cohenite wrote:

>>The main driver to world population increase is Islam; what do the Ehrlich disciples plan to do about Islam?>>

That's a common misperception. I wrote a piece on that about a year ago.

See:

The great Muslim TFR mystery

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13944&page=0

See also comments where I present additional data.

While birthrates in Muslim countries are still quite high, they are falling rapidly and in countries such as Iran are now below replacement.

The outlier is sub-Saharan Africa

The only misconception is yours steven because you only look at HALF of the situation, the Muslim half; the non-muslim half shows TFR far less than replacement which means the above TFR population increase of muslims is MUCH greater than the non-muslim below TFR.

Watch this and maybe the condescending smirk will disappear from your face:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

I suppose I am not surprised by this given your support of the statistics of AGW.

Making connections, where is the empirical evidence connecting population (growth) with climate change?

It's not the point is it? Ehrlich was an assoicate of John Tanton's at ZPG then popped up again on the board of FAIR, then distanced himself "publicly" after Tanton was candid about his views of brown people etc..

What is Tanton's &/or Ehrlich's relationship with Dick Smith and Bob Carr? Why did O'Connor of SPA/SPP and Birrell et al of CPUR at Monash University contribute to Tanton's journal The Social Contract Press?

"TSCP puts an academic veneer of legitimacy over what are essentially racist arguments about the inferiority of today's immigrants."

By coincidence news from US today "The Population Bomb and the anti immigrant lobby" http://tinyurl.com/ph64mth

Just in the case the anti population trolls go all ad hominen (while claiming they are victims) my interests and some researched articles can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/nvg8tyc

They seem to have an issue with Australians who think clearly and have some conviction about the truth :)

Cheryl wrote: The anti-populationists collected less than 9,000 votes nationally in the Federal election.

Well it just goes to show that apart from the success of the denialist propaganda, you are blind when you have your head in the sand.

cohenite wrote: The main driver to world population increase is Islam; what do the Ehrlich disciples plan to do about Islam?

You know Muslims will die from extreme weather, from starvation and lack of water, just like everyone else.

There is one very remarkable graph that shows world population growth and oil consumption.

They don't just track closely but exactly !
The implication is that when oil production declines then population
"should" follow it down, however there are now new energy sources such as nuclear & solar electricity.
I will see if I can find it again.

Which economic dreamland did you get this from, Luciferase?

>>The resources in the ground will still be there if the world does not follow, become more valuable as their supply becomes shorter. We can sell them off in the future to finance a nice life for all of us until the curtain comes down<<

It is a policy guaranteed to impoverish not only ourselves, but future generations as well.

While it is true that if you don't dig it up, it stays there, the assumption that this somehow makes it more valuable is, frankly, laughable.

What you misunderstand about those resources is that they have no intrinsic value whatsoever. Coal would be worthless without furnaces designed to burn it, and those furnaces have a cost-threshold level above which they become economically unviable. If coal became scarce/too expensive, they'd simply shut down. Iron ore would have no value unless there were places that could smelt it, and below a certain volume they too become unprofitable. And if refusing to pump oil out of the ground caused the eventual disappearance of petrol-driven vehicles, who will you sell it to, when you finally deign to allow its sale?

You might also like to consider (that's jut a turn of phrase, by the way; I know you wouldn't really) the impact of "keeping it in the ground" on today's economy. There have been some extremely large investments in the mining sector recently which have been made in the expectation of a particular volume of output, so reducing the output would quickly send those businesses to the wall.

One of the messages I have drummed into my kids over the years is "think it through". It's been good advice, they tell me.