"The irony of course is that in 2015 the major problem now facing many OECD governments is declining birth rates."

Obviously the problems experienced by government are substantially different to the problems experienced by real people, as the aims are different: government's aim to rule and control is helped by the increased number of people, whereas people's aim to live in peace, freedom and harmony is thwarted by these increased numbers.

Excellent article. The CAGW catastrophists and the deniers of the relevant facts, will hate this.

> "Why have India's wheat yields increased so dramatically. There are a variety of reasons:

- Increased production inputs, primarily nitrogen fertilizer and irrigation water
- Adoption high-yielding, disease-resistant semi-dwarf wheat strains
- The spread of water-conserving cultural practices."

I suggest this list misses the most important contributor to increase crop yields - i.e. Fossil fuels; read "Humanity Unbound: How Fossil Fuels Saved Humanity from Nature and Nature from Humanity" http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/humanity-unbound-how-fossil-fuels-saved-humanity-nature-nature-humanity

Increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is also a significant contributor. As is improved transport and communications infrastructure, trade and governance. All this is a result of fossil fuels. The next really big leap in human well-being will follow as we get over our irrational fear of nuclear energy and embrace the enormous leap in energy density. Development and roll out of of nuclear is blocked by the same irrational people who beleive in CAGW and have tended to align the doomsday cults.

"In recent years many “skeptics” have become vociferously critical of anyone who expresses any doubts toward any part of what they see as a climate consensus (both problems and cures). How did the skeptic community grow to take on this role?" http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/03/why-skeptics-hate-climate-skeptics/

The chart provided showed food production but included no comment on food production per capita.

Even a line showing the actual population increase on an equivalent scale would have shown whether the situation has improved or deteriorated. I suggest that the food production per capita has declined.

I also suggest that the author and readers should familiarize themselves with the content of Professor Mary Wood's book, Nature's Trust, particularly Chapter 2. Both the leading USA science body and the fossil fuel industry have been certain for years that high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will reduce the natural inheritance of future generation and thus will be a breach of public trust doctrine.

Thomas Jefferson stated that,
"I set out on this ground which I suppose to be self evident, that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living."' Jefferson explained the entitlement of "every generation coming equally, by the laws of the Creator of the world, to the free possession of the earth He made for their subsistence, unencumbered by their predecessors, who, like them, were but tenants for life."

CO2 increases plant growth, but it also increases fungal growth, especially when combined with increased humidity.

I wonder how long before the first great fungal-blight induced famine of the modern age occurs?

Foyle: "Even a line showing the actual population increase on an equivalent scale would have shown whether the situation has improved or deteriorated. I suggest that the food production per capita has declined."

Well, instead of "suggesting" why don't you just research it. You are sitting at a computer connected to the Internet so it is extremely easy to do. Luckily for you, I just did it. It took less than 2 minutes of Internet searching.

I've used http://infochangeindia.org/population/statistics/population-growth-in-india-since-1901.html to get the historical data* and Wikipedia to get the lastest census data. These show that the population at 1981, which is about the start of the article's graph, was about 683 million people and at the 2011 census about 1,210 million. This is a population increase of 1,210/683 equalling about 1.8 times. From the article's graph, over the same time the production of milk increased from about 40 to 110 million tonnes, which gives an increase of 130/40 equalling about 3.25 times. For wheat, it increases from 45 to 85 million tonnes, which gives an increase of 85/45 equalling about 1.9 times

So in both cases your suggestion is wrong. In reality the increase in production outstripped the increase in population. Vastly so for the case of milk.

In general, the world's population is considerably better off today than 30 year's ago. Wealth, health and safety have consistently increased on a per person average over each decade. For the majority of people, materialistically, life has never been better than what it is today-- we live in the best of times!

*NB: the historical numbers here are in Lakhs, 1 Lakh = 100,000 -- it's the Indian number system that they are using

The author would be wise not to fall into the trap generally inhabited by climate alarmists, who like to attribute all unfavourable global trends to climate change. Don’t do the opposite. India’s GDP has been growing at around 5% per annum for half a century. The trends in its food output are hardly surprising.

However, Chris Golis’ main point is that the predictions he recalls from his early years turned out to be wrong. All that points to is that he should have been more sceptical at the time. At the other end of the scale, I (a scientist) used to keep a file of forecasts so that I could say ‘told you so’ when they failed. Not that I recommend my idiosyncrasy.

Why do people think that economists and scientists should know about the future? There is nothing in their disciplines that qualifies them for that task any more than, say, a poet. It’s weird