Hunger stones

[Skybird]

Interesting guy you found there, Rockstar, he is unknown to me. Interesting also are some of the replies on the page you linked.

Before somebody declares him to be a clueless climat denier, this is his background:
http://clivebest.com/blog/?page_id=2

That clueless he cannot be.

Curbing carbon emissions is going to be almost impossible while the world’s population continues to grow. My personal view is that humans have massively changed the global natural order and CO2 emissions are a symptom of this rather than the overriding central issue. Only if and when population can be stabilised will we have a hope of balancing human needs with those of nature. Concentrating on CO2 emissions is probably a diversion from this primary problem. I think that the evidence supports the “sceptical” view that temperatures will not rise by more than about 1 degree between 2000 and 2100. Despite this, the push to find new energy sources has a beneficial side effect of climate change policy, and is probably necessary. However, renewable energies currently have far too low energy density – wind energy for example in the UK comes out at just 2 watts/m2. Is it really worth covering the most beautiful parts of britain with 100 meter high unreliable turbines, while China continues to burn cheap coal ? Solar energy farms in deserts, short term expansion of nuclear power until nuclear fusion is tamed are a better investment for us and for the natural world.
(...)
I am not disagreeing with the latest AR5 report. It is a very impressive summary of climate science. (...) So my main complaint is that we only hear the worst case scenarios of 6C warming by 2100 and never the most likely case which is just <2C warming even under business as usual. One reason for that is the politicalisation of climate sciencce, cheer lead by with various hangers on and green pressure groups.

Almost the same point I made: Overpopulation is the real problem, everythign else is just follow-on symptoms.

The comments sections maybe is even more interesting - and certainly more accessible - than the main article. I admit I struggled with the main text.

[Rockstar]

I found Clive Best on the web about a 18 months age. I've always found his opinions and those in the comments section insightful, scientific and remarkably civil in nature. Keeps me coming back.

I have a Bsc in Physics and a PhD in High Energy Physics and have worked as a research fellow at CERN for 3 years, Rutherford Lab for 2 years and the JET Nuclear Fusion experiment for 5 years. Thereafter I worked at the Joint Research Centre in Italy until April 2008 being seconded to the African Union in Addis Adaba Nov 2007 until March 2008. I originally started this blog to record my experiences in Ethiopia. It started out as a travel blog, but has now morphed mainly into a science blog on climate. All results, views, opinions and errors are entirely my own fault and in no way reflect any stance of any previous employer. In April 2008 I co-founded a start up company Osvision. Since then I also got involved with holiday rentals and a business centre at Colletta – a quite beautiful and unique medieval village in Liguria, Italy. I also now have more freedom to travel the world. I am basically a scientific sceptic but with a deep interest in other opinions and cultures.
I became interested in understanding the physics behind climate change after getting fed up with being told that the debate is over. Science is never a closed book and has a habit of turning round and biting those who think so. This explains why the blog now focusses on climate science.

[August]

Originally Posted by Catfish

1. Reduce the earth's population.

2. Inventing smart technology to minimize pollution of the earth and still live comfortably, if a bit different

Unless there is some huge game changing technical breakthrough you cannot invent your way out of this without controlling population or the numbers will swamp any regimen you try to institute.

[Rockstar]

Love this comment


Climate change has about as much impact on our lives as continental drift. Nobody you know is going to be inconvenienced, let alone killed, by the imperceptible drifting of the 17-year running average of weather. The bizarreness of our obsession with climate will take a few years to be widely acknowledged, but when it is, expect to see climate research return to its former status as a niche science of no particular urgency. The biggest challenge is to understand and arrest processes such as cancer and dementia, which will destroy the lives of most of the people you know.