This is getting more than a little bizarre, Bazz.

>>Pericles, Ummm, there are figures showing the consumption of oil per head for all countries. If the people who comprise the increase have the same consumption per head as the rest of the population, then I guess the oil consumption would increase by that amount. Is there something wrong with that reasoning ?<<

Well, yes, actually there is a great big hole in it. Right in the middle. Mathematically, of course, there is nothing wrong with your logic. It is only that small word "if" that indicates there are problems.

You gave us some statistics that showed clearly that both in the US and in Europe, an increase in population did not result in an increase in oil consumption. In fact, it decreased by a significant amount. Therefore, the consumption per head must have decreased.

So to accurately reflect this state of affairs, your statement should have read: "only if the people who comprise the increase have the same consumption per head as the rest of the population, would the overall oil consumption increase".

They hadn't. So it didn't.

Which, as I pointed out earlier, means that the entire argument that "more people = more oil" is comprehensively trashed. All, I might remind you, predicated on statistics that you kindly provided.

Which part of this is still a mystery to you?

Don't be so difficult Pericles.
Whatever decrease took place in the US, the consumption would have
been higher because the population increase did happen.

You know that so you are just being hard to get on with.

This still misses the mark, Bazz.

>>Don't be so difficult Pericles. Whatever decrease took place in the US, the consumption would have been higher because the population increase did happen.<<

According to your own numbers published here,

1. The population increased.

2. Consumption of oil decreased.

Therefore it is as clear as it possibly can be, that there is no direct relationship between total population and total oil consumption.

Surely we can agree on that?

You cannot be that dopey, so I just presume you are trolling.

Bazz, Bazz, Bazz,

Pericles is right. You really must do more research in this area and especially in multivariate analysis. One effect of rising prices since about 2003/4 is consumption is down. Another is the use of smaller vehicles in the US, although domestic consumption of oil never was an issue.

But Bazz, you've hit an interesting issue on the head and one which bedevils our pollies. How can we explain to people that the problem is not consumption (oil or food) or people (population) but the externalisation of risk by corporates (and Govs)? That's why the UnStable People Party will get votes. It seems like commonsense. But it ain't necessarily so..

I used to feel angry and confused by the prop-pop/multicultis (they're one and the same).

But I've had an epiphany: they're alone.
They are seeking what all people seek: a "home" and a "family".

Through misplaced guilt over events they had nothing to do with, they seek it in food courts and travelogues, in the "others".

Of course, the "others" *cannot* be their home or family, which just makes them more desperately alienated.

One day, like Dororthy in Oz, they'll realise they already had what they were looking for.
If their home isn't Australia, it's somewhere in Europe.
Ireland, Denmark, France.

But by the time they click their heels and wake up, there won't be an Australian that's Australian, an Ireland that's Irish, or a Denmark that's Danish anymore.

*Their* ideology will have destroyed the thing they long for the most, a home and family.

Not longer merely lost, they will be desolate.
Their hearts will break for the final time, never to mend.
And their former ethnic "titillations" won't help either.
They would be just be salt in the wounds of their empty soul.

Wake up Dorothy, while there's still a "Kansas" to go back to.
We're right here, waiting for you.

You have a home, a brain and a heart.
Discover your courage. Let the futile dream go.