Hi Bazz,

I didn’t mention any names when I referred to “dumb questions” in order to avoid your embarrassment. But if you are stepping up to it, that’s fine.

Would you by any chance be the same Bazz that said << Really to get on such a high horse over such a simple question seems very strange indeed>> , whilst previously picking out my typo in a previous post when you said << Spindoc, what is the UCFCCC ? Don't think I have seen that acronym previously >>.

You clearly don’t do hypocrisy, so get your Mum to look it up for you.

I also put four typo’s for you in Para. 4 of my last post but you missed all those didn’t you? That’s because you don’t read at all, you just “feel”.

If you really don’t know the origins of the UNFCCC, the IPCC, Agenda 21 or the Club of Rome, look them up rather than going off half cocked. I suspect from your posts that you read much but sadly, you comprehend little.

If you aspire to be a smart arse at least try to be a good one.

Well not much point in being polite here is it ?

Spindoc I was once told that they way we sometimes talk to or about one another is known and surprising to some.
Well I am no different but do you want to own those words.
The ones you applied to us believers?
No site can avoid this question.
Why do we so often need to display our heated views about posters who we disagree with.
[note I am doing just that I charge you with in another thread]
Mate know while I respect you I without any doubt truly think you are not going to like the coming ten years as climate change deniers will be proved wrong.

The biggest catastrophe facing the world is overpopulation. The present number of people on the planet, over 7 billion and growing, is in itself not sustainable now, and certainly not into the future, even allowing for improvements in technology, which incidentally the worlds poor see very little of.
To give every person on the planet a standard of living equal to the average European's standard, the population would need to be reduced to 2 billion. To give the present 7 billion the standard of living of the average American we would need to find another 5 to 7 plant Earth's to supply the necessary resources, and that is assuming everyone receives an equal share.
Presently, the population is consuming resources at a rate 50% higher than they are being produced, that is for all resources, in the case of fossil fuels and other non renewable resources, it is around 99.999%. Even in the poorest countries resources are being over consumed, the worlds poorest are unsustainably overshooting and depleting their resource biocapacity to renew by over 10% p/a.
What can be done to correct the problem of over population? Technological improvements alone will not be enough, a simple reduction in population will not provide the answer, nor will a reduction in consumption solve the problem, as resources are not equitably shared by all. A combination of all three is required, and at the moment that in itself is very unlikely.

"Over population" is a lie to transfer the need to reduce consumption away from "us" to "them". Shame on its promoters.

'The biggest catastrophe facing the world is overpopulation. ' Sure Paul. Nice mantra.