The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > There are no limits to growth: CSIRO says so > Comments

There are no limits to growth: CSIRO says so : Comments

By Ted Trainer, published 19/11/2015

The study contradicts head on the now enormous literature supporting the case that there are limits to growth.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All
How depressing.
Its like a plague of mice or locusts. We all know what happens to them when the food runs out.

What will it be for us? Famine? War? Disease? Drought? Flood? Fire?
All of the above?

Sadly my money is on war! We humans just cant help ourselves.
Posted by mikk, Friday, 20 November 2015 12:01:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Look" shouts the alarmist. The world's temperature has been going up since 1850 and that obviously isn't going to stop. We're all gunna die.

"Look" shouts the alarmist. Sure, world food production, both in absolute terms and calories per capita, has been going up since 1850 and that obviously is gunna stop next Tuesday week, We're all gunna die.

Chicken Little lives.
Posted by mhaze, Saturday, 21 November 2015 7:55:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Limits to Growth' ideas, systems, beliefs etc. are just that, it's not a tested theory whatever it is, it seems suspiciously convenient for those who thought it up....

Further, one can see significant contradictions e.g. just because one assumes economic growth is bad (and adhering to Ricardian/Malthusian solid state ideas of inputs/outputs based again on beliefs, without understanding future technologies, globalisation, service economy etc.), does not mean negative growth is good.

The only people who would benefit are the already wealthy elites, while everybody else are told they will be better off (according to elites) in a steady state nation state with an autarkist economy, monocultural society, no immigration and 'zero population growth'.

Question which wealthy industrialists sponsored the 'steady state' ideas via the Club of Rome's 'thinkers', with an interest in fossil fuels, phamaceuticals and banking? Those hippy socialist progressives the Rockefellers.
Posted by Andras Smith, Saturday, 21 November 2015 8:42:23 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mikk

"Sadly my money is on war! We humans just cant help ourselves"

Speak for yourself. Man has a program for peace and a program for war. We can choose which we activate.

Every time you advocate a state solution to anything - except perhaps defence against unprovoked aggression - you advocate using unprovoked aggression against your fellow man.

You actively advocate war all the time. Every single post that you have ever posted in here, that I have disagreed with, that has been the issue. And it has always been you advocating violent aggression.

The fact that you may not have understood this, owing to your brainwashing by the State - is no excuse, because I have explained it to you, and you choose to persist in error.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Saturday, 21 November 2015 9:21:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Its not my choice JKJ.
It is a logical inference from looking at the history of humankind.

I have never advocated war or violence. I am against war.

You are the one advocating the idiotic idea that taxation is violence and anything that stops you and your ilk making more money is akin to declaring war on you. It is you and your weird persecution complex that sees violence where none exists. Taxation and enforcement of laws is not violence. No one agrees with you and you just look like one of those stupid rednecks living in the mountains hiding from the "revenuers".

Its just greed and spitefulness. Not wanting to help those less fortunate than you.
Would you walk away from a drowning child? Would you be upset if people derided you for doing so? Expecting you to do the decent thing and save the kid? Or would that be violence against you as well?
Posted by mikk, Monday, 23 November 2015 9:22:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I switched off when the 2degree temperature increase was raised as a problem. Where did this 2C come from? It assumes that the current temperature scenario is somehow ideal, when we know from history that climatic warm periods (Medieval, Roman, Minoan etc.) during which temperatures exceeded this target and were periods of improved human welfare. Also none of the dire consequences so often associated with a higher temperature by AGW doom mongers were evident.

Note here that the starting point from which the 2C temperature rise target is measured is the period following the 'Little Ice Age'. It would be astounding if there were no natural increase in temperature when the planet was coming out of this cold period. The question is then, given natural climate factors, how can we limit nature to a 2C limit when history clearly shows natural increase can exceed this man-made limit.
Posted by Gerard, Monday, 23 November 2015 1:31:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy