This article falls into the old trap of unjustly discrediting the Club of Rome report. In this case a double dose is added for emphasis by quoting comments by Prof Paul Erlich.

Limits to growth was not the immediate doomsday scenario used by the media then and now to discredit it. It conservatively predicted that if present growth trends continued "the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years." If anything it now appears too conservative.

In a society conditioned to exaggeration (eg the advertising industry) the normal cautious conservatism of scientists often does not get heard.

The world has limited resources.We either address the population problem or find ourselves fighting over limited resources in the future.No aid should be given to developing countries unless they make real inroads on birth control.Populations will still fall even with 3 children per family.

Too many people cheapens human endeavour and destroys quality of life.

A point completely lost on the climate alarmists is that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have had no demonstable effect on climate, either by contemporary observation or over the last 600 million years of earth hsitory. Current CO2 levels are low by historical standards. Only the Upper Carboniferous/Lower Permian periods and the present day show CO2 levels below 400ppm over the last 600 million years. Similarly, the Ordovician and Carboniferous were the only periods during Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as today. Ironically, to the chargrin of the alarmists, the Ordovician saw extensive glaciation, when CO2 levels were nearly 12 times higher than today's at 4400ppm. According to greenhouse theory, this period should have been a hothouse! It wasn't. Temperatures were no higher than today.

The drive for restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions should be seen for what it is, a politically driven exercise devoid of credible science, despite the noisy assertions from people who really should know better.

I think A is A and young Jennifer draw their checks from a coal fire power company. Life on earth is only possible because of the green house effect and it is finely balanced. The climate modelers are making perdictions on the current data and their current understanding, they may end up being completely wrong. But if they do as you say, well the water could be above our heads and then you'd gee why is it hot and where is all this water comming from.

The real point is the world is heating up and it will effect us what should we do about it. The answer to whether it is man made or natural is moot when all is said and done.

To Kenny
"I think A is A and young Jennifer draw their checks from a coal fire power company". Of course, Kenny! No one could possibly have a principled position against the anthropogenic global warming theory, anyone who does is obviously a mercenary minion of those evil polluting power generation companies! Whether any rises in global temperature are anthropogenic IS the essential issue, if they are then drastic action is required, but if they aren’t then we’re along for the ride, all we can do is ameliorate any adverse affects. As Jennifer points out in her article, the climate models make numerous assumptions, if even one is wrong the data they produce are worthless. I am not convinced that any observed global warming is anthropogenic, all we have from the doom-mongers are horrific scenarios based on very doubtful modelling. An earlier poster pointed out there have been huge variations in temperature and ocean levels in Earth’s past, long before humans happened on the scene, which shows that these are naturally occurring processes, and there is little we can do about it.

So Geoffrey,
You say that if the warming is not man made (anthropogenic ! are you a name dropper as well)then even if the sea level is going to rise three metres we should not do anything about it?