Elena, for some reason the link from your blog does not work.

Here's the direct link to the vid, until you mend it:
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-1282796533661048967&q=earthlings

Cheers mate -

Sorry I didn't say that Kjell Aleklett works for petrol companies but he is repeating the same things that their scientifics say: either that the global warming is not happening or fosil fuels don't have anything to do with it. In Spain some birds like storks don't migrate to Africa anymore because the weather is warm enough to stay, tropical insects are invading non-tropical areas like the tiger mosquitoe in Spain too, even politicians like Bush and Puting admit that it's happening.
As I say the global warming is not something that might happen in the future is happening now (I wish I were wrong). Please have a look to this page:
http://staffwww.fullcoll.edu/tmorris/elements_of_ecology/chapter_29.htm
My blog is: http://saveourbushland.blogspot.com/ I hope it works this time :)
Thank you.

OK Elana,
What is important is why he is saying that fossil fuels
will deplete before global warming's worse effects arrive.
If you read the article more closely you will see how the different
IPCC scenarios are analysed and the reality of the available fuel is applied.
This is what the IPCC should have done itself.

There have been other critisms of the IPCC report but I have no opinion
of those critisms.

This critism however is simple enough, its just simple arithmetic.

Most posters seem to be motivated by the question:How can we protect the planet for our children?

But NEITHER climate change, nor global warming, nor solid fossil fuels are climaxing threats mankind faces. Human overpopulation coupled with diminishing oil supplies, future-energy-research mishandling and wars over fresh-water will climax by 2025(penatgon reports)

Is it such a shock that the real question is:

How can we protect the planet FROM our children?

The ugly Reality, for many, worse than looking into the gorgon's eyes is that it is far more important to human survival that we reduce the number of bums-on-toilet seats (heavy-duty thermodynamic wastestreams) across the planet rather than atmospheric gases. The ratio of solid wastes to gaseous wastes in individuals is roughly the same in any industrial or agricultrural investment. To tell people to breathe less and forget about building sewers would unarguably lead to a sudden demise of mankind. The same is true for large industries, transport and agriculture. Now that oceans have reached palpable limits to their ability to handle human sewage we are faced with that very scenario.

Only one-child policies for ALL nations will prevent devastation of our species by about 2025. That only countries like China should have a one-child policy is at best racist and at worst a recipe for world war within two decades.

In summary, we only have about two decades to come up with scientific solutions to the overpopulation problem.Climate change is just one side effect of overpopulation. IMHO we are going to need at least 100 years to solve the overpopulation problem scientifically rather than futilely attempt to solve it militarily. In the meantime we MUST take the pressure off existing energy supplies, wastewater sink capacity and civil infrastructures with an our-child and NOT a selfish 'our-children' motivation.

The current 20 year window of grace is already closing in on us at the global net rate of 100 million 'our-children' a year, while the concern for our-children increasingly
becomes more a liability than an asset.

ITS ALL THERMODYNAMICS ---- and the muti-headed hydra (our-children) will have no mercy.

Well Kaep you are right of course.
The rise in world population tracks the rise in cheap energy exactly.
One child policies would be a good answer. China has implemented it but
with great difficulty. I suspect only a totalatarian government could
get away with it.
The raising of living standards certainly helps as can be seen here in
Australia and Europe. However it is impossible for the rest of the
world to reach our living standard. It just won't happen.

So with that in mind how else could the population be decreased without
the massive starvation that will occur as reduced oil supplies reduces
food production ?

This of course is the well known "Die off" prediction that no one
wants to see. Can the population be allowed to sag down with aging
fast enough to keep it in track with the available energy ?

That really is the big question for this century.

Sorry,

Don't agree about the 20 year grace period. The world is already in a state of overshoot in terms of population. We might have been able to do something about it if we started in the 1970s but we missed that chance. Saudi women have an average of 6 children. US population just topped 300 million and they are now a net food IMPORTER (in $ terms I think). World grain production is now failing to meet demand due to population growth and that is BEFORE we factor in the move of the US and others to biofuels and the coming effects of oil production decline and climate change.

The only thing we can be reasonably certain of is that, by 2100 (and probably much sooner) there will most likely be less than a billion of us left. Mother Nature will take care of that.

I am a member of the Greens but, when I first took up the issue of population, I was labelled an "Ecofascist" and worse by other Greens. It is also not widely known that the Greens almost dropped their (pissweak) population policy at last year's policy review. (Someone in Nettle's office simply decided it was too contentious to put up in the draft new policy package. It was only rear-guard action that led to retention of the policy.) So if the Green's can't even face up to the central need to control population, what hope is there for the rest of the world?