[Subjectivist]

Does anyone have this book? I stumbled over be of the authors old lectures at a Canadian University on YouTube and found him very compelling. I found myself about 85 percent in agreement with him so I might be suffering confirmation bias. He is a historian and documentarian, two of my favorite kinds of people.

If you have some time to spare I suggest looking him up, I was surprised how prolific he has been being published widely in Canada and Europe. Unfortunately other than the lecture I found I have not seen anything else he has done at least not recently enough to spark a memory.

[vox_mundi]

Does anyone have this book? I stumbled over be of the authors old lectures at a Canadian University on YouTube and found him very compelling. I found myself about 85 percent in agreement with him so I might be suffering confirmation bias. He is a historian and documentarian, two of my favorite kinds of people.

If you have some time to spare I suggest looking him up, I was surprised how prolific he has been being published widely in Canada and Europe. Unfortunately other than the lecture I found I have not seen anything else he has done at least not recently enough to spark a memory.

Excellent book. I listened to the mp3 version by the author at http://gwynnedyer.com/radio/ but the links appear broken. But he gave an abridged version at http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/8/gw ... e_wars_the and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK5l_0bm6ko

He knows how to connect the dots ...

CLIMATE WARS

A couple of years ago, I realized that the professional military in various countries were taking an interest in climate change. They had grasped that the first and biggest impact of global warming, for human beings, is on the food supply – and as more and more people scrambled for less and less food, there was going to be a growing demand for their services. So I set out on what turned into a two-year tour of the climate-change world, interviewing the scientists, the generals, the diplomats and the politicians. This is what I knew at the end that I didn’t know at the start.

First, this thing is coming at us a whole lot faster than the publicly acknowledged wisdom has it. When you talk to the people at the sharp end of the climate business, there is an air of suppressed panic in many of the conversations. We are not going to get through this without taking a lot of casualties, if we get through it at all.

Second, the generals are right. The key problem is that global warming cuts into food production, and some countries (mostly, those nearer the equator) are going to suffer from it much more than others. They will generate huge numbers of refugees, they may become “failed states”, and they could even end up at war with one another. The military will have plenty to keep them busy – and the more chaotic the world gets, the less chance there is for a global agreement on curbing greenhouse gases.

Third, there is a limit beyond which we must not go. If the rise in the average global temperature exceeds two degrees Celsius, we will probably trigger feedbacks that cause huge releases of naturally stored carbon dioxide and methane. Melting the permafrost would do it, or just warming the sea’s surface too much. Once those natural processes are set in motion, we could cut our own greenhouse gas emissions all the way back to zero and find out that the warming was still heading for five or six degrees Celsius. That would mean mass death.

Fourth, we are going to pass right through the two degree limit. Two degrees equates to 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and we are already at 390 ppm. Our emissions are now raising that number by 3 ppm per year. It is very hard to believe that the talks for an international deal to replace the Kyoto accord will succeed soon enough, and mandate deep enough cuts, to stop the rise short of 450 ppm. The huge differences between the “old rich” countries and the newly industrialising ones will either delay a deal for years, or result in a bad compromise. We will be lucky to stop before 500 or even 550 ppm.

Fortunately, there is a way to cheat: various geo-engineering techniques that create an artificial sun-screen to keep the temperature below two degrees hotter. Putting sulphur particles into the stratosphere, or thickening low-lying marine clouds to make them more reflective, are only stop-gap measures. They don’t solve the problem. But they could win us extra decades to work at getting our emissions down without triggering the feedbacks. We will probably be doing something like that within ten years.

This is a very big crisis, but there is a way through it.

He was is VERY Prolific. Here's a sampling of some of his older articles from his blog at http://gwynnedyer.com/archives/

The Future of Food Riots

The Food Bubble

The Coming Food Catastrophe

The End of Cheap Food

The World in 2050

Climate: Losing Control

The Avalanche of Evidence

Climate Change: Panic in the Trenches

Extreme Climate and Extreme Politics

After Peak Oil

Holdren Interview for Climate Wars

[Paulo1]

I have listened to Gywnne Dyer speak at a conference. During the Q&A, I asked him if he accepted that 'The War in Iraq' was about oil? He stated that it was not, that the neo-cons simply believed they were imposing democracy on the region, 'for their own good'.

He lost me after that one, although I suppose he has now changed his tune.

Otherwise, he is very well spoken and engaging. I suppose you cannot fault him for being uninformed. Look at CNN.

regards

[Subjectivist]

BTW this is the lecture that caused me to start this thread. It is 90 minutes long but the first half is the most important part.

http://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY

[Outcast_Searcher]

He was is VERY Prolific. Here's a sampling of some of his older articles from his blog at http://gwynnedyer.com/archives/

The Future of Food Riots

The Food Bubble

The Coming Food Catastrophe

The End of Cheap Food

After Peak Oil

Holdren Interview for Climate Wars

Aside from his work on climate change, he looks like your standard doomer to me -- just more formal and more prolific but generally just as wrong about the doom predictions.

From the non-climate change articles in the sampling:

For "The End of Cheap Food" in 2007 for example, he was predicting the era of cheap food is over, and that the global middle class would be spending TWO AND A HALF times more of its earnings for food in ten years.
Well, first, looking at corn and wheat -- the two specific foods he mentioned as big problems, long term futures charts show these about as cheap now (9 years later) as they were in 2007, bumping along near the bottom of the price range since early 2007.

So he's COMPLETELY wrong on those two predictions.

With the peak oil doom meme, in 2007, he only says "perhaps" peak oil is here, and sites doomers like Kunstler. However, it's clear he's predicting significant decline in oil within a decade. And here we are nearly a decade later with a major glut and the biggest worry being producers being bankrupted due to the major oil price crash.

So that one looks COMPLETELY wrong also.

And in early 2008 he claims a "perfect storm" is coming that will create a "food catastrophe" within two years, with arable land devoted to bio-fuels being the straw that breaks the camel's back. In this article he cites rice as a big problem. Well, rice is under half of what it was at the time, and again, is near the bottom of the 2007-present range.
No food catastrpohe, only a spike in rice prices - no lasting problem with rice, and by 2010, instead of a disaster, rice is at the bottom of the price range.

So he's COMPLETELY wrong on this one also.

In "The Food Bubble" in 2011 he just talks generally about irrigaton and aquifers being a long term problem and doesn't make any specific predictions. Given BAU and AGW, I have no problem with a long term negative outlook, so this one is neutral as he's stating the obvious.

In discussing "The Future of Food Riots" in early 2011, citing rioting over food in Algeria, he also avoids making any specific predictions. He cites climate change and irigation as long term problems. So nothing unreasonable here, but again, he was only stating the obvious long term big issues. He did mention the liklihood of food refugees (and them having the same kind of problems we're having with real world political refugees).

So he's a prolific blogger spewing doomer porn. I realize that is very attractive to many on this site, but shouldn't the folks being praised be expected to have their predictions be SOMEWHAT accurate? Or is all it takes to be a guru of the doom club that you are proclaiming doom loudly and frequently?

[snoopdog]

One billion Europeans figtin 6 billion non-Europeans in babylon. Who win?

[Subjectivist]

One billion Europeans figtin 6 billion non-Europeans in babylon. Who win?

In all honesty the Europeans and their descendants also have about 80 percent of the nuclear weapons, the exceptions being China, India and Pakistan who are all just as likely to use them on refugee populations as the Europeans.

The poor will be slaughtered if they become too troublesome. That is the way it has always been. It isn't right, it isn't good, but it is how humans behave.

[ennui2]

Outcast_searcher is spot on about the bad predictions. This is a problem with all doomer "personalities" (Kunstler, Orlov, Greer, etc...)

The thing about doom is most of us agree that in the longer timeframe (at least decades) that we're headed into 4 horsemen territory. What tends to happen, though, is bloggers don't feel content to leave it at that and have to latch onto this or that current event as a sign of an impending fast-crash, which only destroys their credibility (with those with critical thinking skills, not their echo chamber) when these specific predictions don't pan out as expected.

[Hawkcreek]

I think Greer is the most reasonable of the doomsayers. He is consistent in saying that we are looking at a long slow descent, not a fast crash.
He also uses historical cycles to back up what he says, which I kind of agree with.
Plus, he is a really good writer. His novels are well done.

[onlooker]

Outcast_searcher is spot on about the bad predictions. This is a problem with all doomer "personalities" (Kunstler, Orlov, Greer, etc...)

The thing about doom is most of us agree that in the longer timeframe (at least decades) that we're headed into 4 horsemen territory. What tends to happen, though, is bloggers don't feel content to leave it at that and have to latch onto this or that current event as a sign of an impending fast-crash, which only destroys their credibility (with those with critical thinking skills, not their echo chamber) when these specific predictions don't pan out as expected.

I think that is what makes the Limits to Growth simulations and projections so cogent and interesting. They do not make predictions contrary to the popular assumptions. They simply mapped out various scenarios by changing certain variables and extrapolating the corresponding outcome/scenario. In all these iterations, the common thread was that mankind had to reign in growth of different kinds, whether that be consumption, population or waste/contamination. If not unalterable/inevitable limits would be reached with nasty concurrent outcomes.

[snoopdog]

One billion Europeans figtin 6 billion non-Europeans in babylon. Who win?

In all honesty the Europeans and their descendants also have about 80 percent of the nuclear weapons, the exceptions being China, India and Pakistan who are all just as likely to use them on refugee populations as the Europeans.

The poor will be slaughtered if they become too troublesome. That is the way it has always been. It isn't right, it isn't good, but it is how humans behave.

So European destroy planet and now threaten 6 billion. Maybe you be surprised ras clat.

[ennui2]

I think Greer is the most reasonable of the doomsayers. He is consistent in saying that we are looking at a long slow descent, not a fast crash.

His problem is he's downplaying AGW doom. He can't shake himself out of "this is just like the fall of ancient Rome", just as Orlov is "this is just like the fall of the USSR".

[Tanada]

I think Greer is the most reasonable of the doomsayers. He is consistent in saying that we are looking at a long slow descent, not a fast crash.

His problem is he's downplaying AGW doom. He can't shake himself out of "this is just like the fall of ancient Rome", just as Orlov is "this is just like the fall of the USSR".

Clearly you have not read Star's reach, or is a totally melted world where 7 Billion died 400 years before the story begins not doomy enough for you? In that novel the Gulf of Mexico has returned to its most ancient shoreline, in Memphis Tennessee! Everything west of mid Kansas is desert, the East Coast is flooded to the foothills of the Appalachians, Florida is long gone, New England is a separate country because the Hudson valley is flooded all the way through to the Saint Lawrence Seaway. If that is downplaying AGW doom then you must be one of those human extinction is imminent doomers.