And the purpose of this is?
1. Light a fire
2. Pour petrol on fire
3. Fan gently, in an effort to put the fire out.
It will be interesting to note how many people bother to read this post all the way through.

What an odd article Don!

20 ‘quotes’, of which you later admit only 5 are accurate, ie: actual quotes!

No context. No realisation that this sort of ‘quote’ is indeed a very ‘now and then’ occurrence, in amongst thousands of other possible quotes from all of these people which would not be seen as extreme or radical.

and…

NOT ONE of these ‘quotes’ is radical to the extent of being devoid of logical thought or having at least some element of sense to it. You can see the reasoning, and at least some logic and positivity, in every one of them. And if you were to put each of these ‘quotes’ into context, and understand the exact intended meanings, you would find that they do indeed ALL make sense.

You conclude:

< First, there is very little about climate science, global warming or saving the environment. Climate change appears to be an instrument to other ends. >

Yes, within those brief isolated quotes. But then, you wouldn’t have pulled them out as being extreme if they had had, would you!

Each one of those people has no doubt made a very good case for their opinions in and around the isolated statements that you have highlighted.

< Second, there is a lot of hidden anger there about human beings, and again, not obviously because those expressing these notions are desperate to save other species. >

No! There is a lot of realisation that humans have become so far out of balance with the rest of life on earth that we would need to do some pretty forthright things to bring it all back into any semblance of balance.

The really radical quotes are from those who say things along the lines of us not being overpopulated and being able to carry on growing ad-infinitum… and that climate change is completely not happening or is completely non-anthropogenic.

But not you Don nor the vast majority of people would think of statements like that as being at all extreme. Am I right?

Generally speaking there is nothing at all extreme about these "quotes".
We, Homo Sapiens, another animal species, have managed by virtue of our ability to think, reason and be greedy,have managed to out breed other animal species so that we now are out of control as a population.
We do NOT own this planet. We share it with all other animal species. Each of whom/which have as much right as we to exist here.
We are certainly different but we are not "better" than these other animal species.
It could be argued that we are worse than other animal species as we are the only species wantonly destroying our own, and their, environment for our own selfish benefit.
So a general reduction in human population to a much lower number would benefit ALL animal species.

Ludwig and Ateday, you are both right on the money. Don Aitken should back into his cloistered world and stay there.

David

Ludwig, Ateday and VK3AUU.

Please put your money where your mouth is and euthanize yourselves, for the betterment of the planet of course.

Or should someone else be made to sacrifice themselves for your benefit?

Eugenics was discredited at the end of WW2, dressing it up in green clothing does not make it right.

Why not rail at our overcompensation lifestyle.
McMansions, SUV's, out of season food from the other side of the world, there are plenty of was to live a more ecologically friendly way, then saying kill everyone but a select few.

Ah Adrian.
There is always one of you about isn`t there?
So we just keep breeding do we?
How many children do you have as a matter of interest?

Cherry-pick a bunch of quotes.

Dog whistle frantically.

Hint at your own reasons, which are to promote again an anti-science view of climate science.

Then pretend that all of this is an exercise in academic honesty, aimed at promoting fact-checking (by others) before mouth-opening (by these same others).

What tosh!

Hi Ateday,

There's certainly more than one of him :)

Over your soy-lite Latte and quinoa-and-chia salad this morning, did you discuss with your friends how to go about reducing the population by 95 % ? Possibly, in the next few years ?

Come on, set an example, be the first of your group :)

Cheers,

Joe

PS. You're always welcome back here in the real world, where seven billion people have as much right to a fulfilling life as you do.

Yes, I admit that I first thought they were cranks - now I KNOW they were. I did some research on them using sources from Prof Frank Ferudi (see below), many moons ago.

http://www.frankfuredi.com/site/article/3

They represent on one hand, an absolutely delightful loony group which I have enjoyed lampooning, which I have done on OLO and elsewhere.

On the other hand, they represent a form of self hatred which is staggering. People are reduced to being scum, parasites and vermin. It's nature worship gone mad.

In the Queensland election they trotted out a candidate who flogged 'sustainability' for all it was worth including stopping immigration, kicking out the Kiwis, destroying the international student industry, cutting welfare to families with more than two kids, etc, etc. It turned out he designed the electronics in poker machines.

Any one who saw Dick Smith and Graeme Turner (their advocates in Australia) at the Press Club recently will know just how silly and irrelevant they are

Gee Don's gone into full creationist quote mine mode.

Hell Don why not pull a few out about how leaded petrol isn't all bad and smoking is good for your health.

I did Grim and the only phrase that comes to mind; is, hear hear!
Rhrosty.

Don,
I would have liked to send this onto other people but you destroyed the validity of the "quotes" by your subsequent paragraphs.

It would be nice to know just which 5 quotes you consider to be valid.

If all of the quotes valid or could be established as a fair summary of the thinking of the person quoted or not quoted, it would establish that the findings of the IPCC are not founded on science at all.

Your mind is obviously open on that question as is mine. The article does not progress the question further.

What do you mean "First, there is very little about climate science, global warming or saving the environment."?

Of course there is not - you have chosen to repeat (whether misquoted or paraphrased or just made up) those things attributed to these people which aren't about climate science. To suggest that John Houghton and Stephen Schneider haven't said a very great deal about climate science is ridiculous.

Hi again Ateday,

I guess you and your friends have already discussed the preliminaries of how to go about reducing the world's population by 95 %, in between spirited discussions about kitchen design and the best 4WD to pick your kids up from their private school.

But please let me map out a plan (you can tweek the details of course):

* Seize world power;

* Year One: set up extermination centres across the world - after all, 95 % of the world's population would now be over seven billion, and to exterminate that many in, say, five years, requires some careful planning: that's 1,400 million each year, or 120 million per month, or four million per day, and you can't do that with just a handful of crematoria);

* Year Two to Six: commence Cleansing.

* Year Seven: Assess the benefits of successful WPR from the comfort of your new kitchen, invite friends over to share a brilliant 2011 Marlborough Chardonnay, and discuss the latest curtain fabrics.

Isn't it fascinating how ALL Utopias degenerate into fascism ? If you're not on the winning side, that is.

Joe
www.firstsources.info

explains why Green ideology/religion is not really any different from that of Isis. They just like to sanitise their 'killing'.

What an excellent article, Don.

Thank you. Yes, the original sources may be obscure and whther completely correctly captured or not, I expect in most cases their meaning was pretty much as quoted.

I note you missed two really important ones (I'm paraphrasing from memory):

1, James Hansen (so called father of AGW), claimed in his book "Storms of our Grandchildren" that the oceans will boil off and we'll get an atmosphere lie Venus if we continue burning fossil fuels (or something like that);

2. Greens Senator Whish-Wilson justified Islamic state terrorism saying they were, arguably, the equivalent of our soldiers (or words to that effect): http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2014/09/greens-senator-is-worried-we-might-be-demonising-the-death-cult-islamists-in-iraq-and-syria.html

Hi Loudmouth,
And when the 7 billion becomes 8, 9 10 ,11, 12,13 ..............
What do you do then?
Keep on breeding.
ok.

It is truly hard to understand, in a world where the Human population has grown from around 1 million to 7 billion in 10,000 years, where we are rapidly outgrowing essential resources (phosphate, fresh water...) that anyone could deny we have a population problem.
Before AdrianM and Loudmouth jump into their non sequiturs, there is of course a very humane, very effective and very well proven method of reducing the population:
Eliminate poverty.
Every country on Earth that has achieved a high standard of living, low infant mortality rate and universal FREE education has seen significant drops in birth rates, even negative natural growth rates.
Indeed, one country very close to here actually pays people to have children!
The yeast organism (of which I am inordinately fond) is so brainless, it keeps on multiplyng and consuming all available food until the entire population -very conveniently- drowns in it's own alcoholic excrement.
One would hope Humanity could prove to be just a little smarter.

False dilemma, Ateday :)

Interesting that that's the only way you can see the issue.

OF COURSE, the growth of population may need to be slowed down, by such indirect methods as universal women's education (cheaper than mass extermination, although I suppose you're doing the maths right now ?) mass availability of contraception, raising the age of marriage and, of course, making it completely voluntary, and the raising of world wages to first-world levels.

That might stabilise population in, say, a century. By that time the population may have reached ten billion, but may start declining IF the anti-pops make the sacrifice that they assume of others, so that the world population may reach only 9.99999 billion.

But with relative affluence around the world, the birth-rate will have started to decline well before then: look at Japan and Russia and most of Europe. Of course, even with 2.0 births per couple, population will still grow simply because people will be living longer. So perhaps by 2114, birth-rate decline could be so rapid that they balance the growth in longer-living populations.

So maybe by 2164, 150 years from now, world population may be declining due to lower birth-rates out-matching older-population growth - so world population could be declining at a rapid rate, say 0.01 % p.a. from about then. At that rate, world population could be reduced by 1 % every 70-80 years, by 10 % in 500-600 years, and down by 95 % in barely five thousand years.

That's if future populations follow your advice and consider themselves a blight on the universe. Of course, if they assume the alternative, that people represent talent and potential, every person, none of that may occur.

But never fear, Ateday, elitism may still prevail :)

Joe

You are very hopeful Grim.
You are correct. The other less humane solutions put forward by such as Loudmouth would no doubt work but I don`t think many would appreciate.
Education is the way which leads to less poverty and ultimately less people. But do we have time?
I sadly don`t think so.
I am just fortunate that my, non existent, offspring won`t be the ones paying the ultimate and extreme price.
It really doesn`t matter how sustainable a lifestyle you lead humans are still consumers and sooner or later we shall run out of fresh breathable air and fresh drinkable water.
Why not try and solve the basic problem instead of continually putting band aids on the symptoms.

Geeeez ! Another academic telling everyone how flawed we humans are ! Wake up mate and have a look around at the real world !

Ateday,

You may be right, we've reached the limits of innovation in all things: maybe better ways of using water or air are just illusions. Nothing's going to improve from now on.

But sorry, I don't think so, with respect: people have so far, innovated in all sorts of ways, and I expect that they will continue to do so, and in ways that we can't even know now.

But keep at it, we all need a good chortle now and then.

Joe

For those who read too quickly, the point of the article was that we do not need to make confections out of what people say in order to make their words punchier: if you do some more work you can find what their position was (or is), and express it accurately — and you should.

While I'm away from base at the moment, I do recall that the correct quotes were those of Schneider, Ehrlich and HRH — can't recall the other — and that some of those who argued that they were misreported had in fact said very similar things (but see [1] above).

As for Schneider, he was also, but in the 1970s, a doomsday person about the coming ice age. I found him a discourteous and arrogant interlocutor when we crossed swords about global warming in 2008.

No, I can't prove all this, but I repeat that it is hard to read this stuff, and the other material I read about each of them, without feeling that in most cases there seems to be an almost visceral emotion of an anti-human kind. There are too many of us; we are fouling the world; we are out of control etc. They could do worse than read Matt Ridley about how much better off humans are now than they were fifty years ago. And if they don't agree, explain why.

And as for HRH, heaven knows what he really thinks.

Wow, didn't that bring out the tenured brigade.

Yep, all those who believe they are superior, & should be chosen to head a new world order, & breed.

Well fellers, just remember who got the chop during China's cultural revolution. If you look at China since you can see that getting rid of many who believed in their privilege has done the country the world of good.

So do be careful kiddies. They say you should never have a royal commission, if you don't know what it might find. I think that might go double for revolutions. You could easily loose control of the killing, & find the target has been moved, right to the center of your forehead.

Hi Has old mate, your points are well made, particularly regarding China.
Here is the example we could all possibly learn from?
How to massively improve your economy/lift millions out of poverty, while seriously reducing the population numbers.
And Grim is completely right, [not all that unusual], about the only successful way to reduce population numbers.
Overpopulation is largely a problem for the poorest communities, where women have traditionally been treated as mere bagatelle, able to be traded for a couple of cows, and or, what have you.
With the worst example being prepubescent girls forced into arranged marriages, usually with fully developed males?
And in keeping with the wish list of those thicker than fence posts, advocating population reduction here; a number of those little girls are so damaged internally by this reported tradition, that they can never ever have babies.
And when and if they do, a huge numbers die in childbirth.
I'm not sure about you, but I find it passing strange how a conversation about the language of the extreme, morphed into a conversation about population reduction targets?
But when you read some of these anti population, anti-development, pro poverty posts, (always someone else's sacrifice incidentally) perhaps they do represent the language of the extreme; or the green hidden agenda?
One and the same?
Cheers Rhrosty.

Five actual quotes and the rest what? Verbals?
And given that is so? Hardly surprising and crafted for the sole purpose of mounting a completely fallacious (pro green anti-nuke etc) argument!?
And argument that is specifically designed to bag or seriously misrepresent the views of the verbalized! (Character assassination!)
And disingenuous in the extreme, as are those folks, doing all the verbalizing/misrepresentation/propaganda promulgation!
I can remember reading somewhere; tell a lie so big and outrageous, nobody will be able to believe anyone could tell such a big porky; and therefore treat it as truth?
Ditto extremely disingenuous verbalizing!
Rhrosty.

Well, the anti-human brigade sure are out in force today, aren't they?

Amazing that such people, openly dreaming of genocide, should infect modern-day Australia. Fancy unself-consciously and publicly admiring the fruits of the labours of Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Mengistu, Hitler! Unbelievable.

Their favourite way of thinking is the Gods-eye view: human beings as just bacteria on a petri dish owned by ... you guessed it: government. And what are "we" [translation: the State] going to do about it (all the while consuming - at above-average rate - all the fruits of production that they're whining about)?. Of course their solution: total government power for ten thousand programs to ban anything and everything, and of course "education" [translation: compulsory government indoctrination of children].

What a plague of nasty creeps. How appalling, and how frightening to know that this dark ages hypocritical anti-human ideology should be riddled through two out of three of the major political parties in Australia!

And then there's that old left-wing coincidence thing, isn't there?

Guys - do the world a favour and practice what you preach will ya?

"In the groves of *their* academy, at the end of every vista, you see nothing but the gallows."
Edmund Burke

Oh thank the the Lord, Peter Wing Ah Jardine Lo Fat has raised his gaze from under the bed to rescue us.
How lucky we are to have the Global Financial Military Industrial Complex, to save us from the Evil that is Democratically elected Government.

Your gripe is precisely that democratic government isn't killing enough people, remember Grim

Please show where and when I have advocated killing people Peter Ah fat?

Well do you agree with the article that it's bad for people to advocate genocide in the name of sustainability, or not? What are you arguing about?

By the way, is Grim your full real name?

Hi Grim,

So how do you propose going about reducing the population ? Slowly and carefully, or - in a grand fascist cutting of the Gordian knot - quickly, once you have seized world power ? In 100 years ? or more slowly - even that would require an annual reduction of around seventy million to bring it down to only a billion, barring new births ? Who do you think should be eliminated first ? Who should be sterilised to meet your targets ?

How do you propose eliminating sixty or seventy million each year, for the next one hundred years ? What drugs are you going to forcibly use to persuade so many to walk into the mulchers ?

Back in the real world, it would take very cafeful planning to slowly - ovder a few thousand years - reduce world population. After all, people will probably be living longer, so a large proportion of the population would be required to pay the taxes required to maintain the non-working elderly, including eventually, yourself. That working population could only be reduced very slowly, perhaps at 0.01 % of that population per year, or 1 % every 100 years. After all, they eventually grow old too and add to the tax bill. So to reduce the world's population in a less fascist way may eventually take several thousand years.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news :(

Joe

Dear Loudmouth, exactly where are you getting your projected calculations from? Certainly not in the 'real world' you are espousing to speak for. If you think humans can carry on increasing the population at the same rate for another 1000 years, less your generous concession of a 1% annual reduction, you better go back and re-do your maths, unless you think the future includes the possibility of sustaining 100 billion.

I don't pretend to have the answer but common sense suggests the critical point of no return is more likely under a 100 years. Like it or not, the weak will not inherit the earth, the strong and the dominant will determine the future with or without agreement/support of those to be most likely effected. Its cruel to say but the starting point is in the already over populated Third world countries that cannot support themselves. Its the sad reality.

CH,

So many assumptions !

First, that you and your friends - Green or White-supremacist, it's hard to tell which - can take over so much of the world and begin to reduce the population at, say, 1 % p.a., or around sixty million of them. You and whose army ?

Second, you assume that nothing much will change in the next 100 years in the way of women's education, the key driver of reduced birth-rates and eventually population stabilisation. That is very likely to expand rapidly in the next fifty years.

Third, you assume also that technology won't develop any further. But food production actually does keep up with population growth; the world already produces adequate food, it's just how it is distributed and used. There's every chance that technology will keep innovating in water availability, power generation, medical break-throughs, you name it.

As for calculations, think of population dynamics this way: people are living longer, so more - not fewer - people will have to be supported in their post-work years (or do you have plans for them too ?) So the population which needs to work and support them through their taxes will not shrink rapidly over the next hundred years: that population itself will age soon enough and need to be supported by future generations, which in turn won't shrink rapidly either. Perhaps 0.01 % annual reduction of the working population is all that can be hoped for if population reduction is to take place peacefully.

Apart from the more obvious factor of women's education: educated women marry later if at all, they tend to have fewer children, marry 'up' (sorry for that bad news), and thereby are probably the most significant force, historically, for stabilising and eventually reducing population.

So there's a cause you can champion: women's education in the Third world :)

Joe

Sometimes Jardine, I really wonder if you bother reading your own posts, much less anyone else's, or the article in question.
Please show where this article specifically suggests “ that it's bad for people to advocate genocide in the name of sustainability”?
What I saw in this article was a cherry picked selection of quotes, which the author freely admitted were almost all actually MISquotes (and which, after making his own selection, he expressed surprise that climate change didn't feature more highly in his own selection (?)).
As for 'arguing', I merely pointed out the bleeding obvious; your ideological support for the corporatisation of the planet, and profound hatred of freely elected governments is irrational.
Yours, Peter GRIMley
PS, unlike you I have never felt the need to create sock puppets in order to show someone agreeing with me.

As always Loudmouth, your self-aggrandizement is impressive.
Far from delivering bad 'news' (insinuating your word was Law) all you have really done is offer your -not terribly well informed- opinion, bolstered by some very iffy statistics.
I can only offer you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't bother to read my post immediately prior to your own, in which I merely pointed out that -as you yourself have been arguing- the only humane way to reduce the population is by eliminating poverty; no timeframe suggested.
Or do you believe (despite what you yourself have written) that improvements in infrastructure, transport and distribution have kept pace with population growth?
If not, then the problem in a nutshell is overpopulation (in ratio to infrastructure).
As to your assertion that “food production actually does keep up with population growth”; not quite correct, although your next sentence is. Another nice example of a non sequitur, the transportation and distribution problem has been with us for some time, as have improvements in productivity. In recent years however, the productivity allowed by Borlaug's developments have actually slowed, and is showing signs of going backwards. The system of artificial fertiliser is after all a 'rob Peter to pay Paul' solution; essential nutrients are taken from one place to be used in another.
And then wasted.
Accusing others of 'so many assumptions' is also rather comical, perhaps you should remove the splinter from thine own eye? The keystone to your argument appears to be 'we will think of something'.
What a relief. No need for any of us to lose sleep tonight.

"....In recent years however, the productivity allowed by Borlaug's developments have actually slowed, and is showing signs of going backwards. The system of artificial fertiliser is after all a 'rob Peter to pay Paul' solution; essential nutrients are taken from one place to be used in another."

Not to mention soil degradation, and groundwater depletion...nothing's much chop for a permanent solution unless it's sustainable.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/india_water.html

Well, Don I am starting to wonder whether you have the same problem that John Pilger suffers from: nothing new to say, but not wanting to be forgotten.

This has to be just about your worst ever effort on OLO. It is so poor that I am half wondering whether someone has hacked your account.

A list of 20 quotes by various people in the environmental movement or who have publicly stated support for climate change that state the world population needs to decrease and/or consumption levels need to decrease. And then you finish with:

"First, there is very little about climate science, global warming or saving the environment. Climate change appears to be an instrument to other ends."

This is in fact your own conclusion looking for evidence. I am sure that it has occurred to you that people can have opinions on many topics and the opinions about one topic do not necessarily drive their opinions on every other topic. If it hasn't by now, you need to get out more.

My take is that you want this to seem to be true so you don't have to argue against their positions on climate change. Instead you can just get into a massive ad hominem and discredit their position by pointing to comments on other topics and claim their arguments about climate change are just a means to another end. Oh gosh, I see you did just that.

Sometimes Grim Fat Low Dung, I really wonder if you bother reading your own posts, much less anyone else's, or the article in question.

Please show where I specifically suggest “corporatisation of the planet".

What I saw in your response was a cherry picked selection of misrepresentations, which your hatred of freedom cannot bear to actually represent correctly because you know it will prove that elected governments are not more representative of the people, than the people.
As for 'arguing', I merely pointed out the bleeding obvious; you have never demonstrated once the irrationality of any argument of mine, and you are only mistaken in thinking that you prove this by your usual serving of sarcastic bile combined with circularity and blind worship of arbitrary power and violence.

PS, unlike you I have always understood that your not understanding the distinction between argument and personality only demonstrates your intellectual incompetence to participate in discussions for which you substitute bitter twisted misrepresentations for actual logically valid propositions.

But perhaps a bit more of your blind worship of the Unlimited Global Governmental Power Fiat Money Militarised Police Industrial-Scale Human Culling Concentration Camp Complex will deliver your religious dream of Sustainability.

Grim Fat Hed Lo Dung
The author writes an article criticising the trend of fashionable poseurs publicly pining and yearning for policies that would cause the deaths of large numbers of human beings, worshipping unlimited power, and embracing lies masquerading as science.

And all you can do is write in saying the article is inflammatory.

WTF!?

What is that supposed to mean?

And stop pretending your concern is intellectual integrity: you wouldn't recognise if it if slapped you in the face. You literally have never shown any sign of understanding what it is.

Just go back over all your posts to me, read them, and see if you can find even one that doesn’t consist of sarcasm, assuming what is in issue, total confusion of consensual with violence-based relations, worship and love of power based on aggressive violence, and your usual baseless assumptions about government as some kind of benevolent institution. Cite one that doesn’t have any or all of these tactics. You? Intellectual integrity? Don’t make laugh Fat Lo Dung Thick.

Agronomist,

You Are a pathetic hypocryte. Where is your post? And when will you say anything that contributes constructively to any subject instead of continually repeating your boring, irrelevant, cultist beliefs?

Here's something to get your head around:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpf17-qzI4o#t=115

40% of the world's population lives in energy poverty. They need more energy not less. Renewable's cannot make any significant contribution. So what is your rational, objective solution? Or don;'t you understand the question?

Woops, wrong link. This is the one I meant to post:
2014 HV McKay Lecture delivered by Robert Bryce
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crefcQpwA5w

Peter Lang, it is barely worth wasting the electrons to respond to you, but because electrons are ultra-cheap at present here goes.

When Don Aitkin writes something useful and interesting I comment that it is useful and interesting. When he writes tripe, I point out that it is tripe.

Here I am simply pointing out the absurdity of criticising climate change through criticising comments made about other topics. If Don wants to tackle climate change by elucidating his disagreement with the scientific arguments made for the climate change hypothesis, I think that would be a useful and interesting post for him to write. Arguing against climate change as you do, that lots of people live in energy poverty, is silly and pointless.

That the earth is warming in unequivocal. The science is in. There is hardly anywhere left to argue. What our response to that information should be is a whole different story.

Agronomist,

You accuse Aitkin of writing tripe. That's projection. It's you who writes tripe. You write tripe continually.

"That the earth is warming in unequivocal. The science is in. There is hardly anywhere left to argue."

Yep, only a few cultist's are left still believing what you believe. The world is moving on. The key countries are not turning up to Obama's climate chat. The interest in CAGW and in subsidising and mandating unreliable renewable energy is waning. Countries are cutting back.

Your problem is you wouldn't know what's going on because you read only the cultist's propaganda. And you've shown repeatedly you do not understand what is relevant and, furthermore, that you don't want to know.

Have you read this?
"FRAUD, BIAS AND PUBLIC RELATIONS: The 97% ‘consensus’ and its critics"
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/09/Warming-consensus-and-it-critics1.pdf

I'll pass on the allegation that I write tripe.

But I'll agree with you that I have nothing new to say: I do say the same kinds of things, because what happens is that the world brings forward new events and new statements about which I can write. But my position is much the same.

JKJ,

"And stop pretending your concern is intellectual integrity: you wouldn't recognise if it if slapped you in the face."

Lol!...this from the poster who displays his "integrity" by addressing a fellow poster as:

"Grim Fat Hed Lo Dung"

"Grim Fat Low Dung"

"Fat Lo Dung Thick."

Nice one, Mr Integrity....

.....

Yup....the line that jumped out for me was ".... Climate change appears to be an instrument to other ends."

All the rest of it appears to be some sort of rhetorical bubble wrap designed to deliver the usual message hidden amongst the padding.

Same old same old....

Poirot
Oh, so at last you recognise that name-calling is not legitimate argument. Since mine was only provoked by Grim’s, you realise that proves:
a) that you recognise it’s invalid in Grim’s
b) that you are using a biased double standard
c) that you are being intellectually dishonest
d) that you don’t care that what you’re saying is untrue, as usual, as we have established over and over again.

You must be feeling pretty stupid now that your gods of global warming have admitted it’s not warming. Or are you the last person on the planet to believe what you don’t even understand?

All
Let’s get one thing straight. The reason the leftists are coming out to criticise this article, is because it offends their ideology that someone should dare to suggest that the powers of government should be limited. Even when people openly advocate genocide, these big-government clowns rush in to try defend them from libertarian criticism. And what’s their argument? It offends their intellectual standards! Give us a break!

Jardine K. Jardine,

Could I urge you to join in the discussions at Climate Etc. http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/11/fraudulent-hockey-stick/

The debate is more intelligent (mostly) and a better balance between the loony Left and the rational realist Right than is the case here and on most of the Australian web sites that discuss the issues we think are important.

There are many Australians contributing on Climate Etc. Most are pretty rational and have excellent knowledge and experience to contribute. Some are humorous, some have been very senior in various positions, some are the usual far Left ideologues, and one is repetitively unpleasant and abusive (but intelligent and gives excellent info.). The host, Judith Curry, rarely intervenes.

We had a little side chat a day opr two ago when the rest of the world was asleep: http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/06/week-in-review-26/#comment-626604

Perhaps you should consider a cuppa and a little lie down, Jardine; you seem to be foaming at the mouth there.
I can see now I was terribly inconsiderate in comparison to your impeccable manners; I did after all use the nasty vicious term “irrational”.
Whereas you so delicately rejoined with:
“Hatred of freedom” (please substantiate)
“Sarcastic bile” (me?)
“...circularity and blind worship of arbitrary power and violence” (please substantiate)
“intellectual incompetence”
“bitter twisted misrepresentations for actual logically valid propositions.”
“ blind worship of.... blah blah etc

and then of course, is the question of “intellectual integrity”
My favourite quote:
“The reason the leftists are coming out to criticise this article, is because it offends their ideology that someone should dare to suggest that the powers of government should be limited”
The very first mention of the word “government” -closely followed by “total government” in this forum was...
Jardine's.
I must confess my shocking ignorance. I had no idea the ability to put words in other people's mouths, articles and posts was actually intellectual integrity.
Yes I can see now my nasty use of the word “irrational” was completely uncalled for.
I shall endeavour in future to restrict myself to the more measured responses that you have so ably demonstrated.
As to the 'name calling', I'm sorry I just get confused. You've used so many different monika's over the years in your staunch defence of Mises et al. I have trouble keeping track.

JKJ,

"Oh, so at last you recognise that name-calling is not legitimate argument. Since mine was only provoked by Grim’s..."

Pull the other one...you spend a goodly dollop of your time on this forum impugning your opponents and calling them names.

I was highlighting your hypocrisy in citing "integrity" - when it's clear that yours is often wanting.

Hi Poirot,

Well, your last comment seemed to have drained the shallow pool of pseudo-Left wit and wisdom.

Any chance of getting back to topic ?

As it happens, when it comes to population control and reduction - if that is one of the topics raised here - I'm confident that universal women's education (I don't really care so much about men's education, they'll be okay) to the highest levels, will massively impact on population growth.

Of course, for universal women's education to happen, many male-supremacist ideologies will have to be combatted, Islam for example, Hinduism, in fact pretty much all religions.

Educated women marry later, have fewer children, and tend to raise them with a much better outlook vis-à-vis gender equality, not to mention having much better sex.

So, once various fascist ideologies are defeated and women can be liberated across the Third World and gain access to education to the highest levels, populations will stabilise (say, one or two generations after UWE) and then start to decline (after, say, three or four generations).

Of course, this is little more than a pipe-dream unless we can unite to defeat the current fascist ideology sweeping across a certain part of the world, from China to the Atlantic. What do you reckon, Poirot ?

Joe

Completely agree Loudmouth.

I'm not one to look a gift horse in the mouth so thank you, Grim :)

Glancing back, I see I owe sincere apologies to Poirot; I certainly didn't agree with that part of Loudmouth's post. Your support was of course deeply appreciated.
As a Pragmatist who tries to eschew ideology as much as possible (apart from basic ethics) universal education is a proven population control. Alleviating poverty though, is the obvious first step.
Text books should be read, not eaten.

No problem, Grim...I realised to which you were alluding.

Peter-Pedo-Quim-Rimmer-Dim-BrainGram

Thank you for admitting the intellectual bankruptcy of every single one of your tactics against me; and demonstrating that you were either too dumb or too dishonest to recognise until they were used back at you. Now do you get it, Pedo?

Now perhaps if you would stop trying to squirm out of your self-contradictions and ideological support for the corporatisation of the planet, and actually answer try to focus on what, according to you, will prove what is in issue.

Is aggressive violence okay if it's done by an elected government, or not?
What is the principle, if any, on which government power should be limited?

Poirot
"Pull the other one...you spend a goodly dollop of your time on this forum impugning your opponents and calling them names."

Wrong. I never initiate personal argument, only ever respond to it, like Grim's chronic childish tactic of insult and mirespresentation which he now admits is wrong, but only as applies to himself. He still thinks misrepresentation is fine when he does it. But you didn't call him on it, did you? Ho hum, standard left wing modus operandi. The fact you think all argument is personal argument doesn't improve your position.

So anyway, look, stop trying to squirm out of your support for aggressive violence and intellectual dishonesty and just answer the question, will you?

Is aggressive violence okay if it's done by an elected government, or not?

I would argue there is context here, via (coincidental?) connections between many in the list, leading to one man and his anti-immigration nativist network, John Tanton:

From The New York Times ‘Anti-immigrant crusader’ - ‘‘In a memo titled “Latin Onslaught,” John Tanton says that White people’s “power and control over their lives [is] declining” as “a group that is simply more fertile” procreates itself to majority status.’ http://tinyurl.com/ly7md3n

Paul Ehrlich and Sea Shepherd’s Paul Watson, were allied with Tanton in The Sierra Club (not unlike like the ACF), and attempted takeovers in the USA some years ago:

‘In the U.S. the first big greening of hate wave occurred in the mid-1990s when conservative anti-immigrant forces began mobilizing within the Sierra Club, the nation’s largest membership-based environmental organization, to pass a ballot initiative supporting a “reduction of net immigration” as a component of a “comprehensive population policy for the United States." ..... One does not have to scratch very far beneath the surface to find the links between the green wing of the anti-immigration movement and nativism and white supremacy.’ http://tinyurl.com/nj355gj

In Australia this tactic appears to have translated into some selected ACF directors becoming patrons of Sustainable Population Australia, along with Paul Ehrlich’s mate Bob Carr, but what is Bob Carr doing with friends like these?

From Climate and Capitalism, ‘Green Fascism and the Greening of Hate - Population control — the ideology of the green right.

Aren’t these just political games?

Hartmann: It’s more than that. There is an academic journal called Population and Environment, …. edited by Kevin MacDonald, an evolutionary psychologist who writes about a Jewish plot to liberalize immigration policies. In 1999, MacDonald appeared in court in Britain to defend the historian and holocaust denier David Irving. The journal’s advisory editorial board includes famous environmental scientists such as Paul Ehrlich, who wrote The Population Bomb….. http://tinyurl.com/k95lpjn

Like McDonald has finally lost tenure at his university, maybe Australia’s ‘best demographer’ (according to Bob Car) could do the same at his university? Nowadays it seems we are overpopulated with ageing white and often wealthy middle class ‘environmentalists’..

JKJ,

"Wrong. I never initiate personal argument, only ever respond to it..."

You have to be joking : )

Your posts are often bulging with derogatory and inflammatory remarks liberally peppered throughout your rants.

You are in no way a courteous poster.

Here's a perfect example you just directed at me.

"So anyway, look, stop trying to squirm out of your support for aggressive violence and intellectual dishonesty and just answer the question, will you?"

Charming!

For some reason a 'wild erratic fancy' has come upon me, that perhaps refreshing memories about poor debating tactics might be in order.

- Ad hominem. Latin for "at the man" an example of this might be suggesting a person is irrational, rather than a person's beliefs are irrational.

- Non sequitur. Latin for "It doesn't follow". An example of this might be suggesting that because a person believes in democratically elected governments, one must therefore believe in everything an elected government does, -even if one didn't actually vote for the government in question.

- Straw man tactics. Making a caricature out of a position in order to make it easier to attack. This is when people Assume they know someone's point of view, and begin arguing a made-up construction about their opponent, rather than just debate the words of their opponent. In short, you assume that your opponent believes something that he or she did not explicitly state.

Of course mentioning names would be most inappropriate, particularly if I don't know the real names, or if some people choose to change their names on a frequent basis.

Andras Smith,

Thank you for your comment. It's possibly the most interesting and informative comment on this thread.

Some of Jardine K. Jardines comments cut through to the nub of the issues too. It's worth reading his comments.

BTW, Jardine, if you're still reading the comments, did you see my comment at 12 September 2014 12:26:53 PM- it's about 12 comments up. I hope you might look at the links and consider the suggestion. It's a far more serious and constructive (mostly) group that participates here.

I'm sure you're absolutely correct, Peter Lang; Mr What-ever-his-name-is would surely be more comfortable on Curry's forum. It is clearly a far more objective, unbiased and even handed discussion than you'll ever find on these poor pages, as evidenced by your no doubt very apt discription:
“...loony Left and the rational realist Right..”
No bias or “language of the extreme” there.

Peter-Pedo-Quim-Rimmer-Dim-Brain-Gram

So is aggressive violence okay if done by government, or not?
On what principle should government power be limited?

Jardine K. Jardine,

You start your comments with 'Peter'. But which Peter are you referring to? I trust you haven't confused me with the one of the CAGW alarmists, have you?

You haven't acknowledged you saw my comment I addressed to you at at 12 September 2014 12:26:53 PM so I am wondering if you are confusing me with someone else and misinterpreting the intent. The comment is genuine and no hidden meaning intended.

LOL thanks Peter Lang, no I'm not confusing you, and thanks for your link to the climate website. I'm addressing Peter-Pedo-Grim. He has apparently just discovered that ad hom and misrepresentation are illegitimate, but only when I reflect his tactics back to him; the rest of the time it's all he's got.

If I'm wrong, we'll see from his answer to my questions. If I'm right, we'll just get another serve of his standard sneering ad hom, assuming he's right in the first place, and misrepresentation.

You see Grim the difference between your approach and mine is that mine is falsifiable; yours isn't. I offer you what you need to disprove me; you don't.

"Ad hominem. Latin for "at the man""
That's the literal translation, not the meaning, as in fallacy, which is, confusing the merit of an argument with some supposed personal characteristic of the person putting it forward - you know, like your idea that my net name has some relevance to whether people advocating genocide is okay?

"even if one didn't actually vote for the government in question."
So are you admitting that elected governments aren't presumptively better than your freedom to make the decision in question, or not? Why aren't you contradicting yourself?

"In short, you assume that your opponent believes something that he or she did not explicitly state."

At last you recognise your own tactic when I reflect it back to you: oh planet-corporatiser.

Come on, let's cut to the general issue. What are the answers to my questions?

Poirot
"So anyway, look, stop trying to squirm out of your support for aggressive violence and intellectual dishonesty ...?"

Ad hominem doesn't mean personal insult. It means argument *logically depending on* irrelevant supposed personal characteristics - like Grim's imagined intellectual triumph at constantly remarking about my net name, as if that has any substantive bearing on anything to do with politics or economics.

I have independently established your support for aggressive violence and intellectual dishonesty, therefore my argument is not ad hominem.

But if I haven't, then what are the answers to my questions?

Jardine,

Thanks for that. Climate Etc. is mostly much better but it is being trashed at the moment because there is a thread running about the Michael Mann court case and it's attracted a host of Mann's defenders, so there site is being trashed. When Judith wakes up I expect she'll probably make a comment and delete a whole lot of comments (but she may not because they are visitors from the Mann supporters, so she may just let it runs it course).

Many of the regular commenters here could benefit from adoption the suggestions in this new post on Climate Etc.:

"How to criticise with kindness"
http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/15/how-to-criticize-with-kindness/

An easy way to avoid name calling is of course if we give our real names, then there will be no excuse for using the wrong name, will there?
Oh wait, I've already done that...
Then there's the matter of Straw Man arguments, and putting words into other people's mouths:
“your self-contradictions and ideological support for the corporatisation of the planet...” No, if you check back I specifically spoke out AGAINST the corporatisation of the planet.
“stop trying to squirm out of your support for aggressive violence...” No, I have always spoken out against aggressive violence.
“childish tactic of insult and mirespresentation (sic) which he now admits is wrong...”
It's always fun to argue with someone who completely oblivious to sarcasm. Did I insult you, Jardine? Would you like to make a count of my insults to yours?
“He still thinks misrepresentation is fine when he does it...” Precisely what have I 'misrepresented', Jardine?
“Is aggressive violence okay if it's done by an elected government, or not?”
No. Aggressive violence isn't okay for elected governments, non elected corporations or individuals. Nor have I ever suggested it is. Surely that must be plain enough that even you can't misconstrue it?
As to the legitimate role of Government, I'm quite happy with this:
“Government ought to protect the individuals within the country against the violent and fraudulent attacks of gangsters, and it should defend the country against foreign enemies.”

Peter Lang

That assumes that the opponent's is motivated is to find out the truth, or at least to identify what's false, by rational discourse.

But what if they're not?

What if you can show that what they're saying is untrue, and self-contradictory, and fallacious, and unethical by their own standards, and violent? And what if they make the whole argument depend on personal detraction first and foremost every time, and misrepresent what you're saying, and confuse correlation with causation, and get cause and effect back-the-front, and jumble up all the issues, and ad evade, and shift, and can't answer, and don't answer? And then, when finally confronted with a test that will settle the whole issue one way or the other, they don't admit what they can't defend, and instead just go quiet, and slink off? And then, having hopelessly lost the entire argument, they just re-appear somewhere else, and enter with all the same personal argument, and making all the same assumptions and assertions all over again?

Then we have demonstrated that what they're doing is deliberate intellectual dishonesty, and that's what's just happened here. Grim and Poirot know full well that if they answer the questions I have asked, either way, they will settle the whole argument against themselves - not just in this thread, but in all the threads in which they constantly defend violating people's peaceable freedoms. And that's why they enter and carry on the argument with all their illogic and confusion - because that's all they've got.

JKJ,

LOL!

Still at it?

(Change the record...we're all getting drowsy)

Hi Poirot,

Gosh that's clever ! I'm sure you can't wait to tell your besties in Year 8, they'll wet themselves.

Any chance of getting back to the topic ? i.e. the actual meat of the topic, instead of this silly schoolgirl sniping and wounded-goose diverting ? I'm sure you might have something to actually say, although I could be wrong.

Just trying to help :)

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth,

Oh, golly gee, you'll have to excuse my shutting down JKJ's generic twaddle - which he trots out ad nauseam on this forum.

I'm trying real hard in "Sarcasm 101" to try and emulate the great Joe Lane.

I don't think it's possible to reach those heights...but it's worth a try.

JKJ and Loudmouth - two of our sterling debaters on OLO - each with a device they employ repeatedly - and neither of them enjoy being called out on their spiel.

Just trying to help :)

Cheers,

JKJ (or whatever your name is this week) I have answered your questions.
You asked if I supported aggressive violence, I answered.
You asked about the legitimate role of government, I answered.
Why do you not answer my questions?
Where have I ever supported violence?
Where have I ever advocated aggression?
Where have I ever suggested that elected governments are "presumptively better than your freedom to make the decision in question, or not?"
Surely with your intellectual integrity, answering these questions without misrepresentation shouldn't be too challenging.
And one last question:
Care to do a word count on who has been most verbally abusive on this thread?

Jadrine K. Jardine,

"That assumes that the opponent's is motivated is to find out the truth, or at least to identify what's false, by rational discourse.

But what if they're not?

What if you can show that what they're saying is untrue, and self-contradictory, and fallacious, and unethical by their own standards, and violent?"

Leave them alone. Don't engage with those people.

All this is being discussed on the new Climate Etc. thread. http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/15/how-to-criticize-with-kindness/
Why not join in there. You'll get a lot more out of it than here. There are plenty of intelligent Aussies involved too (and UK, Canada, NZ, and various European's as well). They are far more knowledgeable then most of the inhabitants of OnlinOpinion. Of course it deteriorates from time to time too.

Don Aitkin posted this on his web site some months ago: "How (not) to argue"
http://donaitkin.com/how-not-to-argue/

The flow chart he linked to is interesting:
http://twentytwowords.com/a-flowchart-to-help-you-determine-if-youre-having-a-rational-discussion/

Hi Poirot,

Not sure if what you say is on-topic, but I guess it's your best shot :)

Global warming: Is the pause continuing ? For how much longer ? Is the 'homogenisation' of data legitimate or not ? There does seem to be a case that it may not be.

Population: I try to assume that people are assets, not deficits. Some more so than others, of course, Poirot. But women with education seem to be the drivers of population control, along with compulsory, universal education generally.

Population reduction: yes, if it's handled in such a way that nobody has to be killed off, that people are able to live out the fullness of their years as life-conditions improve and to live longer, and that there are therefore more older people to be supported by working people; and that any reduction in birth-rates takes into account that those young people will grow up and have tov support the older population through their working lives.

So any population reduction program would have to be extremely careful not to cut back too quickly on the number of young people, i.e. on the birth-rate. Something like 0.01 % to 0.1 % p.a. reduction in birth-rates would mean, eventually, a reduction in the number of working people of 0.4 to 4 % every fifty years to work effectively, without putting any extra burden on the shoulders of either working people or older people.

Of course, that's after populations could be stabilised, which may take a century or two, depending on how long it will take to ensure that women universally get a good education.

So, starting, let's say, from about 2200, population may be halved from nine or ten billion, about every thousand years. That's not taking into account the multitude of technological advances every thousand years.

So pipe-dreams of a total population of five hundred million may take ten thousand years, IF future generations think it's worth doing.

But probably not in our lifetimes :)

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Good contribution, Joe!

I'd missed Joe's comments. Apologies to Joe and to any other rational, pragmatic, realists I may unintentionally have grouped with the nutters.

With regard to population, the Devil is in the Detail.
I would suggest treating global demography as homogenous is as misleading as suggesting anyone who disagrees with the hawks in the current American administration must “hate Americans” (Ron and Rand Paul for instance are spearheading a growing movement to bring ALL American troops home).
Japan currently anticipates a 50% reduction in population by the end of the century. Likewise, China -based on current fertility rates- could see a reduction from a peak of 1.44 billion around 2025 to 865 million by century's end. In Eastern Europe, some countries are declining by .8% a year. America's growth is around zero and predicted to fall -absent immigration.
Almost all the rapid population growth is occurring on the African continent. These stats. Clearly support the view that a high standard of living -including education and low infant mortality rates- is the best remedy for population growth.
All current projections indicate a quite rapid population decline within the next 2 centuries; more quickly if we can alleviate poverty in Africa, and convince women in these poorest countries -particularly Muslim women- of the advantages of birth control (In India only 36% of Muslim women practice modern birth control methods, compared to better than 50% for Hindus).
Compulsory education can have quite rapid effects on fertility rates even in this generation. In poor agrarian cultures children to work the land are an obvious asset, whereas keeping children at school can be a significant economic liability -as anyone who has children in this country would know.
As for Climate, although there has been a significant reduction in the rate of global atmospheric temperature increase in recent years, 9 out of the 10 hottest years on record have still occurred this century, during this so called 'pause'. The temperature of the oceans has continued to rise unabated. The mass warms the air more than the air warms the mass.

Grim,

You're spot on with respect to over-population: see (but you probably know this stuff anyway) http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/01/world_population_may_actually_start_declining_not_exploding.html

As for warming seas, you might like to read my post today at www.donaitkin.com

Hi Grim,

"Japan currently anticipates a 50% reduction in population by the end of the century."

Isn't it fun to play Supreme Leader ? To decide the fate of billions ?

So how has Japan gone so far, with its slightly decreasing population ? What impact has declining population - combined with a growing population of retired people - had on the economy there, and on the tax-base paid for by a relatively declining number of working people ? What methods might be required to cut the population in half in the next 85 years ?

After all, you can't somehow cut the number of older people - they live out their lives without any fear of Solent green.

And you can't cut back on the number of working people (they're already born), since they provide the tax revenue to support government services, support for those older generations, infrastructure and mechanisms to keep boosting the economy.

So you can't really cut back to hard on the birth-rate, since those babies will need to grow up to support ever-more older people.

BUT the obvious way around your dilemma is to intensify, to boost technology, to improve productivity. How to do that ? Better education, more efficient use of resources. Peace in the North Pacific and North Asia would allow funds to be put into education, innovation and infrastructure rather than into military spending, after all.

And if those silly issues between China and other Asian countries could be resolved equitably and peacefully, then that would also enable China to handle its population-reduction scenario a bit better, because I suspect the current scenario of one-child families will produce catastrophic results from, say, 2025-2030: relatively suddenly, very few younger people to go into either the work-force or the armed forces, while older populations grow rapidly, at least for another generation or two.

No easy ways, Grim :) No cutting of a Gordian knot, no Solent Green solutions, no culling of babies. No grand utopian plans of Supreme Leaders.

Joe

Thanks, Don, that's a brilliant article on future demography !

But sometimes, in my more cynical moments, I suspect the over-pops know very well that populations in developed countries are not rising, and are usually declining: even in the US and Australia, if immigration (so often of young people just starting their families) is taken out of the picture.

So what are the over-pops really worried about ? Putting on my Arjay-paranoid hat, I suspect that what they don't like is not just a decline in white populations, but any expansion of those non-white populations. Simple as that. They worry about too many black people.

Get stuck in, Greens :)

Another factor in population reduction is the 'turnover time' between generations. Look at it this sway: if every woman had her kids at 20 to 25, then there would be three to four generations alive at any one time, with one just departing and another just arriving. But if women delay their child-bearing, as educated women are more likely to do, until they are, say, 33-40, then there may be only 2+ to 3 generations alive at any one time. Merely in this way, population could slowly decline.

In fact, how to maintain an optimal population may become the issue: I'm sure it's been tried before but once that time comes, governments may have to contemplate very high social funding for second and third children. Watch Singapore to see what might be done.

Joe
www.firstsources.info

What a remarkably polite post Loudmouth.
Now perhaps you might like to explain why I'm acting as a “Supreme Leader” for quoting the same statistics as provided by Don's “brilliant article on future demography”?

Yes, sorry, Grim, I read too much into what seemed a too-ready declaration of massive population reduction in Japan. In future, I'll read your posts more thoroughly.

Just one observation about population: my wife was Indigenous, the eldest of six girls and four boys. They all started having their own kids from the late sixties, and between them, they had twenty children: a birth-rate of 2.0. i.e. an average of two children per family.

My wife ran a pre-school in an Aboriginal community across the mid-seventies and it seemed that, even there, family size had declined remarkably since the decade before. I'd hazard a guess and suggest that this was common across Indigenous Australia - a decline in family size around 1966-1970, from families of six and eight and ten and twelve, quite common in the forties and fifties, down to two and three.

Why ? Urbanisation may be one factor. Access to contraception, especially the Pill and the loop, would certainly be another. Far better education across those years from 1950 to 1980-1990, especially for women, has become the most important factor since the sixties. In short, population reduction factors impact on women far more than on men.

Of the 36,0000 or so Indigenous university graduates, two-thirds are women - 24,000. Anecdotally, those women don't seem to have fewer kids than their sisters, but they do seem to have them later. As well, they tend to inter-marry at a higher rate (as do Indigenous male graduates) and inter-marriage is one major factor in increasing the Indigenous birth-rate, two for the price of one, as it were.

Joe

Perhaps you should consider a cuppa and a little lie down, Grim; you seem to be foaming at the mouth there

That's the standard of argument constantly coming from you, reflected back to you.

Do you find it persuasive?

Answer? Yes? No?

You accuse me of irrationality. Do you have the gall to claim that as some kind of rationally valid contribution? Yes? No?

"Oh thank the Lord, Peter Wing Ah Jardine Lo Fat has raised his gaze from under the bed to rescue us.

Now with your new-found understanding that ad hominem is fallacious, can you see that there is nothing of substance in what you opened your discussion to me with, is there? According to what you now acknowledge as the valid standard, it's abuse, isn't it?

Yes? No?

"How lucky we are to have the Global Financial Military Industrial Complex, to save us from the Evil that is Democratically elected Government."

Who was suggesting we have the GFMIC to save us from the ETISEG? If you're implying it was me, how can that be anything but the kind of misrepresentation you're complaining about when I reflect it back to you? Show me where I have ever argued how lucky with are to have the GFMIC? And what has that to do with the arguments for liberty?

"your ideological support for the corporatisation of the planet"

You ask me to justify my accusing you of that.

Excuse me? That's the misrepresentation you threw in my face, remember? You're asking me to correct your misrepresentations. You justify it.

And what's that supposed to mean anyway? You don't want to buy goods or services from corporations? What are you talking about?

"and profound hatred of freely elected governments is irrational"

What's that supposed to mean? Prove it.

“Government ought to protect the individuals within the country against the violent and fraudulent attacks of gangsters, and it should defend the country against foreign enemies.”

How is that inconsistent with classic liberalism or libertarianism, or consistent with any other government control of production or consumption? Why are you not contradicting yourself.

Can you see that supporting that is inconsistent with what you falsely called "FREE" education? It's inconsistent with any governmental services but those to protect liberty and property.

"JKJ (or whatever your name is this week) I have answered your questions."

Still confusing the merit of an argument with the name of the person putting it forward?

And yet you've already acknowledged the invalidity of ad hominem in this thread. So in other words, you know that what you're doing is irrational, and you just keep on doing it.

"Where have I ever suggested that elected governments are "presumptively better than your freedom to make the decision in question, or not?"

In accusing me of irrational hatred of elected government, when all I have ever done is put forward the arguments for freedom from aggressive violence by government.

"Surely with your intellectual integrity, answering these questions without misrepresentation shouldn't be too challenging."

You need to cure yourself of your vice of prefacing every post with snide ad hominem, and snide misrepresentations, and then I'll answer any question you want.

"And one last question:
Care to do a word count on who has been most verbally abusive on this thread?"

You seem to expect that you will just constantly abuse me every single post, and I'll politely ignore it and try to answer the substance of your argument, while you just continue with your personal argument and misrepresentation every time.

No. You learn to respond to ideas like a civilised human being and you will find you're not having to cop any of your own abuse reflected back to you, which is all you're complaining about from me.

This comment was just posted by Faustino (a retired Aussie economist, educated at LSE, and was adviser to prime ministers and premiers in Australia) on Climate Etc.

Faustino | September 17, 2014 at 9:55 pm | Reply
And as I commented, “the greatest impact on reduced family size is from economic growth. As Jane Austen might have said, “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a family in possession of a good fortune has fewer children.”” If anti-emissions policies slow growth, they will delay the reduction in family size. Anyone advocating both lower emissions and smaller families is self-contradicting.

For those who want to control the world's population growth rate and peak population, here's how (A Hans' Rosling video): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezVk1ahRF78

Over and over again in this commentary, we read about the 'education' of women as the main factor in decreasing population growth. This is also Hans Rosling's premise in Peter Lang's link above.

But what we're really talking about here is not 'education' of women, but 'liberation' of women from the patriarchy. When women are released from the patriarchal dictate that they were put on this earth to be, first and foremost, objects of men's desire, before moving on to being men's wives and the mothers of men's children, they race for the exits and stampede everything in their path.

Women in societies that have relaxed their patriarchal stranglehold over women's lives will opt for fewer children, regardless of whether they are well educated or not. You don't need an education to teach you that multiple motherhood is a one-way ticket to eternal servitude and self-negation.

Killarney
And do you equally support men's right to be liberated from the patriarchy, and all its traditional obligations?