Gee, thanks for giving me credit for bringing this to your attention yesterday. :(

LA: Sorry, Willie, I did not see that, or I would have gladly.

I think his first estimate of ten years is closer to the mark. If you follow the scientists predictions they are always way too conservative each year they update the predictions based on new info, they went from 100yrs to 50yrs to 30 yrs ........

This is due to not wanting to stick ones scientific neck out and scientists usually only study one or a few variables not all of them.

For example the massive ice melting at the poles, sure if its sea based ice it wont raise the sea level much BUT and its a huge BUT the loss of the ice alters the earths albedo from reflective to absorbtive AND more methane hydrate (25% more potent than co2) is melted and released into the atmosphere from sea beds and thawed peat bogs which have been frozen and trapping the methane for many thousands of years....

Also this sea based ice acts as a barrier to hold the land based ice shelf's in place once gone the land based ice can more easily slip into the sea and this WILL raise sea levels as much as 200 ft and can happen in sudden leaps not gradually....

We are on the verge of a catastrophic and sudden climate shift

Fair enough.

I do, however, think Ted is a little out there with his prediction. Humans tend to step up right at the 11th hour. Things will get rough, but I don't think we'll be eating baby tar-tar this century.

I think Ted is kind of right. Don't think we'll be cannibals in ten years, not all of us anyway. But some country's are already facing extreme drought and food shortages. I think in ten years our situation will be extremely worse if drastic measures aren't taken and we are able to look at this situation for what it is and stop all this fluff fluff talk about money and jobs and economy. Non of that will matter if our ecosystem collapses around us. We need to take a new step in thinking in the organization of our civilization as a whole. Sadly it might happen but I do think a lot of people are going to die in the process to cause that change.

I think wars for food will kill people off faster than starvation. I doubt many people will actuallly starve to death.

By the way, cyclic starvation is characteristic of natural ecosystems. It will be great if the planet "right sizes" the population.

This is why I am finally getting firearms instruction and licensing this year.

The Oil Wars started 5 years ago, next we'll have the Water Wars, then the Food Wars. You are probably right that there won't be enough people left by the Food Wars for much war, or cannibalism.

Cannibalism? Really? This kind of alarmism is what gives the Right ammo to call the IPCC wackos, etc. etc. We should focus on the next step, not the extreme possibilities...

Just to agitate a little, not insult. What happens if we have another mini or full sized ice age?
Why did the planet warm out of its last ice age?

Is this guy a loon? Maybe it is something along the lines of using just one square of toilet paper when necessary.
A friend of mine got out of his brisk vintage motorcycle parts side business because he was sure the world would come to an end due to Y2K issues. I haven't seen any planes fall from the sky due to Y2K issues... maybe 2010 will bring problems. I hope he is doing well.

Maybe Teddy T can become president, it seems like the presidency will go to the highest bidder anyway. Or maybe he can get a peace prize.

I am all about conservation, keeping things in good shape for future generations, treading lightly, getting off the fgn oil addiction, or making oil an arcane form of alternative energy, like whale oil in a lamp. This site is the go-to place for all the great ideas that emerge.
I am just of the opinion that we could get an average of 5 degrees cooler over the next 20-40 years or 5 degrees warmer over the next 20-40 years.
Good Luck and Happy Friday,
vsk

Ted Turner may be eccentric to say the least, and he certainly is outspoken, but why pick on him for his extreme language? Has Ted Turner been anything but extreme?

I can't remember one time I've EVER read about Sumner Redstone or Rupert Murdoch making considerably huge charitable donations or using their station in life to draw attention to the environment. We shouldn't see Ted Turner for the braying jackass as some would see him. We should ask why aren't more media moguls caring as much as Ted Turner?

How does that song go again?

"...Tell me, over and over and over again; that you don't believe that we're on the eve of destruction..."

Oh yes; we do have a long history of 'optimism', don't we?

This is a response to a Time Magazine article. Seems relevant.
===============

For many it had to be disappointing that you did not include discussion of the single greatest human cause of environmental damage nor any practical programs for mitigating that cause, in your "10 Ideas That Are Changing The World" list. Are we as a _species_ in denial? I would like to see a whole story on this issue alone, but will understand if you choose not to... My anecdotal studies suggest no one would buy your magazine to read it. Talk about, "An Inconvenient Truth"! No one wants to hear about this one, or even let it stray into their mind for long. The "many" being disappointed were surely the non-humans on the planet. For an estimated 27,000 plant and animal species a year, there comes a moment when only one of them is left alive and struggling with all they have to keep their species going...only to fail.

The resources their species' needed are no longer available. Land use changes, loss of habitat, hunting, pollution, etc. have wiped them off the Earth forever. This extinction rate is estimated at several _thousand_ times the natural rate. What is driving it? Humans. One of your ideas claims that the planet has a carrying capacity of some 8 billion and we will stabilize at it, but how can that be when species are being wiped out like this? How many years can we lose 27,000 species before those pesky chickens come home to roost? Seems like if we take our cue from Nature herself, we can find our true carrying capacity by when extinction is occurring at the natural rate.

Global human population management is the mother of all inconvenient truths. We have a niche in the biosphere to fill and we do not decide its size, Nature herself does. We can willfully manage our own population or Nature will do it for us with environmental collapse (global warming merely being one of many on the list), poverty and famine, disease, and war. It's not how big our carbon footprint is, but rather the consumption and waste footprint and HOW MANY OF US are making footprints.

There are three ways to manage it. Voluntary measures exist and they can turn the environmental direction around 180 degrees in ONE DECADE! Wow, get a reporter on this. (But be warned, no one will want to read the article, not even Al Gore.) Non-voluntary but democratic governmental ways exist such as the removal of tax incentives for having children, and the creation of tax-disincentives. And of course there is education. People need to learn early on the basics of ecology and carrying capacity, interdepence, respect for all life, consumption and waste footprint (forget carbon footprint), living within the means of the given ecosystem, NON-EXPLOITIVE low-consumption/high-tech lifestyles and societies, etc.

There's an impoverished and extremely non-popular website that represents at least one voluntary approach. The idea is simple: The global and self-identifying "Haves" voluntarily sacrifice some of their money, goods, and services. The global and self-identifying "Have-nots" voluntarily sacrifice some of their fertility. There is a global redistribution of wealth and globally human population levels move down into their carrying capacity through natural attrition. The website has an online interactive spreadsheet that details the program cost and some basic program variables. Dramatic global affects can be theoretically seen with ten countries funding $150B/year for ten years. Affordable when compared to the Iraq war. Part of the novelty of this approach is that not only is free birth control provided, but also incentive payments to participants and their communities. Keep in mind that for some 60% of the world, the annual income is less than $1,500 USD. For example, as seen in the spreadsheet, a village of 1,000 could realize program benefits of $600,000 to $800,000+ in cash, goods, and services: food, agriculture, medicine, clean water, transportation, communication, housing, education, generators, tools, clothing, neonatal care, etc. They exchange hope for the future (their fertility) for Hope Now. (See website: www.prvllc.org.)

Both sides of the global human equation sacrificing, united together for fixing that part of the world's problems which we are empowered to fix. Caring for each other by sacrificing our greed, selfishness, and self-importance in recognition that if we choose not to we have no future and will take a lot more of other amazing species with us. Coming to our senses and accepting our place in Nature. What would Jesus do? Exactly that. Maybe he gave us the answer to a pop-quiz that was to come 2,000 years later: self-sacrifice.

Regards,

Richard Warner
rwarner@prv.com

Ted is a spokesman for the global elite who are trying to scare us into giving up our Constitutional rights to the "authorities".

Challenge what is being fed to you by Ted Turner, Al Gore, and the rest. Have you ever heard such scare tactics? Cannabalism? Dirty bombs? Anthrax deaths in the millions? We have heard it all. And they are always wrong.

Whether it is terrorism, Irag WMD, climate change, hurricanes, pandemics, inner city gun violence, drugs, the decline of the dollar, illegal immigration, or UFO's; every solution the "authorities" come up with is more government control over The People.

They will bring socialism and fascism to fix all our issues. Look at the solutions. Look who is backing them.

They brought us war, torture, the patriot act, real ID, inflation, and the list goes on. You want to give them complete control over you?

Will we be much safer when we are slaves? Will it be worth it to give up freedom to be a slave so we can feel safe? Will the climate be better when we have no rights at all and can no longer travel freely?

Factories all over the world will still be puking garbage into the atmosphere and global leaders are consolidating wealth and power. When are they going to address that? Who wins when a frightened populace buries it's head in the sand?

China is the most polluted country in the world, a country with no use for human rights; and the proud hosts of the olympic games with Bush in attendance. They dont care about controlling the climate, they just care about controlling you.

Think about it.

Regarding, the "relevant article" (the one about controlling human population numbers - see snippet below, at the end of my comments).

I agreee wholeheartedly with population reduction, but it cannot be happen without subjugation - and therefore it must not happen.

Who, after all, is the arbiter of "how many is enough"?

Who decides who may have children, or how many children.

Who decides how those children think - maybe they *want* to be extreme capitalists - can YOU tell them "No!" ?

After all, telling people what they can do, how they must think, how they must reproduce - is facism. Plain and simple.

EVEN IF it is well meaning, with the intention of saving humanity. EVEN if one is sure that they "know best".

Those who passionately make the argument for population control WILL ALWAYS be perceived as suspect by those who do not have an environmentalist frame of mind - those people who are struggling to survive (be it struggling for their religious viewpoint, or struggling for survival in a hostile environment).

After all, those who are making an argument for population control will be viewed by the struggling as "the intellectual elite, coming for YOU".

And, in fact one cannot effectively make the larger argument that this is not so.

Therefore, expansion is the only practicable solution which does not infringe upon the human rights of those still struggling to survive.

Where is there to expand? Only one direction - outward. It's the only frontier left.

--------------------------------
From the article, posted earlier in this thread:
There are three ways to manage it. Voluntary measures exist and they can turn the environmental direction around 180 degrees in ONE DECADE! Wow, get a reporter on this. (But be warned, no one will want to read the article, not even Al Gore.) Non-voluntary but democratic governmental ways exist such as the removal of tax incentives for having children, and the creation of tax-disincentives. And of course there is education. People need to learn early on the basics of ecology and carrying capacity, interdepence, respect for all life, consumption and waste footprint (forget carbon footprint), living within the means of the given ecosystem, NON-EXPLOITIVE low-consumption/high-tech lifestyles and societies, etc.
--------------------------------