"....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