Leo lane. ( GOOD BY ) I hope your not leaving the debate? While we agree on at lease half of what is nature at its normal best, the other half ( human impact ) will not be fully known until a longer period of data time can be viewed.

However, with the human race not seeing their breeding problems, and 9.2 billion or more is expected in the next 40years, can you rule out what similar activities that volcano's cause....(that we can see in ice cores).... wouldn't it be fair to say that pollution and ecosystem collapse done with human environmental damage which this is one of the main lungs of the planet ( The amazon rain-Forest and others ) is vital for all living things and still No-one is taking that into account when we have agreed that climate change and our damage to the planet with overpopulation.... will in fact collide to form a catastrophic disastrous situation?

I can see it a mile away or maybe you have a different view.

BLUE

Continued.

So that would mean temperatures would rise whether or not Co2 is a factor. Either way the human race is in trouble.

http://tinyurl.com/24953ly

http://tinyurl.com/27queuw

So just like anything that out breeds its self, for us, there's only one course of action!

Tell the world to slow down.

Oh and thanks for the link (tinyurls) Bonmot.

BLUE

http://tinyurl.com/2dtrpw8

http://tinyurl.com/24x5wu4

http://tinyurl.com/26tb9rp

Just testing.

BLU

No, sarnian, you would have to decide for which disaster to prepare; the one prophesied by the ridiculous article to which you provided a link, or the opposite one put forward in my slightly less ridiculous proposal, that the world will cool drastically.

The world is not warming, and has not been for 15 years, according to the climategate miscreant, Phil Jones. The southern hemisphere has not warmed for 21 years, according to the satellite instruments.

There is no scientific demonstration that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate.

Are you as dense as you pretend to be sarnian? I said goodbye because I thought that you, and the other alarmists, would have the decency to go away, until you had a scientific basis for AGW. Since there is no such basis, you would not be back, hence I said goodbye.

In your case sarnian, you also need a scientific basis for the precutionary principle which you advocate. There is none.

blue .. "I can see it a mile away", uh huh .. you're wasted here commenting on forums like this, you should be out betting on racehorses, since you can see the future.

Any idea how many prophets of doom are correct? (zero?)

I can't remember his name, but there was a leader in Europe who used to pay fortune tellers, and then when they were wrong he used to have them killed, it sorted them out quickly and made them consider their exaggerated claims.

We should bring that back, and insist on measurable targets.

This line you're taking is now completely off topic and this little gem underlines it "So that would mean temperatures would rise whether or not Co2 is a factor. Either way the human race is in trouble"

So you don't really care about the argument or debate about CO2 or AGW at all, this is just a platform for your rants on over population?

Correct?

What do you think is going to happen?

That people will stop having children, of course not - so what do we do about it?

Nothing. There is no country on earth that will agree to limit it's children unless it is under complete totalitarian control, like China.

That's a long way off for the rest of the world. Certainly the planet could easily go way higher than it is now, and the various prophets of doom about population have been ranting for hundreds of years and still it goes on.

Calm down, it may never happen, there could be disease, or meteor strike or any manner of things,but for sure someone trying to start a religious campaign, will not succeed - nice try though, not.

Dear Bonmot,
thanks for the tips. I am a techno-moron.

Dear Amicus,
while you appear to dutifully fill your quotient, of words, there's no apparent substance? Or else 'tis too deep for me.
I'm sorry but you and your comrades are not sceptics, which is bipartisan, but minimifidianists. I bet you are decided upon which end of the boiled egg should smashed..
Squeers and I continue to agonise..