I will respond to the Wilkins Ice Shelf comment as it has reminded me about this particular piece of nonsense. There are some people who have decided that the change in this shelf is evidence of warming. As temperatures globally have been going down not up, I'm not sure what changes in a particular region are meant to prove. In fact, I seem to recall several similar bulletins over the years about this bit of the antarctic and that part of the antarctic collapsing, only to be told later that the actual area of ice had not changed. Changes in the summer sea ice around the Artic have been far more pronounced and for that there are two competing explanations (One is higher temperatures but, as noted, they are globally going down not up; the other concerns cyclic changes in ocean currents.) There was a recent paper in Nature which "proved" that human activities had influenced temperatues in the Artic but, as I understand it, this did not mean they were necessarily much higher just different. There have been statements in newspaper articles that temperatures in the Antartic are higher but I would greatful if anyone could point me to a dataset - actual measurements - from which such a conclusion could be drawn.
Those who point to the antartica and greenland supposedly melting faster than usual also have to explain away the recordings to the Topix satellite run by the University of Colorado (will supply link if you want, don't have it on me). This measures sea levels globally and, again, sorry, the results of recent years are the exact opposite of what the models forecast.

Mark Lawson, referred to “Overloading Australian” by Mark O’Connor & William but didn’t do it justice.

O’Connor&Williams contend that the overpopulation is the root cause of many of our conflicts .

Afghanistan:
“a dramatic example of this occurred in 2002 [in] Afghanistan , prior to the US launching its war on the Taliban . Millions of refugee began to pour out of the country ….the sudden flood of refuges had had little to with the Taliban , or the war– they were peasants fleeing a famine…the famine was caused by drought , at least partly; but the drought was not unprecedented. What was unprecedented was the vast population that was now trying to feed itself in those cold upland valleys…Afghan women were averaging over 6 children each. As a result the amount of land sown to grain per person had fallen to a miniscule 0.02 of a hectare”

Rwanda:
“Between 1950 and 1990, Rwanda population tripled from 2.1 million to 6,8 million. The per capita grain land available fell to 0.03 hectares…rapid population led to farm fragmentation , land degradation ,deforestation ,and famine. These stresses ignited the undercurrent of ethnic strife in the early 1990s…Most Western reports misrepresent the killing as a race war between Hutus & Tutsis, even though much of the killing was related to land, not race – with killer very often from the same group as the victims”

Burma:
“The devastation caused by Cyclone Nargis in the Ayeyarwady Delta in Myanmar(Burma) , in 2008 resulted from the massive destruction (due to human over-population) of the mangroves that once protected the delta from such events. But that explanation was too complex for the commercial channels and didn’t fit ABC or SBS ideology.”

The Solomon Islands:
“The classic signs are present . The islands have one of the worlds higher population growth rates. Partly fuelled (as in so many Pacific islands ) by irresponsible religious sects, and are on course to double in 24 years. Hence one ethnic group , the Malaitans , had little choice but to squat on the ‘unoccupied’ lands of other tribes”

If-you-can-find-a-copy- it’s-well-worth-a-read.

Curmudgeon: "imagine what Australians in the 1930s would have said about a population of 20M plus in 2009. At the time, remember, there was a serious topsoil erosion problem"

Don't know about you, Curmudgeon, but when I see topsoil erosion, or salinity, or pests the first cause that pops into my mind is "poor farming practices", not population. Reducing the population simply ain't going to solve those problems, so I doubt people at the time thought it would - despite your assertions to the contrary.

The problem now is resource exhaustion - we have run out of water in some cities, and in some farming areas. It is certain petroleum will become very expensive soon, and it also looks likely coal will peak this century. LPG almost certainly will. The first thought that springs to mind when you see evidence of resource exhaustion is "better keep an eye on the population". Although not to you, apparently. You just go into denial.

And I don't understand why you keep saying droughts are a natural phenomena. I agree Queensland's dry spell was just that - a drought. Even those "AGW fanatics" in the BOM said so at the time. But what on earth does that have to do with population? Yes droughts are normal. People over-populating then dying like flies during a drought is pretty normal too, yet it sounds like that is what you are advocating.

Leigh, what has happened man? I've seen two well reasoned and pretty persuasive posts from you recently. Most uncharacteristic.

Seriously, what is wrong with this man when he perpetuates the lie that global temperatures are down and when presented with the scientific evidence, that combined land and sea temperatures are up, he ignores it?

“Adaptation,” is the new cliché for the delay and divide brigade who remain indifferent to the creeping white death, desertification, extreme drought or water shortages where this nation must also find sufficient water to provide for 125 million sheep and cattle.

Rather the "adaptation" cabal prefer to instruct us to “go forth and multiply” despite the fact that increased populations equals unbridled development which means developers will rush to precious water supplies and drain aquifers for sprawling new towns, golf courses and swimming pools.

Water shortages are occurring around the planet and often where water is available, it is heavily contaminated from over population by humans and livestock and hazardous emissions from pollutant industries.

Water shortages are striking mainland Europe too where Barcelona must now import water from France and in the Spanish province of Murcia, where prosperity is on the rise, farmers are fighting with developers over water rights. Across Spain, average surface temperatures have gone up by 1.5 degrees Celsius compared with 0.8 globally, and rainfall is expected to decrease by 20 percent by 2020.

Scientists are warning that 50% of the world's nations will be hit by water shortages by 2025 and 75% by 2050, a result of warming.

Seemingly, Mark Lawson knows something the scientists don't when he insists that we must continue to “populate or perish!”

How about arguing for population growth/reduction/stsbilisation on the basis of benefit? Along these lines, Mark Lawson might also have commented on schemes such as that advocated by the La Rouche inspired Citizens Electoral Council. Arguing this issue on a statistical platform only avoids the need to offer substantial reasons.

Off topic:

Mark, Curmudgeon, at home or anywhere else - re: Wilkins

Please, it is obvious to those trained in (and whose vocation is) the dynamics of atmosphere/ocean coupled systems that you are blowing smoke.

For example, you clearly don't understand anything about ocean heat capacity, its inertia, or the effects on ocean and atmospheric currents (sea or wind) - let alone temperatures (sea or air).

Your pseudo-scientific understanding of 'climate-science' is woeful. Unfortunately, people can be 'taken in' by your guff, particularly if they are fearful of the consequences of global warming.

I don't think you are stupid ... so why are you being deliberately obtuse?

______

Protogoras

Individuals (and societies) will need to adapt to the creeping consequences of climate-change :-) Some will be better able to than others. Some species will not be able to adapt, they will be lost.

I understand where you are coming from. Adaptation alone is not enough. We must find a way to live and grow (not population-wise) in a more sustainable way. This alone will help mitigate against an exponential growth in GHG's due to the misuse of our energy resources and poor land management practices.

Back on topic, anyone?