Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

While we clog our synapses with irrelevant ancient texts let’s hope Guy McPherson has it wrong . . . . .



And part 2 with some pretty good priorities . . . .



  • a lurker
    2014-04-13 15:06:03 UTC - 15:06 | Permalink

    Hello Neil,

    This is quite shocking. Also, it appears to be not true:

  • 2014-04-13 15:52:47 UTC - 15:52 | Permalink

    Yes, AGW nihilism is just not helpful at all. It’s a shiny blackness that distracts us from keeping our eyes on the ball – which is how to stop burning carbon.

    It also encourages a fatalism that makes the perfect the enemy of the good – that deploying renewable infrastructure is not the answer, because the real problem is _______. ( Insert: capitalism; economic growth; hedonism; sin; failure to embrace suffering; overpopulation; resource depletion; energy ROI, etc)

  • 2014-04-13 16:55:16 UTC - 16:55 | Permalink

    If we don’t stop overpopulation, there is no way for anything else we do to make a difference. If that is not the real problem, then there is no real problem.

  • Neil Godfrey
    2014-04-13 20:23:50 UTC - 20:23 | Permalink

    The more hopeful 2014 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports have been released:


  • 2014-04-17 21:23:48 UTC - 21:23 | Permalink

    Yes, I’m quite familiar with Guy McPherson and his VERY Near Term Human Extinction hypothesis. By 2030 CE. In my opinion, it’s not helpful at all; in fact it’s counter-productive, because as soon as the mainstream media notices it, the news traffickers will be barking “DOOMER PORN!!! — Details at Eleven.” And then when they do the report, they’ll paint all the climate change mitigation activists with the same broad brush as represented by Prof.-Emeritus McPherson and the like.

  • Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *