Squeers, you seem to be arguing that without population growth economies can neither develop or expand – but is that so? Increased productivity, more efficient use of resources and innovation can result in economic development so maybe Ludwig has a point.

Blowing the Whistle on Climate Science.

The following paragraphs have been extracted from a paper on the Lavoisier site.
Global warming enthusiasts please take note.

“The Western Climate Establishment is cheating:

* Official thermometers are overwhelmingly in warm localities such as near air conditioner exhaust vents, buildings, concrete, tarmac, or asphalt.
*Officials hide the Argo data, which shows the world’s oceans are cooling.
* They ignore hundreds of thousands of weather balloon results that show the climate models overestimate future warming by at least 300%.
* Climate scientists frequently point to the last 130 years of global warming, but don’t mention the full story: the planet started warming before 1700, over a century before humans started pumping out meaningful amounts of CO2.
* Leading authors publish a crucial graph with a deceptive colour scheme that imitates the results they wish they’d got. Why did a leading peer-reviewed climate journal publish such a naked and childish attempt at cheating?
* The Russian, Chinese and Indian climate establishments, which are financially independent of the western climate establishment, are all skeptical. As are many scientists from other branches of science, and many retired climate scientists (who no longer have anything to lose by speaking their minds). “

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climate-corruption-lavoisier.pdf

Irrespective of their being evidence for climate change or not, it is time to become more responsible in our treatment of the earth, our home.

If we can do it cleaner and more efficiently than is the current norm, then why aren't we?

Dear Agnostic of Mittagong,
Peak oil is as old as Methuselah, I know that and so does the science show. But I was particularly pleased that the content reflected just what I’d been saying. I’m not immune to flattery.
<Squeers, you seem to be arguing that without population growth economies can neither develop or expand – but is that so? Increased productivity, more efficient use of resources and innovation can result in economic development so maybe Ludwig has a point.>
It seems logical to me that for a system dependent upon economic growth, population growth is mandatory, since once a bourgeoisie reaches a certain stage of satiety, stagflation sets in, look at Japan. That is why Australia is reliant on immigration, and the idea of “managing our borders” is fantasy (not to mention hilarious). Of course capitalism has to be congratulated for feeding off its own consumer base so successfully as well; but the poor beasts are so fat and unwieldy that they can’t possibly keep it up, no matter how much extra sugar is added, or how great the next Apple product is. Of course the real capital is made in exports, but apart from resources that’s a precarious and cut-throat prospect. Much better to grow the population at home--the infrastructure creates jobs. What do you think Costello’s “one for mum, one for dad and one for the country was all about”? He loves kids?
But even supposing we can maintain economic growth with a stagnant population at home (doubtful to say the least), the growth has to be sustained somewhere, and the by-product is pollution, no matter how green we try to be. The reason I bring this up is because many who support action on AGW haven’t thought this through; they seem to think they can fix it and continue business as usual. Climate change is absolutely pegged to industrialisation, which is driven by economic fundamentalism: economic growth.
So are you prepared to ditch capitalism to keep the planet habitable (for everyone)? Because the inconvenient truth is, that’s what it will take.

Nice try, Squeers, but no cigar.

'I never imagined the Seattle rhetoric was "authentic"'? Really? Then why did you preface it with, 'as Chief Seattle famously said'?

You can try some post-modernist sleight-of-hand all you like, but what you were essentially doing was arguing from authority.

Would you have bothered quoting the same words if they were from Doris Hagglethorpe of Stoke Newington? I think not.

Anti-green.

I see one of the links I printed has given you fuel for your debate. Great! Because the reason that it was put, was for the fact that its meant to be dismissed.
While there is a lot of fraud out there, I still think the two forces with the combined affects of population growth and the models that the you-tube links 1.2 and 3 have given, show there's something in the science,s and I doubt Sir David Attenborough would put his good name to any fraudulent.

However trusting any reports from governments or independently, one must take some with a pinch of salt. Since conspiracy investigations have shown that they know what's going on, they making people debate the situation with the full understandings of what the big-picture is.

They would put it in their off record silent ways..........We KNOW BEST, While we all go around in circles.

Anyway. The vote is still out on whats going on.

This is something else you can add.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fCP_nHRjP8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYeSo7VHdag&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InPbrTpSHFo&feature=channel
Perhaps I was mistaken. OLO has become depressing. There is nothing positive to be learnt here.
Posted by Jedimaster, Friday, 12 November 2010 5:40:52 PM

Jedimaster. If we don't hear all, then where not getting the full picture.

Leo lane.

Deep Blue"all we humans have done is Quickened up the processes.
Its as simple as that."

Dead wrong. The processes have not quickened up, except in alarmist media releases with no basis in science or fact.

I beg the differ Leo. Human impact its self on the environment is quite clear and a good way of explaining it is, just set up dominoes on your kitchen floor and see how one thing affects another.

BLU