One of the clever marketing tricks of the global warming scam is to use visual pseudo-science words:

1. (Carbon/ecological/environmental) FOOTPRINT<<(visual)

2. GREENHOUSE<<(visual) effect

These buzz words appeal to the normally ignorant lay person, and make him feel intelligent. (In the past he has never been able to get a grip on science, but now he can run around with words like "footprint", and "greenhouse" and sound knowledgeable.)

Similarly, American preachers often used to visit churches I was brought up in, and talk about credit cards and marks on your right hand adding up to 666. These also made the simply folk feel intellectually exulted, and so they believed everything.

I have never seen or heard a more stupid idea than global warming.
Apropos are the words of Winston Churchill:
"Never have so many been conned by so little evidence".

The con is world-wide, relentless, and well-networked. It is also impeccably timed. Included in the con is the silencing of thousands of scientists who know the whole thing is rubbish.
It takes enormous amounts of money and energy and personnel to mount even the most modest of local political campaigns. But turn on your morning radio, and almost the first thing you'll hear is a reference to climate change. No matter what Western country, you'll hear it, on any station. And remarkably, when there is no climate change occurring (the weather is the same as it always has been).

It is therefore inconceivable that this scam is being pushed by anything other than a conspiracy at the very highest level. Someone or some group of people who have an incredible amount of money and networking ability, are behind it. No doubt about it.
And they are very good and using leverage: they have all of you working for them for free.

Poor gullible proletariat. Always willing to do the work of the big boys. Now they've even got you worried about breathing. Goodness me. All of a sudden we shouldn't breath, or at least should breed less babies who will breath.

And of course the politicians don't really care who is behind the conspiracy. These pseudo-scientists can now enjoy creating new bureacratic kingdoms: they love creating kingdoms and being able to tell us all how to live, and how fast we can breath. You will probably need a permit down the track to go jogging as you'll be expelling more CO2 than Mr Couch Potato.

God made the world self regulating. More CO2 means more plant growth. Less CO2 means less plant growth.

In the beginning God said "Be fruitful and multiply". In this He implied we were not to worry about breathing and heating up the earth. God has made the earth for man, and it will do the job very well for as long as He has planned to have us here. When He destroys the physical realm, you won't have to worry about it anymore: you'll be a spirit. You might, however, have to worry about a much hotter place than the earth. (It's always a good thing to think about the eternal rather than your puny 70-year statistical blip on earth.)

God bless.

We continue to overlook the major obstacle to reducing CO2.

These are the irresponsible big polluters who have not yet prepared for or implemented any technology to reduce hazardous emissions.

Whilst some responsible, large polluters have long ago invested in pollutant control technology to reduce their emissions, many have not.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/18/2122182.htm

These are the ones pumping it out with gusto from industrial stacks and from digging holes. The National Pollutant Industry (www.npi.gov.au) will confirm my assertions, though the NPI's estimates, I believe are seriously under-estimated.

Despite the fact that industrial polluters are breaching every EP Act in the country, regulators fail to enforce these Acts.

Australia is seeing a massive expansion in the resource industry. Massive increases in carbon and other pollutants are here to stay.

A carbon credit scheme for the big boys is not going to work. Those who are cashed up will simply buy credits to continue polluting.

A workable strategy for pollutant industries is for a "Command and Control" regulatory system. Nothing else will work. Forget about this country tipping in a couple of hundred million to cease deforestation in some far-away land. Facing up to our own unethical dilemma is just as essential.

Had the "Polluter Pays" principle been enforced decades ago, or the "Precautionary Principle", when they were incorporated into the Acts to mitigate pollution, Australia would not have the ignominious title of the largest polluters per capita in the world.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VH3-4MH8BRR-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=39ea67875b18b3e4a9c48b69bcb20d86

Nevertheless if Mr Cook realises his dream of rapidly increasing the pitter patter of little feet, we should have sufficient numbers to fill the positions vacant.

However, can one claim on permanently fixed gas masks, protective clothing and oxygen tents these days?

"Of course", said someone whose name I've forgotten. "It's the economy stupid."

So be prepared folks for our State and Federal governments to run up another huge ecological debt then throw the burden back on the taxpayers who have dutifully succumbed to the industry aligned governments' propaganda.

"These buzz words appeal to the normally ignorant lay person, and make him feel intelligent. (In the past he has never been able to get a grip on science, but now he can run around with words like "footprint", and "greenhouse" and sound knowledgeable.)"

Err...Liberty. May I recommend a text book for you to peruse?

It's titled:

"An Elementary Guide to Environmental Toxicology!"

Yvonne,

Thanks for your frank assessment. You are thinking about the overpopulation problem and I like your ideas. I believe it is in the interests of most women to get behind population control. That's true equality. Helping solve problems that face us all.But women need to develop a healthy cynicism towards media, global corporations and governments. These groups pretense to gender equality but in reality see women as a profit focus group provided they are single and have children. Media subtley seeks to divide stable relationships for this reason particularly in areas like TV soap scripts (despearate housewives etc). The $stakes are high here. You are courageous to be so honest.

However, one point: the chinese population can't be 4:1 M/F. I think(last I read) there is an excess of 16million males over a population of 1.4 billion. That is 16/1400*100 or 1.1% and is not that big a big deal. 16 million males would be in the army, gay or otherwise ineligible for relationships anyway.

Ludwig,

The mean birth rate per child has spiked to 1.86 from 1.75. As the long term rate is not likely to exceed 1.8, this indicates that for zero population growth an immigration of 90 000p.a. is required.

Population control is not required for Aus.

Tied to the correlation between high incomes and declining birth rates, a baby tax is a tax on the less well off and likely to be counter productive.