Pericles,

1/Wikipedia you quoted out of context when you said:

>>>You keep exhorting me to read your sources eclipse, but I wonder whether you actually read them yourself. Wikipedia clearly states:

"Overpopulation is not merely an imbalance between the number of individuals compared to the resources they need to survive, or a ratio of population over resources."

There goes "Resources / population = lifestyle!" Exclamation mark and all.<<<

This is where you are playing semantic games, and picking and choosing exactly which bits you are going to post that portray only your truth… when it is actually a minor qualification within the whole text! All your Wikipedia quote does is qualify the larger themes of the passage, much like my “All things being equal” is tacked onto “Resources / population = lifestyle!”

What Wikipedia does before qualifying the concept, is actually set up the concpet itself. Imagine that? When writing Pericles, people often have a ‘big idea’ that they explain, with a few explanatory notes. And what is the main concept?

“Overpopulation is not a function of the number or density of the individuals, but rather the number of individuals compared to the resources they need to survive. In other words, it is a ratio: population over resources. If a given environment has a population of 10, but there is food and drinking water enough for only 9 people, then that environment is overpopulated, while if the population is 100 individuals but there are food and water enough for 200, then it is not overpopulated.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation

So Pericles, how exactly does that fit in with your previous statement, “There goes "Resources / population = lifestyle!" Exclamation mark and all.”?

Quoting out of context is a High School trick. How old are you Pericles? Grow up.

2/I pointed to the SPA document for population policies, not your ignorant comments on global warming! Again you show how quickly you forget CONTEXT! What is this whole thread ABOUT Pericles! You demanded policies and they are all there.

3/ Domestic policy is necessary if global policy is impossible. Concede!

4/ Trolling again?

>>Quoting out of context is a High School trick<<

Is it my imagination eclipse, or are you running out of ideas?

You could equally describe my selection as simply a quote from the same source, but one that introduced a level of doubt, or realism, into the argument.

It is a common and understandable procedure, used by most fair-minded sources when they are dabbling in the unknown.

For example, the "Climate Change Projections for Australia" report that the SPA leans on so much for its ideas also takes a responsible approach:

"The projections are based on results from computer models that involve simplifications of real physical processes that are not fully understood. Accordingly, no responsibility will be accepted by CSIRO for the accuracy of the projections inferred from this brochure or for any person’s interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in reliance on this information."

Just in case you missed it, the key phrase here is "simplifications of real physical processes that are not fully understood".

Now, is that quoting in context, or out of context?

You need to employ a full "have-my-cake-and-eat-it" approach to ignore this disclaimer, while insisting that the remaining content of the report is incontrovertible.

>>I pointed to the SPA document for population policies...<

Before you conveniently forget, it was you who asked me to "engage the SPA document". You didn't say "just read the bits that support my arguments".

The SPA understands the linkage, even if you don't. They ask that

"[the Federal Government] provides incentives for energy efficiency to reduce Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions and thus its ecological footprint"

4/10. Must try harder.

Pericles wants to avoid the real discussion because he is getting flogged.

1/ He originally attacked my formula even though it contains a truth that ecologists use daily in their equations… overpopulation is a ratio of people to resources. Pericles even admitted that overpopulation would happen at some stage — even blind “Blind Freddie” could see that. However, he then proceeded to criticise the limitations of any formula, and all he did was end up highlighting qualifications. If people starve in wartime, it’s because of the war, not overpopulation. D'uh!

Pericles then misquoted Wikipedia’s ‘qualifications’ of the ecological formula as if those qualifications somehow DISPROVED the formula.

>>>“There goes "Resources / population = lifestyle!" Exclamation mark and all.<<<”

Nice try Pericles — however you only quoted a QUALIFYING statement, not a DISPROVING statement. Use a dictionary if you’re having trouble keeping up.
Ecology is actually based on some very simple ratios.

2/ Pericles then sneered at the very idea of drawing up population policy because of the difficulty of implementing it on an international basis. He demanded that I come up with a workable position. Just raising awareness of the claims of thousands of scientists is not enough, I had to have the solutions, and have a fallback position if no other nations co-operated.

Fine. I answered by referring to the SPA document. These are policies that can be implemented now because they are work on the domestic front, while ratifying various UN population protocols.

The SPA policies are so workable that Pericles now wants to divert the conversation onto Global Warming. Why? He’s not interested in the very real answers to the objectionable questions that he posed…. he’s not here to learn, but to criticise and troll.

Your diversions are becoming pathetic Pericles.

1/ Admit that ecology deals with ratios, and that you purposely quoted wikipedia OUT OF CONTEXT.
2/ Admit that domestic policies would be better than none.
3/ Admit that there is a UN population protocol that Australia could ratify.
4/ Admit that I quote reputable links to answer your questions, but you just avoid mine.

Not even a very good try this time, eclipse.

>>He originally attacked my formula even though it contains a truth that ecologists use daily in their equations… overpopulation is a ratio of people to resources.<<

Now that's a straight-out fib, my friend.

I attacked your pet slogan "Resources / population = lifestyle!". Lifestyle, whether you like it or not, is not synonymous with overpopulation.

They are two separate constructs. Two different ideas. But you conflate them to justify your position.

But you were caught out. Sorry. It happens when you are so convinced that your view is incontrovertible that you think you can pick up and use any passing piece of whimsy.

The rest of the diatribe is beneath contempt.

You suggest that I "sneered at the very idea of drawing up population policy", when I decided to question your flimsy logic and unworkable ideas.

You say that I "demanded that [you] come up with a workable position", when I pointed out the weaknesses and flaws in your banal prescription and puerile posturing.

You now come up with the idea that I "want to divert the conversation onto Global Warming", when it was a key part of the very document you insisted that I read.

It probably never occurs to you that there are people in the world who believe that discussion on important issues (such as, for example, the survival of the human race) should be conducted with honesty and integrity. You would far prefer to ponce around, wrapped in the flag, spouting meaningless slogans.

It obviously makes you feel warm inside to think you are doing such good works, warning the world of its impending doom and closing the borders to the foreign onslaught.

Which is why you react so badly to anyone who points out to you that there is actually another view of the world apart from your own.

We are dealing here with a heap of unknowns. But as usual, there is a bunch of vested interests who want us to follow their lead, simply to validate their existence, or perhaps, more importantly, their livelihood.

List, please note that again Pericles does not answer a single point or question I raised with him. He does not like the semantics of my particular formula and has a little rant, do you feel better now Pericles? But that’s about all he does… he does not admit that the whole science of overpopulation ecology is actually based on an even SIMPLER formula….
People / resources. Well well well… it’s a simple idea, therefore it must be patently false! Just like E = MC2 …. Too simple, must be wrong.

Pericles asked me to show him POLICIES! Nah, doesn’t want to discuss them… they might prove to be workable. So now he wants to divert into Global warming.

Fine. Both the previous and current scientific advisors to the Australian and British Prime Ministers hold that there is a scientific consensus emerging that global warming is anthropogenic. Sir David King, the chief scientific advisor to Tony Blair, told Quentin Dempster on Lateline that despite the terrorism attacks on London last year… climate change is STILL a far greater threat to national security and the lives of UK citizens than terrorism.

Global warming skeptics he said

1/ Armchair critics (that’s you Pericles) who know very little about the state of climate change science.

2/ Lobbyists who are paid to promote anti science on this issue for big industry.

3/ Serious scientists who challenge the details of the scientific consensus.

He said the bottom line is that scientists have egos, and they challenge each other all the time, they want to be right. The 2000 thousand or so serious climate scientists Sir David King knows of all AGREE that global warming is man made. (Imagine you and I coming to an agreement, 2000 times!)

Of the 3rd category of sceptics, David said there were only 2 real scientists he knew of that disagreed.

He did qualify his statement that there was not a consensus as to exactly how bad global warming might become — but that we are causing it is clear.

Now, back on topic. Please admit 1 — 4 above!

Looks as thought "this list", as you call it, has finally lost patience with your witterings and has voted with its collective feet.

You have to admit, you are sounding more desperate to prove something (but what, exactly?) with every post, and becoming less and less coherent in the process.

I notice - without surprise - that you have co-opted Sir David King to your cause. Of whom the Times economic editor recently wrote "[his policy supporters] are like the medieval monks who favored self-flagellation as the road to virtue. For a Government to enshrine such thinking in policy is truly perverse."

Sounds familiar. Your pitch here has been along much the same lines. The sky is falling, says Chicken Licken, so lets take refuge with the fox. It will hurt, but it is the only way to protect ourselves from those dratted falling skies.

Sir David has even fallen out with his supporters. The Guardian recently observed "he is failing in his duties as both scientist and adviser... As if to prove that his nerve has gone, on Friday Sir David made his clearest statement yet that he sees nuclear power as the answer to climate change."

You clearly understand little about UK politics, or you would see that King is simply Blair's attack dog on the topic of nuclear power generation, which is one of the environmental "legacies" that he would like to be remembered for. Pure politics, I'm afraid.

Much like your stuff, really.

The secret of making political statements – as opposed to engaging in productive discussion – is to avoid any admission that your arguments may be debatable, denigrate your opponents (whatever they say), stay “on message” even when this is logically insupportable, and twist your opponents' arguments until they are unrecognizable – but attribute them anyway.

You have indulged in all of these tactics, which was fun for a while, but is starting to become tiresome.

Until and unless you can inject a note of realism into your posts, I'm off to have fun elswhere. I'm sure Thermo or Ludwig are ranting away somewhere.