Population Growth "Alarmism" as a Deep Political Control Device

[Greg Burnham]

By comparison to other countries, the United States is responsible for the vast majority of atmospheric C02 emissions contributed by humans. However, world census statistics strongly suggest that the United States is not an over-populated nation especially when compared to many third tier countries in Africa and Latin America, as well as in comparison to China and India.

Over-population does NOT seem to be the main contributing factor in the minuscule increase of C02 in the atmosphere. Over-consumption, on the other hand, does.

Blaming over populated third world countries for increased global temperatures is like blaming rising oil prices on Luxembourg.

I agree, but of course as those countries rapidly ramp up their consumption we have a problem. Western imperialism is intent on taking over those 3rd world economies to cash in on their potential increased consumption with very little concern for the environment it seems.

I agree...to a point. I believe that it is wholly despicable for us (in western "developed" countries) to prevent those in third world countries from enjoying the benefits that we, in the United States, all enjoy! It is wrong to restrict their expansion into a "better life" based on non-specific, ill defined, perhaps even pseudo science.

Gary, you said: "...as those countries rapidly ramp up their consumption we have a problem."

In my view, it is immoral to require those in "developing" countries (due to the "problem" that their consumption would allegedly create) to continue to live beneath the standards that most Americans would be loath to tolerate.

Parity is an interesting commodity in America: "It is of paramount importance when I am the disaffected, but it is irrelevant when I'm on top."

[Gary Severson]

By comparison to other countries, the United States is responsible for the vast majority of atmospheric C02 emissions contributed by humans. However, world census statistics strongly suggest that the United States is not an over-populated nation especially when compared to many third tier countries in Africa and Latin America, as well as in comparison to China and India.

Over-population does NOT seem to be the main contributing factor in the minuscule increase of C02 in the atmosphere. Over-consumption, on the other hand, does.

Blaming over populated third world countries for increased global temperatures is like blaming rising oil prices on Luxembourg.

I agree, but of course as those countries rapidly ramp up their consumption we have a problem. Western imperialism is intent on taking over those 3rd world economies to cash in on their potential increased consumption with very little concern for the environment it seems.

I agree...to a point. I believe that it is wholly despicable for us (in western "developed" countries) to prevent those in third world countries from enjoying the benefits that we, in the United States, all enjoy! It is wrong to restrict their expansion into a "better life" based on non-specific, ill defined, perhaps even pseudo science.

Gary, you said: "...as those countries rapidly ramp up their consumption we have a problem."

In my view, it is immoral to require those in "developing" countries (due to the "problem" that their consumption would allegedly create) to continue to live beneath the standards that most Americans would be loath to tolerate.

Parity is an interesting commodity in America: "It is of paramount importance when I am the disaffected, but it is irrelevant when I'm on top."

It isn't despicable when our overconsumption relates to the use of fossil fuels. If you don't think it is detrimental to our atmosphere to have millions of cars on the freeway everyday with one person per vehicle then of course you would say we shouldn't deprive the world of the same opportunity to add CO2 to our common ecosystem. Until alternative fuels are in wide use we have a problem with too many people in too many cars. Gotta go.

[Greg Burnham]

By comparison to other countries, the United States is responsible for the vast majority of atmospheric C02 emissions contributed by humans. However, world census statistics strongly suggest that the United States is not an over-populated nation especially when compared to many third tier countries in Africa and Latin America, as well as in comparison to China and India.

Over-population does NOT seem to be the main contributing factor in the minuscule increase of C02 in the atmosphere. Over-consumption, on the other hand, does.

Blaming over populated third world countries for increased global temperatures is like blaming rising oil prices on Luxembourg.

I agree, but of course as those countries rapidly ramp up their consumption we have a problem. Western imperialism is intent on taking over those 3rd world economies to cash in on their potential increased consumption with very little concern for the environment it seems.

I agree...to a point. I believe that it is wholly despicable for us (in western "developed" countries) to prevent those in third world countries from enjoying the benefits that we, in the United States, all enjoy! It is wrong to restrict their expansion into a "better life" based on non-specific, ill defined, perhaps even pseudo science.

Gary, you said: "...as those countries rapidly ramp up their consumption we have a problem."

In my view, it is immoral to require those in "developing" countries (due to the "problem" that their consumption would allegedly create) to continue to live beneath the standards that most Americans would be loath to tolerate.

Parity is an interesting commodity in America: "It is of paramount importance when I am the disaffected, but it is irrelevant when I'm on top."

It isn't despicable when our overconsumption relates to the use of fossil fuels. If you don't think it is detrimental to our atmosphere to have millions of cars on the freeway everyday with one person per vehicle then of course you would say we shouldn't deprive the world of the same opportunity to add CO2 to our common ecosystem. Until alternative fuels are in wide use we have a problem with too many people in too many cars. Gotta go.

Well, Gary--perhaps you have a point.

Let's see if you do.

Gary said:

"It isn't despicable when our overconsumption relates to the use of fossil fuels."

I don't understand what you mean by that statement. In my view, "over-consumption" is simply that: OVER consumption. It is excessive, unnecessary consumption of resources and is, therefore, irresponsible by definition--no matter what the specifics. However, IF our policy of "discouraging (preventing) poverty stricken nations from becoming self-sufficient" is NOT despicable, as you claim (so long as over-consumption relates to fossil fuels), THEN it should be equally "not despicable" for those in Western countries to be subject to the SAME barriers to self sufficiency. We should ALL be restricted from the use of oil based products to fuel vehicles. Period. Or NONE should be so restricted. Parity.

Gary ASSUMED (1):

"If you don't think it is detrimental to our atmosphere to have millions of cars on the freeway everyday with one person per vehicle..."

Well, I never said that did I, Gary? And since I don't believe that either, I guess that one is irrelevant. Next?

Gary continuing said:

"...then of course you would say we shouldn't deprive the world of the same opportunity to add CO2 to our common ecosystem."

Since I didn't say the original (1) the remainder of your comment lacks foundation.

Gary said:

"Until alternative fuels are in wide use we have a problem with too many people in too many cars. Gotta go."

Do you drive a car--EVER? Do you heat your home in the winter at all? If we have too many people in too many cars on this planet, let me ask you this: Who should be the first to surrender their vehicle? Will it be you or those you love? Would you prefer that restrictions on buying automobiles be placed on those who live in places (like third world countries) where poverty has thus far prevented them from acquiring vehicles?

You "gotta go" -- ?

It's after 6:00pm there. If it's too late for a walk, are you driving to where you "gotta go"??? If so, why should you be allowed to own and drive a car given your beliefs about the environment? Why not those in 3rd World countries who have yet to be so blessed? Should you be allowed to own and drive a car for as long as it takes for "the government" to sort all this out? If so, should EVERYONE ELSE on the planet who does not yet own a vehicle be RESTRICTED from acquiring one in the meantime?

[Gary Severson]

Well Greg it seems since you constantly deny MMGW it follows you don't think it matters that we use cars unwisely in terms of too much fuel use. You assume the rest of the world wants our idiotic consumer way of life. Consumption used to be disease now it is a virtue. I know many native Africans here in Mn. that can't stand the lifestyle we have created in terms of diminishing the value of family because of our mobility & everything it that goes with it.
Have you heard of "the development of underdevelopment"? If not, it is the Western strategy of preventing 3rd world resources from remaining in the hands of the people that live where the resources are. Instead they are extracted by foreigners,us, to be used to create our high standard of living. When the natives finally get too uppity after nationalizing their OWN resources we just invade and re-privatize their economies as in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. So much for our desire to help them modernize unless on our terms. Maybe if we hadn't stolen the 3rd world's resources in the 1st place we wouldn't now be looking at the mad dash for them to catch up when it is too late environmentally speaking.

[Greg Burnham]

Well Greg it seems since you constantly deny MMGW it follows you don't think it matters that we use cars unwisely in terms of too much fuel use. You assume the rest of the world wants our idiotic consumer way of life. Consumption used to be disease now it is a virtue. I know many native Africans here in Mn. that can't stand the lifestyle we have created in terms of diminishing the value of family because of our mobility & everything it that goes with it.
Have you heard of "the development of underdevelopment"? If not, it is the Western strategy of preventing 3rd world resources from remaining in the hands of the people that live where the resources are. Instead they are extracted by foreigners,us, to be used to create our high standard of living. When the natives finally get too uppity after nationalizing their OWN resources we just invade and re-privatize their economies as in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. So much for our desire to help them modernize unless on our terms. Maybe if we hadn't stolen the 3rd world's resources in the 1st place we wouldn't now be looking at the mad dash for them to catch up when it is too late environmentally speaking.

Can you say straw man? I knew you could. It is interesting to note how you put words in my mouth and dictate to me about my own beliefs! Amazing. Gary, you have misrepresented my position again. I hope you are enjoying "knocking down" arguments that I haven't advanced; arguments that you have fabricated and then assigned to me only to easily defeat them. It is much more difficult for you to defeat my actual argument than it is for you to defeat your own invention.

[Gary Severson]

How could I possibly be using a strawman when all you ever say is MMGW is false. Please elaborate instead of just accusing.

[Ed Jewett]

If HAARP is used on the ionesphere how can it effect the jet stream which is in the troposphere?

I posed this question to the author -- as you could have done yourself -- and here is his answer:

"The answer is relatively simple but requires a relatively advanced understanding of how HAARP and the weather both function. Perhaps the easiest response may be to simply go to one of many relevant sites on the internet which provide a good, basic overview of HAARP and how it works. Without going into the technology involved, it would be relatively difficult to answer the question directly. Please direct the questioner to the following site as one example, using the above explanation as an intro.

http://viewzone2.com/haarp00x.html "

[Greg Burnham]

How could I possibly be using a strawman when all you ever say is MMGW is false. Please elaborate instead of just accusing.

There it is...yet another straw man!

I have not one time said that MMGW is false. I have said that I do not believe that it is possible for anyone to PREDICT the behavior of a random, non-linear, complex system, such as the climate. Chaos Theory pretty much absolutely rules out the possibility of accurately predicting the behavior of such a system.

I don't claim to know for certain if humans are causing an increase in the global temperature, but I highly doubt it. However, I am positive that NOBODY can predict the behavior of a chaotic system. Nobody.

So, to make my position clear: I cannot predict the behavior of a chaotic system to any degree of certainty and neither can you.

[Gary Severson]

You are arguing something completely different than climatologists who claim mmgw is a scientific fact, i.e. you are the user of straw men.

[Gary Severson]

If HAARP is used on the ionesphere how can it effect the jet stream which is in the troposphere?

I posed this question to the author -- as you could have done yourself -- and here is his answer:

"The answer is relatively simple but requires a relatively advanced understanding of how HAARP and the weather both function. Perhaps the easiest response may be to simply go to one of many relevant sites on the internet which provide a good, basic overview of HAARP and how it works. Without going into the technology involved, it would be relatively difficult to answer the question directly. Please direct the questioner to the following site as one example, using the above explanation as an intro.

http://viewzone2.com/haarp00x.html "

Your author makes the claim that in the 80s Eastland discovered that radio waves bounced off the ionosphere & that radio signals would travel further. In fact that was known by the 1930s. The 1st commercial radio station in the US was in St.Paul,Mn.,(1925). KSTP could be heard on ships in the WWII far out in the Pacific and they knew that that happened at night because when the Sun goes down the dense, aka, D layer of the ionosphere dissipates & the remaining ionosphere rises to a greater altitude allowing AM radio stations to be heard at great distances after skipping off of it. His credibility isn't very impressive as a result of his misleading info. about Eastland.