David Shearman-- continued
There are a lot of angry responses. Perhaps On- line is a safety valve for those who are generally angry. Look guys, vituperation doesn’t help make a reasonable argument. You are barking at situations that don’t exist. I am neither a green-zealot nor a Neocon and though I support lifelong education I don’t take to my compulsory re-education as suggested by a purported democrat. My views are tempered by being a life-long physician (please no barking about doctors—yes there are good and bad ones) I support democracy and hand out how to vote cards for middle of the road candidates. I cherish our liberties but recognise their problems. I have worked for the IPCC as a physician because at the end of the day climate change is a health problem. Let me say to you that climate change is already affecting the health and well being of many peoples around the world and also in Australia and we need to examine all means of dealing with it more effectively. I believe that it is good to identify who you are when making statements and I say to those who have troubled to respond, send me your name and email and I will be happy to correspond with you.

To a modest forum participant, the most arguable constituent of an article is a notion of "liberal democracy" as author himself was absolutely right writing “We don’t have to support Mr Mugabe to be able to use some authoritarian decision making processes when necessary.”

I ask no excuse if a real situation with democracy and human rights in Australia
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/03/355817.shtml

had been beyond Dr. D. Shearman’s personal acquaintance - doctor stated, “You are barking at situations that don’t exist”: denying undeniable, which is a natural process of a climate change, is seemingly his very original, grounded concern for writing an article discussed.

Dr. Shearman,

It may be politically incorrect to say so, but stopping population growth is fundamental to addressing the problem of climate change. About 80% of the greenhouse gases currently in the atmosphere are due to the developed countries, but per capita emissions in these countries declined by 12% on average between 1990 and 2001.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/18/1087245110190.html

In the early 1970s, when the US population was about 200 million, US fertility rates dropped back to replacement level. If you google the Numbers USA site you will find a graph showing that the US population would now be about 240 million if they had continued the pre-1965 policy of approximately zero net immigration. (The extra 40 million are due to momentum from earlier high fertility, as I explained in my previous post.) The actual US population is now 300 million. Most of these 60 million additional migrants represent a net global increase in emissions. Apart from a few missionaries, no one emigrates to reduce his or her consumption.

Some years ago, Paul Harrison wrote an article in New Scientist saying that stopping population growth is the only hope of solving our environmental problems, because the bottom fifth of humanity needs to increase its consumption and the middle three fifths are not going to be content with the odd bicycle or radio.

You tell me what measures you propose to fix climate change, and I will calculate just how long it will take for population growth at current rates to wipe out any benefit.

But Divergence, you're assuming that our current forms of technology, which generate massive amounts of waste and pollution, are the only ones capable of providing the services that make our standard of living what it is.

There's absolutely no justification for believing this, and every reason for accepting that global population growth up to at least 9 billion by the middle of century is inevitable, even if birth rates gradually drop to below replacement level in that time.

It will not be possible for 9 billion of us to use the technology we use now to provide high standards of living. There are pretty much three choices:

a) Forcible sterilisation and euthanasia of a significant portion of the population
b) Allow standards of living to drop dramatically for most of the world's population, with no chance of allowing those already at the lowest level to improve
c) Adopt and use technologies in a manner that allows a high standard of living, but that don't consume unsustainable amounts of resources and produce unsustainable amounts of waste and pollution.

Fortunately, there is every bit of evidence that c) is entirely feasible from a technical perspective, even if it does mean pinning a certain amount of hope on not-yet-perfected technologies. It's almost entirely a political problem at this point.

(cont.)

(cont. from above)

I don't assume that c) means that nobody currently used to first-world high-consumption standards of living will have to change their lifestyles. But there's every reason to believe that many of the lifestyle changes necessary will actually improve our overall quality of life. Certainly my personal experience has been just that - I now work from home 5 days a week, and I pay for 100% renewable energy. My quality of life has gone up considerably in recent years, yet my "ecological footprint" has more than halved in size. Yes, I am incredibly fortunate that I've been able to achieve this with no major effort, but a lot more people could easily do the same or similar. I also accept that halving is not enough, and that achieving further reductions will mean some deliberate sacrifices, some that might be initially painful. But I expect that it will also come from manufacturers finding more efficient and less wasteful ways of providing consumer products and services. A combination of the two should feasibly allow me to halve my ecological footprint again over the next decade. If I can reduce my footprint by 75% in 10 years, then it's not so unreasonable to expect that Australians on average could do so over 20 years. Even if Australia's population grows by 20% in that period, then Australia's total footprint has still decreased by 70%.

A typically racist, xenophobic, nazi replay by wizofaus is a perfect example of an ANGLO-mentality of so-called "true blue Australians" as one could easy understand.