Banjo>>"I find it perculiar [sic] that population reduction was not discussed at Kyoto, Copenhagen or in the Indonesian talk fest. Too hard maybe? Unless we tackle the ever growing population anything else is simply moving the deck chairs."

Population is not discussed because obscenely wealthy and politically powerful organised religious corporations don't want it discussed.

Individual>>> "No tax can stop stupidity when the tax itself is borne of stupidity."

Absolutely correct. History indicates that no matter what warnings they receive, humans do not change course until overtaken by total disaster. All anyone can do is hope for the best and prepare for the worst and, if you can avoid it, stop breeding so you don't feel guilty about landing your descendants in the poo.

On another thread Lexi said, "The UN estimates that production will need to increase by
70 per cent by 2050 in order to meet the world population need".

This seems to come from the National Farmers federation, so I have little doubt this is what the UN believes. Thanks Lexi.

If that estimate is anywhere near right, it is obvious that starvation is a much bigger threat to humans than any change to climate. I think that is why China is now buying up huge chunks of farmland in Aus and Africa. There is no way we can increase food production by that much in 38 years.

So it will matter little if climate change is a natural occurance or human induced, the threat of starvation for millions is far greater.

We need to take action in reducung birth rates in the over populated countries and those that are subject to famine. I have little time for Iran but credit where credit is due, they have shown the world that lowering birth rate dramaticly is possible without draconian methods.

Instead of worrying or argueing about climate change, turn thoughts to population growth, it is not a falicy or a con job it is a real and growing problem. There is no doubt that it can be remedied.

Any reduction in population will have the added benefit of lowering the CO2 levels and is that not what the alarmists want?

Interesting post from elsware. It checks out on Snopes as well.

The Washington Post

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway.. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the Gulf Stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelt which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

I apologize, did I forget to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post - 88 years ago.

It's all just about a new tax isn't it!!

Yes it is!

Folks we do have a problem.

Over the past quarter century, pollution of the environment
has begun to threaten the ecological balance of the planet
and the health of many of its species, including ourselves.

I think we all recognise that the pollution problem is an
exceedinlgy difficult one to solve, for a variety of reasons.

Firstly, some people and governments see pollution as a regrettable
but inevitable by-product of desired economic development -
"Where's there's smoke, there's jobs."

Secondly, control of pollution sometimes requires international
co-ordination, for one country's emissions or pesticides can
end up in other countries' air or food.

Thirdly, the effects of pollution may not show up for many
years, so severe environmental damage can occur with little
public awareness that it is taking place.

Finally, preventing or correcting pollution can be costly,
technically complex, and sometimes - when the damage is
irreversible - impossible.

In general, the most industrialised nations are now actively
trying to find ways to limit the effects of pollution,
but the populous less developed societies are more concerned
with economic growth, and they tend to see the problem as
part of the price they have to pay for it.

I don't think that anybody would deny the fact that the planet
has a finite amount of resources or that it can tolerate
only a limited amount of pollution. If world population
continues to grow rapidly, if industrialisation spreads
around the world, and if pollution and resource depletion
continues at an increasing rate - and all these things
are happening - where is human society headed?

As I've stated in the past - the most optimistic answer to
these questions would be that, one way or another, sweeping
changes await all of us. To do nothing, doesn't seem like
an option that we have. Certainly not if we care about our
future generations and this planet.

history shows you have little to be worried about especially when the pseudo scientist have a quid to be made. In the 70's the scare from the scientist was the coming ice age, then we had the hole in the ozone, the the y2k bug and now it is gw. If a tithe of this religous money in the pockets of the High Priests and bureacrats had been spent on cleaning up the planet you probably would have very little pollution. Unfortunately the idiotic evolution fallacy allows many pseudo scientist to say what they like and the gullible swallow it again.They can tell you what the climate was 3 million years ago (yeah!) Can someone tell me what the next scare will be now that gw has been exposed to all but a few desperant followers and cheating Governments?

this thread starts with the typical wild assertion that 'every' climatologist believes in man-made global warming (or is it climate change, now that the warming isn't going as planned?).
What about the over 31 thousand American scientists, most of whom are climate scientists, or from very closely related fields, who have signed a petition against the theory?
See http://www.petitionproject.org/ for their names and qualifications.
If that list is only for American scientists, how many more worldwide do not believe the myth of man-made climate change?
We are being led into disaster by the blinkered and morally blind.