Michael Crichton's piece http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html of some years ago is worth a read if you don't know it. He draws attention to the similarities between the debates around global warming and the prediction of other global catastrophes. His analysis has much in common with Julian Cribb's piece on the Muzzling of Science: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4264

It seems that some of the posters do not yet realize that the population explosion is aready over. The population of the world will peak around the middle of this century and then decline.
The populations of developed countries are mostly already in decline – especially those of Europe.

Owen could be partly right,although the "population explosion" could hardly be said to be over - when predictions are for another 3 billion by 2050.
It is hard to be sure what the figures will be by mid-century. Human numbers currently are increasing steadily at over one per cent per year, increasing the planetary load with more than 70 million with each passing year. That is in spite of 2 billion humans still being below breeding age, unable yet to make their own contribution to the increase.
Any civilised person would hope for a decline: there is already so much human distress caused by our presently excessive numbers.
The great pity is that such decline will probably be due to nature's dealing with plague species in the usual harsh way.
The possibility of the necessary decline being in an orderly, civilised, and comapssionate manner is being bitterly opposed by religious fundamentalism. The fundamentalism which controls George W. Bush's administration in its attitude to human fertility; that fundamentalism which is similarly in charge in the Vatican; and that which pervades all too much of the Muslim world. Under the pressure of these, the projected 9 billion peak for humanity could fall short with a clunk from environmental factors - regardless of what good work Peter Doherty and his colleagues can achieve in the medical field.
There is indeed too much greed embodied in selfish faith.

How many trees have been cut down in the last 1000 years?
there is the answer to global warming.

Sorry, can't quite catch on, when going by Adam Smith, natural greed is needed to fire up competition. Indeed, anything that inspires us to win a race, climb a mountain, going by Smith's formula is the same as making a kill in marketing, as was Smith's main line.

So we might say that greed fits well in with Herbert Spencer's survival of the fittest concept, when as a businessman and friend of Darwin, he changed the name from survival of the animal species to survival of the fittest, which had the aging Darwin frothing at the mouth when Spencer and his crew made it socially and politically legit by changing it to Social Darwinism, along with Hegelianism not only justifying colonialism, and the much later Nazism, but also Theodore Roosevelt's excuse to grab all the Spanish colonies surrounding the USA bar Cuba, and also the Phillipines later as well as Hawai.

My goodness this greed can go on, especially when we can give it different names rather than imperialism or colonialism, now George W Bush is calling it freedom and liberty for the Iraqis, and indeed the whole Middle East But surely greed must come in somwhere, especially with Dick Cheney and his corporate oil buddies hanging around.

No way greed can be discarded, it is a major part of human nature.

Pollution reigns and will continue to while skeptics deny the damage done by pollutant industries. The "Precautionary Principle" is being ignored as industry continues to pump excessive pollution over communities, the oceans and into the environment. Until Australian regulators include limits on chemicals within a "Condition of Licence" the status quo will remain. How often have the discerning heard a regulator say when failing to prosecute: "There has not been a breach of Licence" being fully aware that they have omitted these conditions for reduced emissions from a licence, thereby rendering the Act, unenforceable. Governments are encouraging industries to pollute in their quest for profits and the EPA Act cannot be enforced until legislated regulations are part of a licence to operate! I have been examining various licences for several years now and I have also spent the good part of that time attempting to better understand the measurements of chemical emissions to air. These emissions are not for the faint-hearted! For those who claim that Climate Change is part of a conspiracy - they're dead right! Unfortunately, they have failed to identify the real culprits and are obviously blind to the "legalised" contamination and destruction of our health, land, sea and air. The occasional comments on pollution by our leaders is simply a ploy to distract from the real issues of uncontrolled releases of hazardous emissions in this country, encouraged by regulators' due to their failure to act in the best interests of the environment and public health. Citizens should be doing their own homework on pollution by requesting documented technical and emissions reports, and demanding a reduction of HAPS and an upgrade on pollution prevention control. They should be submitting formal complaints to their local Department of Environment when they witness pollution. They should not be put off by officers' innane gobbledegook, otherwise known as "bureaucratic speak" but demand answers in plain English. Community complacency has also contributed to the situation we are now in! It is time our "masters" ceased to regard the environment as an obstacle to economic success!