OT Mean while...

Yep, there were. But it was merely sufficient to suppress dissenting views. Which they did by preventing these views from being published.

Further, it is IMPOSSIBLE for "peers" to review a paper if the underlying data are unavailable.

Underwater

Space Station

Black powder Storage Bunker

Gasoline Refinery

Nitroglyerin factory

Baby Nursery

Steel Walled Room

It's funnny how Malthus and his There Won't Be Enough To Go Around got hooked up a bastardized version of Darwin's Theory of Evolution

- Only The Fit Will Survice. With those to assumptions the world is seen from a Me OR You perspective - and WHEN push comes to shove it's going to be just ME - cause I'll kill YOU if that becomes necessary for ME to survive. This is what is referred to as a Zero Sum Game

- for someone to gain, someone else must lose.

That precludes thinking in terms of Me AND You - synergy - the actual sum of the parts being greater than the numeric value of the parts.

Populations tend to level out and then begin to decline in industrialized countries - witness Japan, much of Europe, the United States, Canada, etc. So as other countries reach a certain development level their popolation growth rate will level off and decline - as will the population. But the percapita energy consumption has always - continued to climb.

It's not the population growth that's the problem - it's the consumption of non-renuable resources or the resources that are renewable - but not at a rate need that is - and it'll be water - that you can drink

- that we should be concerned about.

ROTFLMAO

But the increase in the US has NOT leveled out. More of it is immigration instead of births than it used to be, but it's still growth. Gotta' keep that Ponzi economy going :-).

Yep. Saw tonight that both the US and NATO military establishments are making contingency plans to fight and/or prevent water wars due to global warming and population growth.

Along those lines:

Each one of those accepts certain premises as givens that are far from proven.

Climate change: Doest the climate change? Yes. Is man causing this? Hardly plausible let alone proven.

First premise taken as a given is that population growth in the developed world is a serious problem. Second premise taken as a given is that populations in the developed world are increasing at an alarming rate.

Population growth in developed countries has always found technological solutions to address the ability to maintain that civilization.

Population growth in the US is due primarily to immigration. Citizens of the US are just at replacement rate. Citizens in the European countries are below replacement rate. At this point, their problem is not overpopulation, but loss of population. This is going to have profound effects in the coming years. The only people in European countries reproducing at growth rates are immigrants from third world countries who bring a particular mindset that is not conducive to sustainable civilization.

See above, we are currently at sustainment rate with the exception of immigration.

Almost all water is previously USED water. Whatever it was used for is just temporary. Water, like energy cannot really be destroyed - it's just being used somewhere.

As for water shortages, the fix is usually quite simple to describe: the areas susceptible to drought should quit growing water-intensive foods. They should import water-intensive food from areas where water is abundant. For example, it makes no sense to grow rice in the Sudan.

Of course to do that, they have to develop something from which than can earn foreign monetary credits with which to buy the food. Perhaps mining minerals or opening technical support call centers...

Your example is an interesting coincidence - I've been corresponding with a prof in Khartoum who's interested in helping to develop an inexpensive solar-powered pump to expand the growing area along the Nile and provide a city water supply in Khartoum.

If a large-scale solar-powered desalinization technology can also be developed, drought susceptibility might have much less impact.

If you can find a real long-term solution to that problem and help them implement it, I suspect that Al-HaiBub will become a more important historical figure than Al-Iskandr throughout that entire region. :)

Well, I'll give you that there isn't absolute proof, but then there never is. But "hardly plausible" doesn't fly. The overwhelming majority (80-90%?) of experts *in the field* say that our activities are having an effect.

Now I know you (and HeyBub) are going to claim a giant conspiracy of all those scientists, but have you considered that the deniers may well (and some do for a fact) have ties to economic interests for the status quo? That is, those few with credence in the field - I don't care about the others.

Someone had a letter in our newspaper a few days ago denying global warming because there were more Antarctic icebergs than usual and that proved the glaciers were growing and calving. Today a respondent pointed out that Antarctic glaciers don't come from icebergs, they come from ice fields breaking up. And guess why they're breaking up at an increased rate ...

The above does not address the question of how much of the warming is man made, the first writer totally denied there was any warming. I see an awful lot of that. See my sig line :-).

Your 90% figure may very well be correct. I remind you of what Einstein said: "No amount of experiments will prove my theory correct, but it only takes ONE to prove it wrong."

Sigh. Three of the Antartic ice sheets/glaciers are shrinking. Seven are growing.

The earth IS probably warming. It's not as warm as it was during the Middle Ages. Further, more warming is good: Longer growing seasons, etc. An open Northwest passage, for example, would be a tremendous boon for world trade.

The problem arises when one considers that the data those experts are using has been filtered through a handful of people, and there is very strong evidence that they manipulated that data for political and financial reasons.

Then, when asked for the raw numbers their manipulated data came from, the response is "Oh, the dog ate it."

As for economic ties, have a look at the incredible fraud happening in the Danish cap and trade market, and who the international corporate interests are that have been pushing for cap and trade.

A vast conspiracy? No, of course not. But a vast conspiracy isn't needed. Just a handful of people with an agenda and the power to push it.

Care to list that "handful" of people?

Cite, please.

The following report was recommended to me today. I haven't had time to read it yet, but will. Meantime, for those who are interested:

"The Dog Ate It"

"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. "

"I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!" [Phil Jones, head of CRU]

"Why does NIWA's graph show strong warming, but graphing their own raw data looks completely different? Their graph shows warming, but the actual temperature readings show none whatsoever!"

another scientist who used to work at that same university, have been unethical. That surprises you? In any large group of people, there's always a few as******s. But that's no reason to assume that the entire group is the same. That's like assuming, because a few fanatic Christians have bombed abortion clinics and murdered doctors, that all Christians are nurderers and bombers.

And I don't think those East Anglians are the influential "handful of people" that Dave Balderstone alluded to and that I questioned.

Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Hanson at NASA, Keith Briffa, and a few others at East Anglia, NASA, and NOAA.

Willing complicity by the media: Seth Borenstein of AP:

In the words of Thomas Dolby, "Consensus!"

By the way, not just New Zealand, Australia as well:

The CRU at East Anglia is one of the key research units promoting the concept of AGW. I indeed consider them the key players in this.

Look at the links between the CRU and the IPCC.

Heh!

The folks at East Anglia are the godhead of climate research. NASA and NOAA are tied for a distant second.

Stand by! One moment please! Attention viewers and all the ships at sea: This just in (Dec 14th):

"Odd things are going on at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Widely available data, existing in the public view for years, is now disappearing from public view."

These investigators have ignored one of the cardinal rules of science: "When you've reached the bottom of the hole, quit digging" and you may have overlooked the first principle of public acceptance: "Fish rots from the head down."