I feel a bit sorry for Geoff of Perth as his throw away comment that all those who don't agree with him about population or global warming are 'stupid'. It's not a very mature position nor has he tried to refute the article.

The default position for those who want to rid the earth of people is to simply state 'finite earth'. But this only holds true for minerals. Indeed, the most valuable commodity these days is information traded on the internet. The anti-everything lobby (but mainly anti-people) is a throw back to Malthuse and it reflects his 18th C opinion that the poor of the world are a threat.

A vote for the Stable Population Party is not only a dead vote but a complete waste of time as a voters prefs will be scattered to the wind.

WOW!
Such vitriol.
Mainly from those who seem to believe that they have are above all other animal species and have a god given right to destroy the future of their and every other creatures descendants.
It is indeed ironic that I, who have no descendants, appear to be more concerned about the future of theirs than they are.
Strange people indeed.

Divergence: Just a few points. We routinely pump millions of tons of nitrates and phosphorous out into the marine environment every year, where it does nothing but harm!
Importing these products at great or increasing expense, could be entirely negated, by simply using what we currently waste.
If we were to do just that, we could, as a by-product, create enough virtually free energy to power our entire domestic energy needs, plus produce endless free domestic hot water and reusable agri water.
We can grow crops using virtually free desal water.
Ag-pipes wrapped in membrane can be laid underground, and wind or wave powered powered pumps, pump salt seawater to a convenient reservoir, from where it can be progressively released, through the pipes, with the resultant liqueur released back into the ocean.
Various plant species apply greater pulling power than many pumps, thereby taking as much water as they need from this flow.
An acre of trees, i.e., can evaporate 2.5 times as much water, as an acre of open water.
Given this form of agriculture takes place under-glass, the pristine evaporate is collectable and able to be reused and reused again and again!
Possibly for even more under-glass food production.
A fodder factory, i.e., is just a large shed covering around a half acre, which can grow as much green fodder on many shelves, as thirty acres of arable land; and, for just 1-2% of the normal water application.
Producing more food is not the problem, nor is housing more people, without in any way harming the environment. In fact, just the opposite!
The real problem is getting people to just let go, of their particular prejudices, their favourite thou shalt nots; or the myriad reasons this or that can't be done or won't work; and instead, open the eyes, the ears and the mind; and start to think and work outside the box, where virtually anything is possible!
And please, don't take any of this as a personal critique!
Cheers, Rhrosty.

JKJ, yes in fact I pretty much have.

I generate my own off-grid power, I use and drink water collected from my roof, I generate about 85% of my own food and reuse, recycle as much as possible. I also give plenty of food (particularly fruit and potatoes, carrots etc) to my neighbours and those living near me so in a sense I have a lucky ability to help offset their consumption from industrial agriculture.

I also recognise that I am fortunate to be able to do this and not everyone can.

I also recognise that as our population grows (about 80 million people annually-net births over deaths), global consumption of goods and services increases at an increasing rate.

You don't need to be a Malthusian to realise this cannot go on for ever. I also recognise that most people are selfish, as I am when I want to be, but I try not to be to the detriment of others and the world around me.

Geoff, you are a misanthrope.

You dislike your species and you feel superior to those who disagree with you.

It's a common, indeed defining characteristic of AGW supporters.

Your alarmism is unfounded. Your comments about warming and the recent years being the warmest ever is typical misrepresentation. What has happened has been a warm decade, the 90's and non-warming decades either side:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/to:1990/trend/plot/rss/from:1990/to:2000/trend/plot/rss/from:2000/to:2010/trend

Argue with that graph Geoff.

All attempts to prove current conditions are exceptional from Mann to Marcott have been distinguished by shoddy and deliberate misrepresentations; the climate scientists are either dupes or willing exponents of AGW.

Science has suffered and will suffer as a result.

Great post PeterA, for an obvious greenie; the greens have ruined this country and would ruin humanity if allowed. Your type are not fit to lick Anthony Watts boots.

Humans can be divided primarily into two groups, optimists and pessimists. The majority of humans are optimistic by nature, those who are sanguine about the human future, regardless of any current problems, and regardless of any worrisome ongoing trends, particularly our ever growing population. In extreme cases, as with technological optimists, they are actually excited about our bright future regardless of real problems or disturbing trends.

Scientific research has identified “optimism bias" has actually been found in the brain.

In a series of experiments, neuroscientists identified a region in the brain that seems to be responsible for this bias. They temporarily disabled this region using a magnetic field and then asked people what they think. The bias disappears. People stop being overly optimistic. They start to take risks seriously.

This is a remarkable finding which confirms that optimism is built right into humans at the genetic level. If optimism is innate in humans, you would expect that there will be a class of exceptions to the general rule because the complex combination of biological determinants which give rise to this trait is bound to "fail" in some individuals (via mutation or genetic switches or whatever). And that's exactly what we find.

Thus we have a much, much smaller group of pessimists. Pessimists are not rare, but they make up a very small percentage of the general population. Pessimists may be infrequent in the general population, but they are vocal attention seekers.

Whereas the optimist sees a bright future, the pessimist sees no future at all, literally. The pessimist is waiting around for the collapse of everything.

Thus we see that optimists and pessimists might be regarded as two sides of the same genetic coin. Fortunately there is a third group, "Realists".

This group have neither an optimism bias nor a pessimism bias. Realists look at the current problems and the trends, and make a considered judgment about the human future based on the evidence available. Only realists can assess risk correctly, for they lack the bias which colours the judgments of all the others.

I am a realist.