Population Growth "Alarmism" as a Deep Political Control Device

[Mark Stapleton]

Just because I am the CEO of a Real Estate firm in San Diego, doesn't necessarily mean that I fit into your stereotype.

No, but it means you have a dog in the fight. This diminishes your objectivity in this debate, whether you realise it or not.

[Ed Jewett]

Who is Whitley Strieber?

The theme you describe was the idea in Whitley Strieber's book COMMUNION 10-15 yrs. ago.

[Gary Severson]

I call him a novelist even though his series of books on aliens is part of his claim that he was contacted during nighttime episodes by little ETs at the foot of his bed. Their message was that man was in need of help to get through the environmental crisis. Actually good writing. I believe movies resulted from the books.

[Ed Jewett]

Yes, definitely anthropogenic; watch the embedded video.

Let's put some toll booths out near Venus to collect the taxes.

[Greg Burnham]

Just because I am the CEO of a Real Estate firm in San Diego, doesn't necessarily mean that I fit into your stereotype.

No, but it means you have a dog in the fight. This diminishes your objectivity in this debate, whether you realise it or not.

You have no dog in this fight yourself? Really? Then what are you doing in this fight?

[Gary Severson]

Yes, definitely anthropogenic; watch the embedded video.

Let's put some toll booths out near Venus to collect the taxes.

Ed, no one denies the effect of the Sun's effect on Earth's climate. In fact James Lovelock who coined the term Gaia yrs. ago to describe the Earth as a living organism says that the increased activity of the Sun and consequent warming of the Earth coincides with the increased CO2 in the atmosphere. This results in the trapping of more of the increased incoming energy from the Sun. Without the increased human produced CO2 Earth would be effected more slowly by the greater solar activity. As it is we are seeing a more rapid warming than in previous solar maximums. Since man is a natural part of the ecosystem this increased CO2 is a natural phenomena but never the less it can be highly toxic to the atmosphere. That is the kind of effect a big brain can have on a planet. But the big brain can also recognize when its natural effects on the environment need to be modified. If the industrial age had by coincidence not coincided with a solar maximum we would likely be seeing a more gradual warming of the Earth and therefore adaptation by all the Earth's lifeforms. That species adaptation would happen as it always has even though there have been 5 great extinctions, one by asteroid, 4 by release of excess amounts of methane from permafrost and the present 6th extinction by big brain activity which is leading to excessive CO2 release and resulting melting of permafrost and subsequent methane release.

[Greg Burnham]

Yes, definitely anthropogenic; watch the embedded video.

Let's put some toll booths out near Venus to collect the taxes.

Ed, no one denies the effect of the Sun's effect on Earth's climate. In fact James Lovelock who coined the term Gaia yrs. ago to describe the Earth as a living organism says that the increased activity of the Sun and consequent warming of the Earth coincides with the increased CO2 in the atmosphere. This results in the trapping of more of the increased incoming energy from the Sun. Without the increased human produced CO2 Earth would be effected more slowly by the greater solar activity. As it is we are seeing a more rapid warming than in previous solar maximums. Since man is a natural part of the ecosystem this increased CO2 is a natural phenomena but never the less it can be highly toxic to the atmosphere. That is the kind of effect a big brain can have on a planet. But the big brain can also recognize when its natural effects on the environment need to be modified. If the industrial age had by coincidence not coincided with a solar maximum we would likely be seeing a more gradual warming of the Earth and therefore adaptation by all the Earth's lifeforms. That species adaptation would happen as it always has even though there have been 5 great extinctions, one by asteroid, 4 by release of excess amounts of methane from permafrost and the present 6th extinction by big brain activity which is leading to excessive CO2 release and resulting melting of permafrost and subsequent methane release.

Here is another fine example of misrepresenting the facts. CO2 increases AFTER the warming has already occurred. Let me repeat for the slow learners: It has been proved that the hockey stick effect is erroneous for several reasons. This includes the most obvious reason: that the increase in atmospheric CO2 occurs after--and might even be the result of--increased global temperature. We also know that an increase in CO2 tends to create a filter and a protective layer around the planet whereby much of the solar heat is reduced through its being bounced into space before it even reaches the planet. While it's true that a by-product of increased C02 potentially adds to the greenhouse effect, it is also true that after a certain point increased C02 prevents solar energy from penetrating thus preventing the greenhouse effect. In other worlds, the planet's climate is a self regulated system. If there is an insufficient "greenhouse gas" effect the planet compensates for it. If there is too much, the planet compensates for it.

Are you going to turn the topic of every thread into Man Made Global Warming?

[Gary Severson]

Unlike other greenhouse gases CO2 is transparent so CO2 allows incoming sunlight to reach the surface of the Earth. What it does trap are the infrared rays that would normally escape back into space at night but are instead absorbed by CO2 molecules. That is why the high nighttime temps are occurring more frequently in terms of record nighttime HIGH lows. Of course this is all enhanced by a larger human population functioning as an industrial polluting society. The most highly industrialized part of Earth is the agricultural sector which produces huge amounts of CO2 every time the vast acres dedicated to producing more & more food are plowed under to speed up oxidation of plant material to make next year's plantings grow more efficiently.

It's too bad people can't read the Minneapolis Star-Tribune weather section where every day meteorologist Paul Douglas explains why over-population is creating global warming.

[Greg Burnham]

Unlike other greenhouse gases CO2 is transparent so CO2 allows incoming sunlight to reach the surface of the Earth. What it does trap are the infrared rays that would normally escape back into space at night but are instead absorbed by CO2 molecules. That is why the high nighttime temps are occurring more frequently in terms of record nighttime HIGH lows. Of course this is all enhanced by a larger human population functioning as an industrial polluting society. The most highly industrialized part of Earth is the agricultural sector which produces huge amounts of CO2 every time the vast acres dedicated to producing more & more food are plowed under to speed up oxidation of plant material to make next year's plantings grow more efficiently.

The "transparency" of C02 has nothing at all to do with this, Gary. There is a gas called, Dimethylsulfide (or DMS for short). This gas is responsible for well over 90% of the release of oceanic sulphuric gas, and accounts for a significant amount of cloud formation because it oxidizes (in the atmosphere) resulting in sulfate aerosols, which in turn seed cloud condensation. Its relationship to increased C02 is a subject you would perhaps do well to study.

Gary Severson said: "It's too bad people can't read the Minneapolis Star-Tribune weather section where every day meteorologist Paul Douglas explains why over-population is creating global warming."

Ok, so now we're at least somewhat back on topic. Why not question this paradigm, Gary? Why immediately buy into the doom and gloom scenario that we have all been led to believe since 1798? What if it's wrong? Isn't it worth questioning? Because if it is NOT wrong and there really isn't enough to go around and if too many people mean too much global warming, then what shall we do? Who should be restricted from having offspring? Shall we adopt the Communist China solution and limit the number of children that a couple can have to only two? What shall we do to those parents who don't comply with this mandate? Shall we imprison them? Of course, that won't solve the problem since we still will have one or more "too many" in that family. Shall we also murder the offspring that were born over the limit?

What shall we do to comply with the Severson Vision of Population Control? How will it work?

It is easy to point fingers at problems (real or imagined). It is quite another thing to offer solutions.

[Gary Severson]

Why suggest there is a need to question the origin of the AGW thesis? That is what the studies have done by definition. If the studies hadn't been done and replicated many times then you could ask why the assumptions hadn't been questioned. That's how science works.

Of course CO2 is relevant. If sunlight is allowed in by its transparency and it is not transparent to outgoing infrared then we have a heating problem. Since I have faith that the scientists that talk about CO2 transparency have considered your ref. to DMS I can only dismiss your contention until you can persuade me differently.

Well James Lovelock says it is too late but I'm not giving up because I think we have to make efforts to shorten the amount of time the worst warming conditions will last.

The Chinese really didn't have enough to go around because the West was continually trying to destroy them. The Chinese had 400 million people in 1900 or 100 mill. more than the US, 100 yrs.before the US reached 300 mill. in 2000. With unlimited water from the Himalayas and a favorable warm climate they grew continuously for at least 10,000 yrs. To criticize them for having to take drastic pop. control measures when faced with a hostile West is not fair or logical.