jimoctec,

The problem with population control freaks is that they are arguing that what they have - life, for example - should not be available to others, as yet unborn.

Who decides who is to be allowed to breed? You? The UN Human Rights Committee?

Or are you suggesting that the entire human race be elminated for Gaia's sake?

I presume that, to be consistent, you have already deleted yourself from the gene pool in some way.

Inspired by this article I hereby pledge to fart less and eat more tofu (blindly presuming the two aren't mutually exlcusive). I know it's a small gesture but if we all do our own little bit then all together we will achieve greatness. Can we please henceforth move the discussion to flatulent free tofu recipes?

KenH,

A little work with a scientific calculator and some numbers from the CIA world factbook show that at our current Australian population growth rate of 1.8% we have 711 years to standing room only, one person on every square meter of Australian desert or coastal swamp. The global population of 6.7 billion at the same growth rate would have 3890 years and 6 months, if it were physically possible, to a solid ball of people (assuming 50 kg per person) with a radius equal to that of the solar system (the average distance of Pluto from the sun). When do you suggest that we stop worrying about the rights of potential people, given that world food stocks are now at their lowest level in 50 years, most of the 6.7 billion people we have already are living in dire poverty, and climate change is only one of the factors indicating that we are degrading and depleting our environmental life support systems? Or are you one of those people who think that God will intervene with a miracle or that the end of the world is imminent, so that it won't matter?

“And it had nothing to do with carbon emissions and everything to do with the sun -"

Cheryl

Is the sun responsible for Britain being accused of underestimating the health risks from shipping pollution where one giant container ship can emit almost the same amount of cancer chemicals (carbon based) as millions of cars?

Is the sun responsible for the Irk River in the UK which is so polluted it is currently completely covered in a white foam?

What about in Minnesota US alone, where 37,000 miles of rivers and streams are so polluted, the water is unfit for human consumption? Did the sun do that?

Or the massive number of drums of toxic and radioactive waste washed up from the Indian Ocean onto 15 beaches in Somalia after the tsunami, where the villagers, who attempted to open the containers were killed, burned or contaminated by the waste? Were these drums dumped by France, the UK, the US, elsewhere or by the sun?

Why would you hold the sun responsible for some 200 de-oxygenated dead zones of areas where algal blooms have been triggered by nutrients from sources including carbon based fertilizer run off, sewage, animal wastes and atmospheric depositions from the burning of fossil fuels, which has removed oxygen from the water?

Is the sun responsible for several of Australia's rivers now on life support – or is it a result of carbon based fertiliser run-off, farm wastes, fossil fuel depositions, dioxins and heavy metals from pollutant industries?

“Rock structures?” - “anti-scientific push?” - "the sun?" Please explain.

I read so often comments for and against climate change. The comments can be pretty vitriolic from those who are better off, even in our own country.

I see answers perhaps more simplistically or pragmatic if you like.

We taught our children that we are not the owners of our planet, merely the present users of the resources and therefore must practice good husbandship (farming practices) and leave the planet in better shape than when we enherited it. Destroy it and you fail our future generations.
Sadly, due to greed, this has not happened. Self interest rules our societies. If we seek methods, etc. that will reduce waste and conserve resources then we have the opportunity to leave the planet in good shape for our future generations. We can help those who are located in vulnerable countries to obtain a better quality of life, but we need to change our attitudes to those who need help. Vested interests worldwide are not interested in long term initiatives, merely short term gains. We all need to work together for the common goal of safegarding the earth's resources, whether water, minerals or the environment.
regards professori_au

Divergence,

You're obviously nutter with a calculator and a swag of moronic assumptions about what might happen in the next 700+ years.

I'll bet you're a climate modeller.