Catastrophic Climate Destabilization: Florence’s Origins

By Frosty Wooldridge


As Hurricane Florence rampages toward North Carolina, we face yet another horrific storm equaling Katrina, Harvey, Maria, Sandy and dozens of others in the past few years.


Forecasters tell us that American summer temperatures rise ever higher in June, July and August. New record scorching temperatures announced monthly!  We see endless wildfires raging across our tinder-dry forests.  Last summer 2017, while cycling across America, my companions and I pedaled through Montana’s 300,000-acre wildfire. Smoke and ash surrounded us and I swear that I smoked 10 packs of cigarettes in one day as I pedaled through flames and 360 degrees of blackened landscape.  This summer, I witnessed California burning up!


While most Americans give little credence to ‘Global Climate Change’, their children face even greater environmental disasters in the 21stcentury.


The human race gallops toward its destiny without any idea of the long-term consequences to all life on this planet.


Enter A New Term: Catastrophic Climate Destabilization


While I worked in Antarctica in the ‘summer’ of 1997-98, I reported for the Antarctic Sun newspaper.  Each week, I listened to the world’s top research scientists on numerous subjects. They worked on 180 different projects as to weather, species extinction, air pollution over the centuries, ice pack, snow pack, penguins, whales, seals, krill, skua birds, atmospheric aberrations and much more.


At one point, research scientist Dr. Rutledge along with his colleagues gave a presentation on the growing and massive ‘carbon footprint’ in the biosphere and oceans by humans’ burning of fossil fuels 24/7.


Notice that for the past two thousand years, Earth’s temperatures and climate remained mild and stable. Earth featured about 180 parts per million carbon. Today, over 400 ppm as a result of the Industrial Revolution that started in the late 1800s.  


We saw catastrophic climate change in the last ice age, and the black- out of the “global winter” created by a meteor hit that killed off all the dinosaurs!  At that point, 97 percent of animal and plant life died on this globe. Scientists called it the “Fifth Extinction Session.”  From that three percent  of surviving organisms, all the life on this planet sprang up to yield what we see today, including humans.


Dr. Rutledge stated, “These climate models show how Earth’s atmosphere moves toward massive changing as the overload of carbon dioxide absorbs into the oceans.  The problem we face stems from the ultimate consequences when the oceans become too overloaded with carbon so as to warm them. Once the Earth’s oceans warm and become acidified, they will cause catastrophic climate destabilization. Additionally, acidified oceans will cause the death of plankton that creates 80 percent of our oxygen.”


I wrote about it in my book:  Antarctica: An Extreme Encounteravailable on Amazon.


Expectantly, I tried to interview on “60 Minutes”; NPR and PBS. I attempted to interview on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and FOX.  I tried to interview on Oprah.  I wrote columns about it.  I’ve spoken on 1,500 radio interviews.  But no one wants to listen or take action. Al Gore produced two movies that everyone refuted or ignored. 


Somehow, world leaders don’t, won’t or refuse to connect the dots. In fact, they rail against all evidence.


Since 1998 when I spent a summer ‘on the ice’, we humans added 1.5 billion of ourselves to reach 7.6 billion on our way to 10.1 billion in 30 years. We’ve added hundreds of millions of gasoline engines of all kinds. We’ve added millions of smoke stacks from homes, factories and coal-fired electrical plants.


It’s not that the oceans create those hurricanes more than usual, it’s that their aberrantly warmer waters and the swirling cold air of the upper biosphere mix it up to create even more horrific Category 5 hurricanes. 


As our human mob inundates the biosphere with carbon exhaust from billions of cars and smoke stacks 24/7, and as we add another 83,000,000 (million) of ourselves, net gain, annually---our species and all life on this planet face catastrophic consequences in the 21stcentury.  


Ironically, I find such environmental groups like the Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, Audubon, World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace, National Wildlife Federation, American Bird Conservancy, Friends of Earth and a hundred others groups---WON’T address, touch or speak up about human overpopulation in the United States.


The fact remains that all their causes will amount to absolutely nothing without facing the fact that we must stabilize human populations around the globe in the 21stcentury, or, Mother Nature will do the job for us, rather brutally and without mercy.


I want to make this fact very clear:  Mother Nature doesn’t give a damn about humans. 


How do I know this fact?  I’ve traveled on my bicycle through Asia where millions starve to death and live in overpopulated misery.  China, India and Bangladesh face catastrophic futures.  Africa, on course to grow from one billion to two billion by 2050 to four billion by the end of this century---faces a horrible future.  Its people already hopelessly starve to death by countless millions with people living like ants in refugee camps and thatched huts.


And yet, you won’t hear a peep nor will you see anyone connect the dots as to population and hurricanes like Katrina, Sandy, Harvey, Haiyan, Maria and Florence.


It’s called ‘cognitive dissonance’ or intellectual denial of reality. Presidents Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump all suffered from it and did and/or are doing NOTHING to change course. PM’s like May, Trudeau, Merkel, Salvi, Macron and others in Europe lead blindly into the future.  All of them: terrified to touch this last taboo: human overpopulation.  They’re not alone:  60 Minutes, NPR and PBS flee from any mention or interviewing anyone who will speak up about it.  How do I know? 


For the past 15 years, I’ve given all these organizations contact numbers for the 20 top American experts to interview on what we face by 2050 as our population adds another 140 million people. What did they do at NPR, PBS, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and FOX?  Ignore, ignore, ignore.


Let’s just say that Mother Nature sends us Hurricane Florence as another reminder that our continued accelerating carbon footprint caused by exponential growth of the human race, ends up in catastrophic climate destabilization.


It’s not going to be pretty for anyone!  And, it’s going to become worse more often.






opher goodwin Added Sep 13, 2018 - 2:57pm
Frosty - that is the most intelligent post I've ever read on WB. I have been railing away about overpopulation and it falls on deaf ears. I have been talking about global warming and it is derided as a political lie. Yet these things are real and so obvious. The outcomes are horrific and only just beginning to get into gear.
I too have witnessed the terrible poverty, pollution and horrors caused by overpopulation in Africa, Asia and South America. I have seen the impact on the environment and wildlife.
We are digging our own graves. Until people stop this silly tribal politics and start grasping the nettle I am afraid we are doomed to reap the consequences - a catastrophe of climate change, a catastrophe of extinctions and a dismal future for human beings.
Overpopulation is the underlying cause.
Ken Added Sep 13, 2018 - 3:22pm we go again.  it is simply false.  In fact, Obama was the first president to server 2 or more terms without a major hurricane hitting the US.  We are actually below average in total storms in general, but hey!   don't let the facts halt good global warming talking points, huh?
George N Romey Added Sep 13, 2018 - 3:40pm
I'm sure we're just keep denying until a major coast city is washed away.  Even then.  Face it people are in general stupid.
opher goodwin Added Sep 13, 2018 - 3:47pm
Ken - I am afraid that it is you that is denying what is right in front of your nose. The evidence is all there. If it wasn't for this stupid tribal politics you'd be able to see it. Check the global temperatures! Check the ice-sheets, coral bleaching, desertification, season creep, record temperatures, droughts, and species movements. They don't all lie.
This bleating of fake news is pathetic. The experts do know what they are talking about.
Dr. Rupert Green Added Sep 13, 2018 - 3:53pm
"While most Americans give little credence to ‘Global Climate Change’, their children face even greater environmental disasters in the 21stcentury."
Frosty, I am with you regarding climate change. Notedly, you asserted a fact ( in bold) and fail to provide the source to warrant your claim. Please direct me to the source.
Dino Manalis Added Sep 13, 2018 - 4:44pm
 We need to scientifically prevent such cataclysms!
Ken Added Sep 13, 2018 - 4:51pm
Check the global temperatures!
And you claim to be a scientist Opher.  Scientists are supposed to be skeptics.  Yes, you can find dozens of links to those pushing climate change (previously global warming, global cooling, now climate disruption).  Not a single climate model has ever proven accurate.
But seeing as you are a socialist, I am sure you see nothing wrong with theft of wealth and redistribution of it which is the entire basis behind this in conjunction with radical degrowther environmentalists
Rusty Smith Added Sep 13, 2018 - 6:51pm
One thing you can count on with the Earth is that the climate keeps changing.  It has been doing that for billions of years and it's not credible to think it will stop changing now just because we like it the ways it is today.
Logical Man Added Sep 13, 2018 - 7:16pm
Fossil fuels are basically stored solar energy.
Burning them for energy is doing the same thing as putting your home heating on in summer. Gee, it gets hotter!!!
The earth is still getting the same amount of heat applied from the outside, but adding more heat from inside.
Even if you disregard all the CO2 we'd still be warming up.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Sep 13, 2018 - 11:16pm
Oh. My. Buddha. 
Ken Added Sep 14, 2018 - 2:16am
Do you realize oil is no longer considered a fossil fuel but rather a naturally produced resource?
There are many links that show that, here's one
Climate change happens, whether we are here or not.  It is a simple scientific fact.  the discussion is whether we are increasing the problem.
The single biggest factor in climate change is (gasp) THE SUN.  Sorry, we have no control over that, hate to tell you.
We have about 200 years of temperature records (of which only about 20-40 are actually accurate - and even those tend to disagree with satellites) on a planet that is billions of years old.  YES!  let's predict how horrible we are while we continue to siphon our abundance to the "less fortunate". and give all of our wealth to those who are less fortunate or less capitalistic or less whatever because THEY deserve it!
This is simply a shameful and sick theft of capital.
Flying Junior Added Sep 14, 2018 - 4:06am
By coupling the issues of over population and unmitigated climate change, your post takes a very pessimistic turn indeed.
I don't think any government other than China wishes to prevent their citizens from reproducing.  But mathematically, your cynicism does bear out some time in the distant future.  I can only hope that the human race lasts that long without, as you say, catastrophic changes to our earth.
A term that I have heard in the same discussions as catastrophic climate change is of course, extinction-level climate change.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Sep 14, 2018 - 5:09am
I posit the Zager and Evans song is more accurate. 
opher goodwin Added Sep 14, 2018 - 5:44am
Ken - if you go getting your information from bogus right-wing politically inspired garbage such as Climate Depot then what do you expect. They have an agenda:
Try looking at unbiased scientific sources. This is what the Royal Society has to say:
This is what NASA has to say:
Oh I know - all scientists are liars. It's fake news. Only Trump and the extreme right are purveyors of truth.
Such a shame that things as important as this have been politicised for short-term profit by a bunch of self-servers. Also such a shame that intelligent people are gullible enough to believe the right-wing lies from fake  news specialists like Climate Depot.
opher goodwin Added Sep 14, 2018 - 5:45am
FJ - overpopulation is responsible for most of the world's problems. It is time it moved to number one on the agenda!!
David Montaigne Added Sep 14, 2018 - 7:59am
Of course there is massive climate change, but as Ken said, the biggest factor is SOLAR.  Yes, mankind is producing more carbon dioxide (and plenty of far worse pollutants) but there are huge natural cycles and we have records of warm and cold diversions from average for many millions of years.
I suggest that governments are very aware of climate change and the negative long-term consequences if it continues and that THEY DON'T CARE AT ALL because they also know we suffer from long term periodic cycles of catastrophic pole shifts.  If the 21st century has a civilization-ending natural event coming due, overpopulation and carbon emissions are about to be settled with or without legislation.
I know few people are going to check my book on pole shifts or anything else reviewing the evidence for such cycles - but if you even look at Hermeticism's ancient wisdom, or the long-term cycles described by Hinduism's Yugas or Plato's Great Year - or if you study the end of the Pleistocene Age and question why North America's climate changed so suddenly, or a hundred other possible topics - many will lead to the same conclusions - depopulation and climate normalization are coming soon via catastrophic pole shift.  Ignore and mock all you want, evidence is here if you look.
Logical Man Added Sep 14, 2018 - 8:11am
The core problem, as I see it, is that the world's present financial system requires infinite growth.
If the earth has infinite resources, we'll be fine!
Jeffry Gilbert Added Sep 14, 2018 - 8:48am
Fukushima has done more damage and will continue to do so for long after the human pestilence has disappeared.
Ken Added Sep 14, 2018 - 11:28am
Right Opher - your sources are completely unbiased they have no skin in the game.  They get no government grants to study climate change, right?  They have no benefit whatsoever to perpetuate the lie so they can continue to fund research, right?
I just picked that in a quick google, it isn't the only source.  It is widely known there has been an 18 year "pause" in temperatures that can't be explained part of why it is now being called "climate disruption".
And then they say "no single storm can be used to prove climate change", but every time a major storm comes up suddenly it's all about climate change.
I am not even going to try and bring in links to prove this fiction to you, you are a hopeless true believe to your religion.  You are never going to look critically at anything (whether you agree with that link or not, are they just making up the chart?)  what about the NOAA link I provided - are they are terrible right wing ideology?
Linving in england you should be well aware of the East Anglia University fraud with climate change data as it made up data to fit their hypothesis and threw out data that didn't, then colluded with other scientists in "ClimateGate" to do the same - which seems irrelevant because it is only a few scientists, but those scientist were considering the leading authorities on climate change and their data was the baseline for virtual every study asserting climate change.
But hey?  don't let the facts get in the way of faith, huh?
Ken Added Sep 14, 2018 - 11:42am
I know few people are going to check my book on pole shifts
I haven't read your book, but I have seen in recent years the growing belief that it was a pole shift to our current 23% tilt that caused the dinosaur extinction, not a meteor hit.
Whatever we do we aren't going to destroy the earth.  It will go on whether we are here or not.  It fixes itself.  All these dire prediction are crazy.  We worry about destruction of oil spills - then find out there are microbes in the ocean that actually thrive on oil spills and eat the oil and help clean it up.
the earth figures out how to fix itself.
George Carlin puts it best
And now the degrowthers who want wealth redistribution bring up"overpopulation"  You going to be in that group of people who believe we should just eliminate 10-20% of the world's population?
The earth does have infinite resource, it continually renews itself.  In face three is new evidence that believes that oil is not a fossil fuel but actually a naturally occurring renewable resource.
Bill H. Added Sep 14, 2018 - 12:15pm
Frosty - Excellent post totally loaded with facts that obviously many out here find uncomfortable.
Yes, we need to tackle overpopulation immediately, as it is the prime factor. Climate change is probably the most damaging byproduct.
I look at some of the sources used as "proof" to try and show that man has caused no impact on the climate, and I have to chuckle!
The usual sources from the usual people.
CFACT?, Be serious, Ken!!
I won't supply you any links, as you will term them as "Fake Sources", but do some real research on what companies have donated to CFACT.
As an example, Exxon Mobil donated almost a half a million dollars. Take your own look at how much Donor's Trust donated if you really need a slap in the face.
Get back to me with your results. It's your homework assignment.
Bill Kamps Added Sep 14, 2018 - 1:42pm
Unfortunately, whether you are correct or not, it is difficult to take Al Gore seriously when at the same time he was making his movie, he was flying in a private jet, and living in a mansion.
This unfortunately is the crux of the problem.  People dont believe or trust the government.  People are convinced that if restrictions were  made on fossil fuels, politicians and the rich would be exempt from the burdens caused by these restrictions.  If we take your warnings seriously, the restrictions would be severe indeed. 
Companies like Apple, and people like Gore, game the system so they can claim they are getting only green power.  Without the fossil fuels backstopping these green sources of energy, they couldnt exist as things are today.  In effect they are paying others to take the necessary fossil fuels so they can claim they are only taking the green fuels.  Hypocrites.
Whatever the truth is, it is getting lost among the opportunists like Gore who want to get even richer by trading carbon credits, or who otherwise have an agenda either pro or con climate change. 
Bill Kamps Added Sep 14, 2018 - 3:05pm
I would also add, since I try to be pragmatic about these things.
Let's assume for the moment Frosty you are correct.  You dont say what will need to be done.  What changes in life style do we need to make until such time as the grid is powered completely by fuels other than fossil fuels?  Do we need to give up our cars, our air conditioning?  what about heat?  How would you stop over population?  do we sterilize parts of the population and if so which ones?  We know the rich and powerful wont bare the burden. 
Are solutions even practical politically? since the whole world needs to do it.  The Paris accords are not going to do anything meaningful, quickly enough.  They are just a document that says we are doing something, when in fact they are doing very little. 
Unfortunately sometimes humans have to suffer before we reach a better solution.  WWI and WWII were avoidable, but yet many tens of millions had to die in these wars before the warring parties realized they could in fact be allies and trading partners.  So far, many fewer have died from the earth heating up. 
The flooding of New Orleans was avoidable if people heeded the warnings about the levies.  But that of course begs the question why we have a coastal city below sea level in the first place. 
Humans do stupid things and pay the price. 
Maybe there is nothing that can be done for the time being.  Maybe coastal cities will have to start flooding permanently before changes will be made, or maybe the earth will self correct like some people say it will.  Who knows. 
I know that right now there is not the political will, or the trust, to implement anything that would move the needle on CO2 ppm, in a reasonable amount of time.
Frosty Wooldridge Added Sep 14, 2018 - 4:20pm
Bill Camps, sir, you ask the right questions.  Thank you.  From my 71 years of living, and my extensive travel worldwide, I think humans will add another 3 billion by 2050 to reach 10 billion and on to 14 billion by end of century.  Humans prove through history they are clever, but stupid beyond understanding.  This planet will kick our asses back to the stone age.  At this point, the "Sixth Extinction Session" continues in the animal world via humans poisoning and encroaching habitat worldwide including the oceans.  I suspect humans will become the "Seventh Extinction Session" species.  We may survive small tribes, but our great civilizations will go the way of Rome.
In the meantime as humans run up to those numbers, it will get ugly.  Massive starvation! Massive disease outbreaks!  Horrific regional wars!  Racial conflict in every multicultural society including the USA.  
Yes, by calling for a worldwide conference of leaders of countries and religions, and explain what's coming if we don't take action on human population,  we could gracefully implement a one-child per woman world wide with birth control to bring our numbers to less than 1 billion, but to get religions and cultures to sign onto that path--religious leaders are too stupid and emeshed into their own paradigms, they can't see reality.
Thus, I see on hell of an ugly future for humanity and all living creatures on this planet in the 21st century.  I call it the "Darwin Solution" and it works every time.  Rather brutal, merciless and nasty---but effective.  That's what's coming because humans are too damned stupid to save themselves.
At my age, I'm glad to have lived through Vietnam, and enjoyed a fantastic life of travel, and writing and fulfilling my curiosities.  I slipped through this remarkable period on this planet where I could be a Marco Polo, and live rather well for my time on the planet.
At the same time, I'd like to create a national-international conference on a 1 child per woman policy, so future humans might thrive.  I'm trying, but have gotten nowhere in the past 30 years.  I've tried to get on 60 Minutes, NPR, PBS, CNN, FOX, ABC, CBS and NBC.  They won't touch overpopulation issue.
Thus, the Darwin Solution will eventually take action.  In the meantime, I just bicycled 4,500 miles coast to coast last summer, and I'm working on two books: Old Men Bicycling Across America to publish January 2019, and America's Overpopulation Predicament: Blindsiding Future Generations to publish March 2019.
All in all, it's been a hell of a ride and I thankful and full of gratitude for my great good fortune in life.  Frosty Wooldridge, 6 continent world bicycle traveler. 
Bill Kamps Added Sep 14, 2018 - 4:41pm
I think humans will add another 3 billion by 2050 to reach 10 billion and on to 14 billion by end of century.  
In much of the industrialized world population growth has already slowed dramatically   Therefore you are faced with the "inconvenient truth" of the developed countries telling the underdeveloped countries to curb their population growth.  Think this is realistic?  I dont.  There will charges of racism, of genocide, what  have you. 
Myself I dont think population growth is growing as fast as you think.  But it is still growing.
However, that doesnt stop the continued use of fossil fuels.
Thus, I see on hell of an ugly future for humanity and all living creatures on this planet in the 21st century.
To be fair, the history of humans has been pretty ugly most of our existence.  Whether it was wars, plagues, or what have you, only recently have mass killings been relatively abated.  In the 20th Century alone a hundred million or more were killed by a combination of WWI, WWII, and the Spanish Flu.  So hardly happy times.  The plague killed a pretty significant percentage of the population in the 1300sish.  We have had a long history of constant wars killing significant percentages of the population, and by luck so far, we have survived. 
There may well be more violent weather, and there may well be coastal flooding.  However the population is not currently predisposed to act as a global one, solving a large scale global problem.  I dont even care if there are meetings about the subject, right now all they are willing to do is window dressing. 
There is a steady move towards more renewable fuels.  Research is being done on improved energy storage which is essential if fossil fuels are to be abandoned, at least in the near term.  So progress is being made.  Good enough? fast enough? no one knows.
How fast will the earth heat up? no one really knows since we cant forecast next week's weather, much less climate 50-100 years from now.  We dont know if something will moderate the warm up.  We dont know what inventions will occur to make CO2 levels lower.  We dont know the impact of what will happen.  We dont know what people will do if the problems get more obvious and more large.  So much we dont know.
Time for a glass of vino :)
Bill Kamps Added Sep 14, 2018 - 5:02pm
I dont think we can imagine what will be invented in the next 40-50 years that may mitigate the problem. 
In 1900 no one could possibly imagine the difference between how people lived in 1900 compared to 1960.  The widespread use of electricity, cars, radio, phones, jet planes, etc.  How can we possibly imagine what inventions may be made in the next 40-50 years? 
To me technology has more promise to mitigate the problem, than state enforced child birth limitations, or state enforced power consumption limitations. 
Frosty Wooldridge Added Sep 14, 2018 - 5:08pm
Yes, technology may save us for a short moment in time, or even stretch out that 'moment' in time, but if we keep overpopulating, eventually, we will destroy the planet's ability to feed, water and sustain us.  We're already causing the extinction of 100 creatures 24/7 according to the Norman Meyers, Oxford University, 40 year study.  We're poisoning the oceans at a horrific rate with 70,000 chemicals, and of course, Fukushima is still radiating the oceans.  fw
Ken Added Sep 14, 2018 - 5:10pm
I'd like to create a national-international conference on a 1 child per woman policy
 Right.   Because that has worked so well everywhere it has been tried, right?  You know how many girls have been murdered because of 1 child policies?  They all want the males.  China is a perfect case in point.
Logical Man Added Sep 14, 2018 - 6:36pm
Only that which is sustainable will survive.
Mother Nature is very strict in that regard.
The present system is NOT sustainable.
Prepare accordingly.
Frosty Wooldridge Added Sep 14, 2018 - 6:50pm
Excellent logic, Mr. Logic Man, and yes, She's very strict and does not tolerate hope, faith, religion, wishes, prayers or emotions.  
Frosty Wooldridge Added Sep 14, 2018 - 6:52pm
Ken, we either commit to 1 child per woman worldwide, or Mother Nature will kill off all children without mercy.  Today, 4 million children under the age of 12 die from starvation, annually. Nasty death!  I've seen them. Another 8 million adults die from starvation, annually.  As Africa jumps from 1 billion to 2 billion by 2050 and 4 billion by the end of the century, look for human death rates to accelerate beyond imagination.  Oh, and Mother Nature doesn't call it 'murder'. She kills with heartless impunity.
Ken Added Sep 14, 2018 - 7:41pm
we either commit to 1 child per woman worldwide, or Mother Nature will kill off all children without mercy.
I am not a silly degrowther.  I don't buy into your alarmism. or that it is unsustainable.  Look at what Norman Borlaug did for rice production in 1970.  We have GMO items now that are curing world hunger.  Who knows what new technology will be invented to keep moving forward, or that we will even always be earth bound and not able to take advantage of resources elsewhere?
Logical Man Added Sep 14, 2018 - 9:17pm
Ken, you must be on a different planet than the one I'm  on.
GMO's are about profit, not benefit to humanity. They lead to the over use of pesticides and herbicides to the detriment of essential species, a single example of which would be bees - about one in every three mouthfulls you eat depend on the little buggers.
You really don't know enough to be commenting on this subject.
Ken Added Sep 14, 2018 - 9:45pm
Much of that starvation doesn't have to happen and isn't due to lack of resources.  Most of those starving live in areas led by corrupt governments and 1st world food donations never get to the starving population it sits around and rots.
Logical Man - I am glad I do.  my world doesn't require misery but allows people to live and thrive.  You have no idea what I know Logical Man so don't lecture to me what I should or shouldn't be commenting on.  I simply have a different view than you do, something that as far as I know is still legal.
Maybe you should read about Norman Borlaug.  He wasn't "about the profit".  He created a way to turn world hunger around for millions if not billions of people that suddenly had a huge supply of food they could produce.  He even won the Nobel Peace Prize for it in 1970.
Even if GMO are all about profit, the offset is curing world starvation.  What's so terrible with that?
Frosty Wooldridge Added Sep 14, 2018 - 10:12pm
Ken, unwittingly, Borlaug created even greater starvation levels down the road by making more food available so that, Africans, once they obtain more food, they spray more sperm and create more babies. Thus, they overrun their carrying capacity and live in greater misery and greater numbers.  He made this serious statement:
The green revolution was instigated as a result of the efforts of Norman Borlaug, who, while accepting the Nobel peace prize in 1970, said: "The green revolution has won a temporary success in man's war against hunger and deprivation; it has given man a breathing space. If fully implemented, the revolution can provide sufficient food for sustenance during the next three decades. But the frightening power of human reproduction must also be curbed; otherwise the success of the green revolution will be ephemeral only."
Additionally, the reason Africans suffer stands from the fact that the average IQ in Africa runs about 68.  Look it up.  That low of a collective IQ by Africans means they cannot harness resources nor can they work to plant, harvest or store food. They are hunter gatherer tribes.  Illiteracy dominates all of Africa. Thus, failed states and failed civilizations all over Africa.  Plus, they will accelerate from 1 billion in 2018 to 2 billion in 2050 and 4 billion by 2095.  Their refugee line will grow and never diminish.  Europe and the USA, plus Canada are beyond stupid to take in those refugees.    
Reality sucks for Africans and stupid receiving countries of refugees.  
Bill H. Added Sep 14, 2018 - 10:55pm
Logical Man - I would actually put that at more like 2 out of every 3 mouthfuls of food depends on bees and other pollinators. Most of what cattle, chicken, and other food animals consume is also dependent on bees and other pollinators. Other pollinators include butterflies and moths, which are also threatened by pesticides and herbicides.
The area of genetic modification of plants to resist herbicides or to produce plants that produce their own insecticides is a disaster just waiting to happen.
When profits are the sole driving force or concern, science and logic get left out of the picture.
Ken Added Sep 14, 2018 - 11:29pm
Frosty - so what is your plan then?  Wipe out Africa?  if their IQ is so low and they are primarily hunter gatherers, how do they fall under 1 child per family?  Think they will comply?  Chinese are quite intelligent, and in Asian culture male is far more important than female so they literally have been killing female babies to have their male babies as soon as they know gender.  This is incompatible with individual liberty.  This is absolutely sick domsday complaint.  No one who has ever predicted doomsday has ever been correct.  I doubt you as well.
In fact, I just heard from the National weather center, literally 5 minutes ago, this September temperature has been th 3rd lowest in a century.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Sep 15, 2018 - 5:52am
Additionally, the reason Africans suffer stands from the fact that the average IQ in Africa runs about 68.
Yet those on the left insist we believe they're no different than us and we're the problem keeping them from integrating into civilization. 
Frosty Wooldridge Added Sep 15, 2018 - 12:29pm
Ken, you sound like you need more travel experiences to understand what you're writing about. You sound like there's morality in Nature and that humans garner some kind of justice.  Reality check:  Africans will wipe out themselves with overpopulation.  The key: don't allow them to migrate to Western countries.  Nature doesn't care about individual liberty.  Go live in Africa for a year and see what I'm talking about for yourself.  Doomsday?  Hardly.  It's simply what's coming for millions and millions of people if they keep overpopulating.  It's a matter of time.  Mother Nature's laws are the only ones that count.  
Jeff Gilbert, right on the money, sir.
Douglas Proudfoot Added Sep 15, 2018 - 5:56pm
As Exit Glacier, near Seward, Alaska, recedes, it's revealing the remains of a rain forest carbon dated to the 1100's.  This would tend to indicate that it was warmer in the 1100's than it is now.  In fact, the Medieval Warm period, 950 to 1250, is generally considered to have been warmer than today.  It was followed by the Little Ice Age, 1300-1850.  Exit Glacier has been receding since 1815.  Was the Medieval Warm Period caused by a massive amount of coal mining?  Did the Medieval Warm Period end due to a massive switch to renewable energy?  The answer to both questions is no.  Please note that Michael Mann's famous hockey stick climate graph omitted the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.  Since both are a matter of historical record, it seems like Mann's models aren't very accurate.

Extrapolating climate cycles that last hundreds or thousands of years based on 50 - 100 years of statistical noise is statistical folly.  Recently, there was an 18 year period during which global temperature, as measured by satellite, didn't change at all statistically while carbon emissions grew substantially.
We are at the end of a 5,000 year inter glacial period.  Another Ice Age is due to start soon.  Why should we be worried about global warming, when we're due for catastrophic global cooling?
Your post talks about a lot of natural disasters, then claims that a man made population collapse is on the way due to Malthusian overpopulation.  The post doesn't connect the disaster predictions with your proposed causes, and omits consideration of other, more likely, causes.  Your mention of disasters in Africa doesn't consider that socialist dictatorships in Africa cause major disasters there, because socialism never works.  It also doesn't consider the fact that banning DDT killed millions in Africa from mosquito spread diseases, particularly malaria.  Then you make some comments about low IQ in Africa, without any consideration of childhood malnutrition as a cause.  The malnutrition is caused by bad government, disease, war and prohibiting GMO crops due to the European prohibition of GMO foods.  You have your hammer of climate change and Malthusian disaster, and the whole world is your nail.  Basically, it's malarkey.
Logical Man Added Sep 15, 2018 - 6:58pm
Douglas, how much does Bayer (formally Monsanto) pay you for pushing GMOs so hard?
Ken Added Sep 16, 2018 - 12:06am

Ken, you sound like you need more travel experiences to understand what you're writing about. You sound like there's morality in Nature and that humans garner some kind of justice.
I have traveled quite extensively and and understand there is no morality in nature.  I just don't believe in degrowther extremism and all the alarmist predictions that never come true.
DP - exactly!  the Earth is billions of years old, and not only do we only have 100-200 years of any temperature records at all, but most of those are averages and estimates because they were in difficult to get to locations.  using modern technology, we are getting more accurate temperature readings and there hasn't been a change in actual temperature in almost 2 decades

Bill H. Added Sep 16, 2018 - 1:26am
Looks like a few of you need some real facts.
Be sure to review figure 1, figure 2, and figure 3.
Frosty Wooldridge Added Sep 16, 2018 - 10:42am
Douglas, 'marlakey' proves a tricky word. It is way it is!  That's what's coming, and it's simply matter of time. We live, we die, we exist at the whims of the universe.  As I said, I'm just happy to have made it through seven decades in one piece.  
Steel Breeze Added Sep 16, 2018 - 11:40am
damn! we're all gonna die again?!.....we've already been exterminated by Aids,Swine flu,Bird flu,Ebola,etc.etc.etc....this dieing shit is gettin tiresome....
Neil Lock Added Sep 16, 2018 - 1:46pm
I'm no right-winger, but I've looked at the facts on the "catastrophic human-caused global warming" scare, and I've spent time going back and forth between the proponents of alarmism and the skeptics. And my take is: I don't believe the hype.
(1) I'm not convinced that globally averaged measured temperatures are increasing by anything like the amount the "experts" claim. If you build warming into a computer model, it will produce warming, no? But that isn't evidence, it's only supposition. And if you "adjust" measured temperatures to make them look as if they support your case - isn't that fraud?
(2) I'm not convinced that, even if human activities do cause a modest amount of global warming, that would be a bad thing either for the planet or for humans. A global rise of 2 centigrade, in my opinion, would be a good thing. Roman and Minoan civilizations, for example, thrived in times when they had warmer conditions than the average of the last several thousand years.
(3) One of my big beefs with greens is that they never follow their own prescriptions. If Opher - to take an example - really believed that there were too many humans in the world, he would have not had children. (He once told me he had 73 children - and on this very forum!) And if he believed that a certain species was genuinely endangered, he would get together with friends and establish a sanctuary for that species; but he won't. Moreover, if Prince Charles wanted to minimize carbon dioxide emissions, he wouldn't go on holiday by private plane!
I've gone so far as to trace the history of this scare back to where it came from, the United Nations. And to one individual in particular: Maurice Strong. I've published articles about that on this very site. The scares about global warming, endangered species, seriously lethal pollution and so on are, in my view, no more than an attempt by the political class to keep and to increase their unearned privileges at the expense of the productive people of the world.
Now, it seems to me that today there is an uncrossable divide on these issues. Not so much between political left and right. But between what I call "bottom-up" people, who seek the truth and care about the individual human being, and the "top-down" ones that want to impose their narratives and their agendas on others, and don't care a damn about truth, justice or honesty. I am on the bottom-up side, along with many of the "conservatives" here - though I am not, in any way, a conservative! And Frosty, Opher and some others (you know who you are) are on the top-down side.
Let's see how Florence turns out, shall we?
Logical Man Added Sep 16, 2018 - 2:17pm
I don't think many would argue that humans have polluted the planet pretty thoroughly with all kinds of nasty stuff. The land is polluted, the rivers are polluted, the sea is polluted, as is the air we breathe. This has to have an effect on just about all natural systems, I would imagine. I'd say climate change is real and likely humans have some part to play. The fact that a few people are trying to use it to make money or gain power doesn't mean it isn't happening. Whether natural, man made or a mixture of both, I think it would be unwise not to prepare for it.
Tamara Wilhite Added Sep 16, 2018 - 5:26pm
Couple of hurricanes a year hit the US according to data going back a century. In the past decade, we've had FEWER storms than normal.
The massive wildfires are due to environmentalists preventing clearing of brush and thinning of the forests, not climate change.
The "melting ice" story shifts from the Arctic to the Antarctic each year because they truly seem to oscillate. Not humanity's fault. Note - it was warmer 1000 years ago when Vikings were sailing the seas, and they didn't have industrial civilization.
Stop blaming mad Mother Earth with a fever when half these Apocalyptic stories aren't true and the other half are humanity's fault - but not the way you say it is.
World-wide temperatures dipped in the 1970s and a generation before that. Yet CO2 was increasing the whole time. John Coleman, the meteorologist who co-founded the Weather Channel, is my source for this.  The global warming pause since 2000, the dozens of explanations of "hidden heat" and "we know we're right, the scientific models we created per our prejudiced assumptions tell us so" doesn't cut it anymore.
Even many environmentalists recognize that the world stopped warming in conjunction with CO2, hence the rebranding of "climate change". Such a convenient excuse - everything from too hot to too cold, too dry to too much rain to the random tornado can be blamed on Mother Earth.
Environmentalism has truly become a point of faith. Regardless of the disaster, all the political proscriptions are the same. Sacrifice your children, live in poverty, never question sacred dogma, do everything the priests of the movement say you must do because sacred Mother Earth demands it. All on the promise to recreate a mythical Garden of Eden that never really existed. And threats appropriated from Revelations in the Bible if we don't all repent and convert to Mother Earth worship are trotted out - famine, plague, pestilence, death.
At least the Christians admit they're a religious faith.
Logical Man Added Sep 16, 2018 - 5:54pm
Those who flat out deny the possibility of climate change are just as guilty of 'faith'.
Tamara, I'd like to ask you, do you 'believe' that humans have polluted the whole planet?
Do you 'believe' that there are no consequences to be expected from this?
Will everything be fine if the world's population reaches 25 Billion?
Nature cannot be fooled, even if, as it appears, most humans can.
Frosty Wooldridge Added Sep 16, 2018 - 6:52pm
Tamara White: what alternative reality and planet do you live upon?  I've made this point before.  The Creator's worse mistake: creating humans.  Humans' worst inventions: religion, plastics and chemicals.  In the end, Mother Nature will kill without mercy with the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.  It's only a matter of time. fw
Douglas Proudfoot Added Sep 16, 2018 - 10:16pm
Logic Man: GMOs are generally a good thing.  GMOs improve crop yields through drought resistance.  GMOs improve nutrition by designing plants that manufacture vitamins that they did not possess before.  GMOs are scientifically proven to do no harm.  Even in the herbicide tolerance case, GMOs reduce the requirement for tillage and thus reduce soil erosion.  If you are rabidly against GMOs, then you are an anti-science Luddite who believes government control of everything is more important than progress.  The only way Malthus can be right is if government stifles innovation.  Does it thrill you to misuse power to kill Africans, by banning DDT for example? 
Accusing companies of being all about profit is axiomatic.  Private companies are in business to make money.  That doesn't mean they can't be doing good while making money.  In fact, satisfying unmet needs is the best way to make money in free markets.  Only socialism fails to recognized that.  Socialism is all about dividing a fixed pie "fairly."  Capitalism is all about making a bigger pie to be shared.
Douglas Proudfoot Added Sep 16, 2018 - 10:29pm
Frosty:  If the Creator's biggest mistake was creating humans, then you can take the first step in solving the problem by eliminating yourself.  You are a human who is a large source of CO2.
Calls for other people to sacrifice their living standards, so you can preserve yours, ring hollow.  Your advice seems to be do as you say, not as you do.  You travel the world with a big carbon footprint.  Then you demand everybody else make up for your carbon by economizing on their carbon emissions.  That's malarkey, aka organic fecal fertilizer of equine origin, aka horse manure.
I have noticed over my 67 years of life that no mater what the problem is, and there have been lots of popular problems, the answer is always government controls leading to socialist dictatorship.  Since everybody who thinks about knows that socialism always runs out of other peoples money and fails, it's to be expected that the reasons for requiring socialism have to be more and more creative.  Anthropomorphic global warming is just the latest excuse for imposing socialist dictatorship.  It's not a real problem.  It's just a far fetched excuse.
Frosty Wooldridge Added Sep 16, 2018 - 11:19pm
Douglas, calling for someone to kill themselves for ideas lacks rational thought from an irrational mind.  You need to put more work into thinking rationally in your next 67 years before making such insane judgments.  As I said, Africa is not an economic disaster. It carries the highest amount of land, resources and potential for food production. Africans, unfortunately, not their fault, but their condition, represent an "evolutionary disaster."  They lack the intellectual horsepower to create viable civilizations.  Instead, they spread their sperm without understanding.  They will reproduce themselves into horrible consequences worse that today.  Again, 1 billion today, 2 billion by 2050 and 4 billion by 2095.  What do you think will happen!  (Source: UN Population Projections, Africa)
My research in Antarctica and working with top scientists trumps your emotional thrust Douglas.  I hate working with teeny, tiny minds.  Learn more before throwing inane darts at reality.  When you up your intellectual game, come see me.  FW
Tamara Wilhite Added Sep 16, 2018 - 11:37pm
Logical Man

Those who flat out deny the possibility of climate change are just as guilty of 'faith'.

Answer: It was warmer in the Medieval Warm period. It was warmer when the dinosaurs ran around - there was no ice on the poles then. If we are actually warming beyond minor fluctuations, it isn't the disaster the Earth worshipers say it is.

Tamara, I'd like to ask you, do you 'believe' that humans have polluted the whole planet?

Answer: Not the whole planet, and we're making good progress on cleaning up much of what we did mess up.

Do you 'believe' that there are no consequences to be expected from this?

Answer: See above.

Will everything be fine if the world's population reaches 25 Billion?

Answer: Hans Rosling is an expert demographer, and he has estimates that are pretty close to the U.N. Birth rates are falling worldwide, and the average family right now is roughly 2 children. The population growth today is entirely a "great fillup", as a generation of 2 billion children 0-15 move up the population pyramid as it fills in to a population column.
Depending on how fast you think the developing world goes to replacement/below-replacement fertility, we will peak at 9-10 billion people before falling. That's far below the 25 billion number you're giving. NO ONE seriously thinks we're going to endlessly multiply or hit even half your hysterical estimate.
DON'T PANIC — Hans Rosling showing the facts about population

Nature cannot be fooled, even if, as it appears, most humans can.

Answer: I said anthropomorphizing the planet was a matter of faith.
Tamara Wilhite Added Sep 16, 2018 - 11:39pm
 Frosty Wooldridge You are so proving Mr. Crichton right. Your hatred of humanity, though, is toxic and literally dangerous. Please don't hurt yourself or other people.

Michael Crichton: Environmentalism is a religion
Flying Junior Added Sep 17, 2018 - 4:11am
I thought that Trump's EPA was going to scrub any pages on its website having to do with climate change.  Knock me over with a feather.
I see it has not been updated in two years.  But still, I am quite surprised.
Ward Tipton Added Sep 17, 2018 - 12:01pm
How about if we do a scientific study of the carcinogens in asbestos house shingles painted with lead paint ... but deny any conversation about lead or asbestos? Would this be seen as "scientific"? Of course not! 
Climate "models" totally ignore both water vapor and methane and do not even include the numbers in the models. If the models are accurate, how are they accurate with incomplete data? Something does not add up to "reality" there. 
Douglas Proudfoot Added Sep 17, 2018 - 9:01pm
Frosty:  Have you ever heard of "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift published in 1729?  Swift's proposal was that since the Irish had too many babies, they should eat them.  It was a satire on the lack of empathy for the plight of the starving Irish.  Since you were so emphatic about how other people should solve the impending Malthusian crisis of planet Earth, I suggested you could start doing something yourself as a satire of your position.  It wasn't meant to be taken seriously.
My thrust is based on statistics, not emotion.  I say that using 50 - 100 years of statistical noise to predict climate trends lasting hundreds or thousands of years is statistical folly.  Frosty, you have never answered that argument.  You have also never addressed the Medieval Warm Period, which was warmer than it is now, nor why the Little Ice Age cooled things off so much. Perhaps it's time to remind you that under English Common Law, silence is considered agreement.
Frosty, your reliance on your authority as an Arctic Researcher with to Scientific Researcher Connections is not a substitute for a good argument.  I'm a redneck from Montana with an MS in Statistics from the University of Illinois - Champaign, and an MS in Management from Northwestern University (Kellogg).  Although I served 4 years in the USAF as a Computer Systems Analyst Officer, I don't have a lot of respect for authority, especially authority with condescension.  I learned in the military that it's generally manure that flows down hill.  So face my arguments with arguments of your own.  Your authority ain't gonna cut it.
Logical Man Added Sep 17, 2018 - 9:39pm
Could easily be scientific if you were looking specifically at the solvents being used.
Climate models do not ignore water vapour or methane.
No model is completely accurate, but many are very good.
When you get up in the morning, you likely base your plans for the day based on your personal world model. Do you have complete data? No, you just run with the evidence before you.
If you wait for 'complete data' before trying to figure something out you will NEVER figure anything out.
Other than that, I think you may be on to something.
Logical Man Added Sep 17, 2018 - 10:17pm
Douglas, you are as good at non-arguments as Ward.
The fact that you were in the military only proves that you are not that well informed, assuming you volunteered.
The number of people on the planet during the 'Medieval Warm Period, which was warmer than it is now' and the huge difference between societies then and now pretty much makes your point moot.
Back then a Carrington event would have gone off almost unnoticed given the lack of electrical grids, satellites etc. These days, not so much. See Quebec, March 1989. That was back before the world was totally dependent on high-speed, satellite dependent, communication. Imagine the chaos if, tomorrow, 90% of the world's cellphones went blank.
Common law lets the jury decide. You could lose in court just by proving yourself to be an untrustworthy dickhead, without the other side saying a word.
By the way, labelling yourself as a red-neck is not likely to help your argument, such as it is, seem more compelling.
Bill H. Added Sep 17, 2018 - 11:16pm
Trump can try all he wants to deny, eliminate and falsify all prior department positions on issues such as climate and who knows what else, but search engines will retain the truth for all of us to see.
He can do nothing about that.