Can a federal government scientist in California convince Trump that climate change is real?

Jan 4, 2017

By Chris Megerian

In the two decades since Ben Santer helped write a landmark international report linking global warming and human activity, he’s been criticized by politicians, accused of falsifying his data and rewarded with a dead rat on his doorstep.

He describes it as “background noise,” and he tries to tune it out as he presses forward with his research from a dim office the size of a walk-in closet at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory east of San Francisco. But the presidential election could crank up the volume for Santer and his colleagues: As federal government scientists, their new boss will be President-elect Donald Trump, who once described global warming as a hoax.

“Imagine, if you will, that you devoted your entire career to doing one thing. Doing it as well as you possibly can,” Santer said. “And someone comes along and says everything you’ve done is worthless.”


Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.

28 comments on “Can a federal government scientist in California convince Trump that climate change is real?

  • When I read articles concerning Donald Trump I always get the feeling he may be more open to persuasion than at first appears. The two difficulties are that he is often starting from a position very different to the average politician and has a somewhat unusual world veiw that is somehow parallel to much conventional wisdom but not necessarily in opposition to it.

    This means to me that Ben Santer has exactly the right idea but will have to find ways of getting to present the case and in the right way to match Trump’s way of thinking, so he actually understands what’s being presented and ergo, it is right. If that can’t be done then Trump will conclude it really must be a hoax after all.

    I don’t envy Mr Santer’s position in this, if he actually gets the chance to tackle Trump properly, there’s a huge responsibility involved to get the argument right.



    Report abuse

  • @OP – “Imagine, if you will, that you devoted your entire career to doing one thing. Doing it as well as you possibly can,” Santer said. “And someone comes along and says everything you’ve done is worthless.”

    Worthless self-deluding ignorant people do this all the time! –
    Disparaging other people is how they boost their egos and bolster their delusions of superiority!

    You only have to look at the profoundly delusionally ignorant – like Ham and Hovind, disparaging the world’s top expert scientists across a whole range of subjects – biology genetics, nuclear physics, geology, astronomy, cosmology – to realise that actual talent, expertise, years of study and professionalism, has no merit in the psychologically projected closed minded backward mentality of such people!



    Report abuse

  • @OP – As federal government scientists, their new boss will be President-elect Donald Trump, who once described global warming as a hoax.

    The issue with Trump is lack of ethical integrity, rather than lack of acceptance of science. Trump will recklessly cherry pick any reference that he sees as supporting his personal financial interests or those of supporters whose help may further his interests in the future.

    He had no problem believing in the increasing ferocity of storms or rising sea-levels when they affected his Irish golf development!

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/17/donald-trump-ireland-golf-resort-wall-climate-change

    Long before he set his sights on Mexico, Donald Trump had his eyes on a different wall. He wanted to build one on the Irish coast of County Clare – a 13ft high structure erected to protect his luxury golf resort, the Trump International Golf Links and Hotel, from increasingly volatile storms and rising sea levels.

    While the president-elect announced a climate-change skeptic as the leader of the Environmental Protection Agency transition team, this move to protect his investment suggests Trump recognizes the effects of a changing climate.



    Report abuse

  • @OP – In the two decades since Ben Santer helped write a landmark international report linking global warming and human activity, he’s been criticized by politicians, accused of falsifying his data

    Meanwhile the denialists’ cherry-picked fantasy “warming pause” continues to fade into mythology as errors in some measurements are corrected!

    http://www.livescience.com/57378-global-warming-hiatus-not-happening.html

    Forget About Global Warming Pause — It Doesn’t Exist

    Forget about the so-called climate change hiatus — a period beginning in 1998 when the increase in the planet’s temperature reportedly slowed — it doesn’t exist, according to a new study that found the planet’s ocean temperatures are warming faster than previously thought.

    The findings support similar results from a 2015 study published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the journal Science. However, doubters of climate change attacked that study, prompting the researchers of the new study to examine the data anew.

    “Our results mean that essentially NOAA got it right, that they were not cooking the books,” study lead author Zeke Hausfather, a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley’s Energy and Resources Group.

    The climate change hiatus was more of a suspected “slowdown, not a disappearance of global warming,” as the world’s oceans were still warming, but at a lesser rate than previously predicted, according to Climate Central. However, many scientists acknowledged the slowdown, which allegedly took place from 1998 to 2012. Climate change doubters also took note, and used the slowdown as evidence that climate change was a hoax, the researchers of the new study said.

    But in 2015, NOAA published an analysis showing that the slowdown wasn’t real, and was the result of measurement errors. The modern buoys that measure ocean temperatures tend to report slightly cooler temperatures than older ship-based systems, even when measuring the same part of the ocean, the NOAA researchers found.

    That’s because in the 1950s, ships began to measure water piped through the engine room, which is usually a warm place. In contrast, today’s buoys report slightly cooler temperatures because they measure the water directly from the ocean, Hausfather said.

    “The observations have gone from 80 percent ship-based in 1990 to 80 percent buoy-based in 2015,” the researchers wrote in the study. As this switch happened, it appeared that there was a warming slowdown in the ocean — largely because researchers didn’t account for the ships’ warm bias when combining the buoy and ship data sets.

    When the NOAA researchers corrected for the bias, they found that the oceans had warmed 0.22 degrees Fahrenheit (0.12 degrees Celsius) per decade since 2000, a rate almost twice as fast as earlier estimates of 0.12 F (0.07 C) per decade. Moreover, the newfound rate matched estimates for the previous 30 years, from 1970 to 1999, the researchers said



    Report abuse

  • Tim Smith,
    I often times have the same feeling. It is almost as if he thumped his chest and swore at the sky the entire time he ran and swung the shit head vote his way. Then, when it comes time to do anything at all that he promised during campaign, he shrugs and says “we’ll see”.

    The issue that I have is that I do not think it actually matters. Here is what I “read between his lines”:
    His stance that global warming is not true as described by science is actually his saying “money profits and commerce take a top priority with me and i do not give a damn if my profits fuck up your earth.” however, he realizes that if he says this he sounds like a greedy prick. If he just jumps onto the tagline that it is undecided, he gets to loot the earth and not look like a prick. Well, let’s be honest he IS a prick.

    BTW, i think that a large percentage of the climate change deniers are poured from this stock. They have stake is exploiting the resources that earth offers and the hell with everyone’s “science”. I’d respect and understand them much more if they’d just say that instead of venturing to criticize sound science and career scientists who are doing fine work.



    Report abuse

  • Except for some very stupid people, there are no true climate change deniers. The Koch brothers, for example, are well aware of the climate change mechanism. It is just they are old. What matters to them is marginal profits from sunset fossil fuel investments. What happens 10 years plus from now does not matter. They will be dead.

    Trump took millions of dollars from the Koch brothers to pretend to be a climate change denier. What we have to convince Trump of is delay is suicidal. It is not worth millions of Koch dollars. The catch is Trump has already taken the money. He has already spent it. He can’t give it back.



    Report abuse

  • It looks like there are some burning issues he is going to find it very hard to ignore!

    http://www.nwf.org/wildlife/threats-to-wildlife/global-warming/global-warming-is-causing-extreme-weather/wildfires.aspx

    National Wildlife Federation looked at how global warming is fueling Western wildfires in the report, Increased Risk of Catastrophic Wildfires: Global Warming’s Wake-Up Call for the Western United States.

    How Does Global Warming Increase Wildfire Risk?

    The frequency of large wildfires and the total area burned have been steadily increasing in the Western United States, with global warming being a major contributing factor.

    The bottom line is that the overall area burned is projected to double by late this century across 11 western states if the average summertime temperature increases 2.9 degrees Fahrenheit, with Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico and Utah being hit particularly hard.



    Report abuse

  • There are certain simple incontrovertible easy to comprehend aspects of global warming, which if yours truly can grasp anyone can if, that is, they’re willing to heed unwelcome news.

    Volcanoes are a natural source of CO2, and it’s known how much they produce annually, about 200 million tons, but the total amount occurring each year is in excess around 29 billion tons, and the only other source for that magnitude is the burning of fossil fuels by humans.

    If however, those straight forward facts are unacceptable to anyone then the case can be opened out to include Carbon decay rates, the effects of Cosmic Rays on Neutrons and Protons etc, but I think that when it comes to the crunch that’ll prove unnecessary.

    Er, unless of course…



    Report abuse

  • What is truly tragic is that all these scientists who claim that the earths atmosphere is gradually getting warmer display either total ignorance of human ecology or they in fact are the deniers.

    What is needed is a thorough examination of the BASIC CAUSE of climate change and to stop dwelling on the symptoms (ie: global warming). Yes, global warming is completely verified by climatologists around the world. The evidence is there and cannot be denied. But global warming is a RESULT not a basic cause. Global warming is the cause of many environmental problems. However it is overpopulation that is the basic cause of global warming and unless we address this problem, ALL efforts to solve environmental problems will be simply pouring water uphill.

    Ignoring human population growth is the real denying, and those who ignore population growth are the real deniers. If population growth deniers continue to dominate our politics, religions, schools, media, and by others who are wealthy and powerful, we will march relentlessly toward global destruction regardless of all efforts to solve environmental problems.



    Report abuse

  • cbrown @ # 9

    The Earth’s population has indeed approximately doubled in the last seventy or so years and that increase undoubtedly contributes to the amount of fossil fuels being burnt now, but although that burning is a corollary of population growth, it’s the amount of CO2 which causes warming, not the number of people, the same number of individuals could burn a lot less carboniferous material; from which it follows that although we need to control the size of the population, it alone, isn’t the primary cause of global warming, the excess of carbon 14 is.

    I’ve attempted to understand the published data sets, but their sheer number is bewildering to a non-scientist like myself, however, I think there’s a correlative pattern concerning fossil fuel use since circa 1850 and solar activity during that time span, but quite what that amounts to I have no idea!



    Report abuse

  • cbrown #9: What is truly tragic is that all these scientists who claim that the earths atmosphere is gradually getting warmer display either total ignorance of human ecology or they in fact are the deniers.
    What is needed is a thorough examination of the BASIC CAUSE of climate change and to stop dwelling on the symptoms (ie: global warming). Yes, global warming is completely verified by climatologists around the world. The evidence is there and cannot be denied. But global warming is a RESULT not a basic cause. Global warming is the cause of many environmental problems. However it is overpopulation that is the basic cause of global warming and unless we address this problem, ALL efforts to solve environmental problems will be simply pouring water uphill.

    cbrown says it all. Some comprehensive combination of conservation, recycling, weather-proofing, fuel effciency, renewable energy infrastructure and world population reduction and stabilization at [arguably] around 2.5 to 3.5 billion people would probably achieve a favorable outcome.

    Stafford Gordon #10: The Earth’s population has indeed approximately doubled in the last seventy or so years … Actually world population is closer to tripling in those 70 years



    Report abuse

  • Can a federal government scientist in California convince Trump that climate change is real?

    Answer: Yes, it’s possible; but he still won’t do anything about it. Trump is interested primarily in his own self-aggrandizement, and has proven himself to be an irresponsible and unstable man. Got that? Public pressure might have some effect, but that is unlikely as well.



    Report abuse

  • However it is overpopulation that is the basic cause of global warming and unless we address this problem, ALL efforts to solve environmental problems will be simply pouring water uphill.

    Agreed but overpopulation will not be solved before climate change drastically and dramatically reduces population. Even if we adopted a world wide 1 child policy to deal with overpopulation the results would take generations to fix. We don’t have that long with climate change. I completely agree that population is the biggest issue, we could all burn coal and petrol to our hearts content if there were only 100 of us. Trouble is short of slaughtering billions the population problem is something that will have to be worked out of a longer time frame than climate change gives us. Both issue need dealing with obviously.

    Ignoring human population growth is the real denying, and those who ignore population growth are the real deniers. If population growth deniers continue to dominate our politics, religions, schools, media, and by others who are wealthy and powerful, we will march relentlessly toward global destruction regardless of all efforts to solve environmental problems.

    Who out of the worlds climate scientists, environmental scientists is arguing that human population is not an issue? No-one as far as I can tell doesn’t tell. Don’t create a straw-man. I have believed that overpopulation and overconsumption has been an issue since I’m a teenager, this has been generally supported by all the public intellectuals from David Attenbourgh to David Suzuki, all the climate scientists I have read on the subject likewise acknowledge the issue even those who have become famous promoting doing something about climate change like Tim Flannery wrote a whole book the future eaters on the problems with overloading the environment with larger populations than an environment can support. I know of no scientific deniers just pragmatists that know the time line for dealing with climate change is now. bringing down population to avert this particular crisis needed to happen several generations ago. We need to reduce consumption, encourage low populations and deal with eliminating carbon from the atmosphere now.



    Report abuse

  • Hi Melvin,

    We’ve covered this before and I think we mostly agree. Our consumption is far to high in the west. We can have a high standard of living and consume far less, for example I brought an electric bike to save my wife driving me to school, I could have brought a second car. The bike is exponentially cheaper to buy, run and register and uses far less power and I think is far more enjoyable than driving, it’s relaxing, I get some exercise but not so much that I end up a sweaty stinky mess riding. So this is the sort of thing we all need to be doing, it doesn’t have to reduce your standard of living. We probably largely agree so far.

    Population particularly in the West has brought on the problems of global warming and things like the hole in the Ozone layer. But like the hole in the ozone layer mitigating (solving is too strong a word there is still a large hole hovering over Antarctica but it isn’t getting bigger – and that) in the short term is about all we can hope with global warming.

    Best advice I have read is we have a decade to significantly reduce C02 to halt 2 degrees C warming, after that a whole heap of factors will be triggered that will begin to have an add on effects to the damage to the environment, not only greater flood and drought events in different places, a shift in weather patterns, in Australia this means much of the farmland in the Southern states will become too dry to be viable. Significant thawing of the permafrost and the additional burden of adding the carbon and methane from frozen plants. etc. So even the most optimistic climate scientist wouldn’t give us more than 15 years to begin to turn things around. We’ve been arguing about this since the 1980’s we don’t have much longer to begin to act. Any change in populations that doesn’t require cannibalism, war, starvation is going to require many more decades than that. So best evidence (according to the science) is that right now we need to deal with this issue. Every scientist in the public forum I have heard discussing these issues mentions population, the reason climate scientists don’t so much is it is simply outside of their field.

    It’s like the brakes have failed in your car running down a large hill. You could spend the next 10 seconds telling yourself that you’ll book the car in for a brake service tomorrow or have an argument with your wife about who’s responsibility it was to get the brakes serviced before you left….or you can concentrate on shifting to low range and look for a way of slowing down that doesn’t cause you or any of the other drivers to go sailing off a cliff at high speed. It’s all about priorities. The very next thing you do however is as you point out getting the brakes fixed or in this case dealing with over-population but for the moment AGW is the bigger threat.



    Report abuse

  • Moderator message

    For some time now every discussion on this site about climate change has been hijacked by one user’s fixation on the subject of overpopulation. We do not believe there is anyone on this site who denies that population is a factor, but it is not acceptable to have every discussion about actions that can be taken to convince people about climate change and then to find constructive solutions to the problem effectively obstructed.

    Please remember that our terms of use require users’ contributions to be on the topic of the OP, and to avoid “drum-banging.”

    We have removed a comment that was not a constructive contribution to the subject of this thread.

    The mods



    Report abuse

  • cbrown #9
    Jan 9, 2017 at 4:08 pm

    What is truly tragic is that all these scientists who claim that the earths atmosphere is gradually getting warmer display either total ignorance of human ecology or they in fact are the deniers.

    This is utter nonsense!
    It is the politicians, propagandist carbon industry lobbyists, and religious lobbyists who are the deniers!

    What is needed is a thorough examination of the BASIC CAUSE of climate change and to stop dwelling on the symptoms (ie: global warming). Yes, global warming is completely verified by climatologists around the world. The evidence is there and cannot be denied. But global warming is a RESULT not a basic cause. Global warming is the cause of many environmental problems.

    However it is overpopulation that is the basic cause of global warming and unless we address this problem, ALL efforts to solve environmental problems will be simply pouring water uphill.

    Nope! It is the level of consumption by population (ie, a combination of per-capita carbon-footprints and increasing population combined which are the problem)!

    Ignoring human population growth is the real denying, and those who ignore population growth are the real deniers. If population growth deniers continue to dominate our politics, religions, schools, media, and by others who are wealthy and powerful, we will march relentlessly toward global destruction regardless of all efforts to solve environmental problems.

    IT is entirely a strawman claim, put about by those with massive carbon footprints per capita and those with massive personal carbon footprints, to try to attribute this to climate scientists, many of whom ARE biologists and ecologists, tracking the consequences of global warming in the environment and on the environment!

    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC
    CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita)

    The carbon footprints of the starving Africans in refugee camps are minimal, while the footprints in the most developed countries are massive with coal burning, sloppy power-wasting with poor design of buildings and transport, massive discarding of high-carbon-footprint consumer items, and casual vehicle-use and aircraft use for entertainment and recreation!



    Report abuse

  • I think the latest antics with executive orders to gag the Environmental Protection Agency, and shut down websites, spell out quite clearly, that Trump does not want to hear expert scientific advice, and does not want anyone else to hear it either!



    Report abuse

  • Poor dinosaurs, they should have seen the light and stopped engaging in heavy industry and driving their cars, then they still would be around…. Oh wait,,, they didn’t engage in heavy industry or drive cars… And yet the earth was plagued with high co2 levels. Sheeple, the Earth’s climate has been constantly changing for millennia and methane is a greenhouse gas that is many times more effective than CO2 and it is spewing out of the oceans and land at massive rates without mankind doing much of anything. Relax, the Earth has been through far worse than us. Ask the people hit in gGeorgia if they felt like a threat to the Earth when the tornadoes leveled homes and killed with ease. Let’s see, so far the Earth has survived tectonic shifts, reversal of the magnetic poles, recurring ice ages, constant bombardment by cosmic radiation and meteorites, tidal waves and more. Yet we have the audacity and hubris to believe that we are a threat to the planet? Get real – we are a species that are only one terrible virus from total extinction, we are the susceptible one – the Earth is going to be just fine long after the age of mankind is over.**



    Report abuse

  • Eddie #19
    Jan 25, 2017 at 12:26 pm

    Poor dinosaurs, they should have seen the light and stopped engaging in heavy industry and driving their cars, then they still would be around…. Oh wait,,, they didn’t engage in heavy industry or drive cars… And yet the earth was plagued with high co2 levels.

    Oh dear! You seem to have been taking your information from science illiterates!
    The planet does not care if atmospheric CO2 comes from volcanoes or meteorite impacts cooking coal seams or limestone, or if stupid humans dig up the fossil carbon and burn it!
    The physics of the greenhouse gas warming effect is the same!

    Sheeple, the Earth’s climate has been constantly changing for millennia and methane is a greenhouse gas that is many times more effective than CO2 and it is spewing out of the oceans and land at massive rates without mankind doing much of anything.

    Yep! High levels of CO2 have triggered methane releases in the past and made massive numbers of species extinct!
    There are experts who have monitored calculated and made records of such events, which people wishing to educate themselves can look up.
    The experts are called climate scientists, palaeontologists, glaciologists, and geologists.
    97% + of them confirm that the Earth is warming dangerously because of the measured increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2 due to humans burning billions of tons of coal, oil and gas each year. (There are world trade figures which show the global tonnage)

    Relax, the Earth has been through far worse than us.

    It has – and most of the complex animal life on land in the oceans and on land died and became extinct when it did! – As will happen again if humans are stupid enough to recreate those conditions so relaxing while we make large occupied areas of our planet uninhabitable is not a very bright move!

    Let’s see, so far the Earth has survived tectonic shifts, reversal of the magnetic poles, recurring ice ages, constant bombardment by cosmic radiation and meteorites, tidal waves and more.

    The planet will undoubtedly survive – most of the life on it – no so much, unless CO2 pollution is reduced.

    Yet we have the audacity and hubris to believe that we are a threat to the planet? Get real –

    Only according to ignoramuses who are climate change deniers, science illiterates, and who have no idea what they are talking about!

    However according to scientists who actually measure global heat inputs, astronomical cycles, surface and ocean temperatures, volumes of ice caps, rates of ice melt, and sea-level rises, the planet is warming dangerously as a result of human CO2 pollution.

    we are a species that are only one terrible virus from total extinction, we are the susceptible one – the Earth is going to be just fine long after the age of mankind is over.

    Perhaps as humans we might consider our future and that of future generations based on expert scientific advice, which is readily available, rather than promoting a human population crash or extinction event.



    Report abuse

  • http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN15906G

    Trump administration tells EPA to cut climate page from website:
    The employees were notified by EPA officials on Tuesday that the administration had instructed EPA’s communications team to remove the website’s climate change page, which contains links to scientific global warming research, as well as detailed data on emissions.

    Maybe climate change and pollution will stop bothering head-in-the-sand Trump and the air-head Trumpettes – if someone tells the planet it is a Chinese hoax!! 🙂

    BUT: – Perhaps the planet will not believe these “alternative facts” and will carry on with ITS business as usual – according to the laws of physics – after the data has been hidden from the US public!



    Report abuse

  • I posted this earlier on another thread, but think it will be relevant here too:

    A list of several Twitter accounts, along with their descriptions, that will be resisting the Trump clampdown on science and facts:

    @AltForestServe
    The unofficial, and unsanctioned, “Resistance” team of the U.S. Forest Service. Not an official Forest Service account, and not publicly funded!

    @alt_fda
    Uncensored FDA

    @RogueNASA
    The unofficial “Resistance” team of NASA. Not an official NASA account. Follow for science and climate news and facts. REAL NEWS, REAL FACTS.

    @AltHHS
    Stand Up for Science!

    @ActualEPAFacts
    He can take our official Twitter but he’ll never take our FREEDOM. Unofficially resisting at the @EPA

    @altusda
    Resisting the censorship of facts and science. Truth wins in the end.

    @AltNatParkSer
    The Unofficial “Resistance” team of U.S. National Park Service. Not taxpayer subsidised! Come for rugged scenery, fossil beds, 89 million acres of landscape.



    Report abuse

  • Alan 4 #9:

    My main point is that so many people (scientists, politicians, news commentators) are ignoring the growth of human populations on this planet. That goes for many scientists who have little education in human ecology.
    Yes, in order to raise our individual standard of living, we use earth’s natural resources. If the human population was reduced so planet earth only had a tenth of the number of people, but everyone each used 10 times the amount of resources, the ecology of the earth would by as bad off as it is today. So we need a two pronged attack, one is to use “green” technology rather than depending on such things as coal and oil, but the other os to reduce the size of the world human population by education and widespread use of contraceptives.



    Report abuse

  • I would like to ad that it is religion that is the basic problem to the world’s problems. For those who think population is not a problem, just consider what is going on in Nigeria, Niger, South Sudan, Somalia, and Yemen. The BASIC problem is religion combined with ignorance and overpopulation.



    Report abuse

  • Overpopulation in such areas as the Gaza strip and Northern Africa makes good education difficult for the people to afford. Fundamentalist religions feed on ignorance and fanatically resist good well rounded education. Women suffer from male domination, endless pregnancies, and female genital mutilation (FGM) aided and promoted by the lack of education. So religious indoctrination feeds on lack of a good eduction that causes an increase in ignorance and that leads to religious fanaticism and that in turn, causes overpopulation…..and so it goes, on and on. That endless cycle is promoted by self-styled charismatic male egotists or triadics who convince people that THEY have the absolute truth.



    Report abuse

  • reduce the size of the world human population by education and widespread use of contraceptives.

    Very slow to put into effect when starting there. Very poor value for money. Melinda Gates will tell you all about it. And with a two generation “health dividend” lag. Already Total Fertility Rates are below replacement rate in most countries, (2.1 children per women in developed countries, 2.3 in undeveloped), but improved health and longer lifespans means that populations don’t start to fall until between 2050 and 2100

    Poverty drives high fertility rates. No woman wants to go through childbirth but for the poorest, children are the only resources they have access to. Having five or six kids combines health insurance and an old age pension. Children are biddable slaves, particularly useful for feeding you when old or sick.

    As Melinda Gates says no one poor will trust to having fewer kids until the need for them goes. Reduced infant mortality for a period will start to change minds about the number of spares you’ll need.

    Alternatively lift people out of poverty and ill health, and women will snatch those contraceptives out of your hand or will have an increase in nighttime headaches.

    Undeveloped countries have very low energy usage and are the ones to make fastest use of circular economic strategies as these require far less civil infrastructure. (Africa is being electrified more rapidly via off-grid means than on-grid.) Lifting the African poor out of poverty by investment in circular economy means is a triple whammy. Establishing solid sustainability habits for the future, lifting people out of poverty… sustainably , and TFR suppression through enthusiastic voluntary population control as wealth and health improves as has happened everywhere else.

    We have to pull the most effective levers and this only comes from understanding where demographic pressures come from.

    Fix Africa and the Indian subcontinent and the problem is mostly done. (See the UN population projections.)

    Africa will though be the most monstrous hell for 80 years…



    Report abuse

  • cbrown #24
    Dec 11, 2017 at 9:34 am

    I would like to ad that it is religion that is the basic problem to the world’s problems. For those who think population is not a problem, just consider what is going on in Nigeria, Niger, South Sudan, Somalia, and Yemen. The BASIC problem is religion combined with ignorance and overpopulation.

    Unfortunately for the people involved, nature’s ecological balancing remedies to reduce over-population, are war, famine and disease!



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.