoclimatologists might say about why Stonehenge was built.