I’ve said it before in a great many forums and will continue to do so: ad hominem attacks are 100% worthless in any *reasonable* discussion of this issue.

As for fears of a “one world government,” even were our leaders in the U.S. and those in the E.U. to cave on the issue (which I don’t for a moment believe they would), there are some other gorillas in the zoo that wouldn’t stand for it. Russia. China. India. Japan. To name just a few of the many who would completely reject such a move—especially Russia, China (maybe most of all) and India. Those alone take in about a third of the global population, and they’re just for starters.

Not once have I succeeded in getting a single GW skeptic or denier to answer these question: Even if GW (or cooling, for that matter) is an entirely natural phenomenon over which humans have little or no meaningful influence, what’s wrong, say, with cleaning up the air and water anyway? Where’s the downside? Practically everyone accepts that smog, for instance, adds massive costs to health care costs, not to mention the many premature deaths it causes. And as we’re already seeing, clean water sources are moving to center stage rapidly.

As one person who does believe GW as it’s now occurring as a direct, if partial, result of human activities, I’m willing to put that debate to the side, since I can’t think of a single reason anyone wouldn’t want to have cleaner air, water, and soil—cleaner for its own sake, without regard to global warming.

It just doesn’t make sense. . . .

Can someone tell me where I’ve missed the plot? Not that I think for a second I have, mind you.

Moncton greenpeace

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHRFIyHutd0

Myronh, you wrote, in part, “Unfortunately, I pay massive insurance premiums so some woman can have fertilized eggs implanted so she can have multiple births of premature babies that cost $millions for hospital bills, and then may cost $millions more for medical care their childhood and remaining entire life.”

WHOA! First off, cite some sources that insurance companies even do pay for artificial insemination or egg implants at all? A friend of mine had the procedure done, and her insurance—a “Cadillac” plan—didn’t pay a dime. (She had complications, and her insurance did pay *some*—but not all—of the associated costs for those.)

Secondly, if you think women having artificial insemination or egg implants are THE root cause of overpopulation, you need to back that broad generalization up with some hard facts—which you won’t be able to do. Exploding populations are largely centered in the poorest countries, those where (1.) the people are far too poor to afford such services even were they available, (2.) which they aren’t. To claim otherwise is, quite simply, incorrect. And what’s this business about all babies—your implication on the “all”—are born prematurely? Sources? Numbers?

*Then* what?—You go off on a completely irrelevant diatribe about terrorism. While terrorists do kill people, they haven’t done so in sufficient numbers to make a gnat’s ass difference in population growth. In any case, too many people posting in these threads go completely off topic to preach some sermon, and it wastes the time of the rest of us. Write about terrorism after an article about same, if you would be so kind. Please.

NYCartist, re your “A column from the writer who wants to ration health care for the old. (May 7th, I think, 2009 on TruthDig).  Maybe we need a discussion of who is human.” Link please to the column in which, according to you, she calls for this? Do you really believe insurance companies don’t ration health care? Or that doctors make decisions whether or not medications and procedures are likely to yield enough benefit to the worthwhile—and sometimes their decision is withhold such medications and/or procedures? Please show me I’m wrong. (I’m not; my stepfather was an insurance agent, and he talked about this stuff. A lot. In fact, he finally left the insurance business in disgust at the rationing of all kinds of insurance, not just health insurance.)

As for those who argue that population control/reduction is the secret aim of a secret ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT—I’ll type it in all caps, since they usually do—you’re dead wrong. The one-world government is NOT controlled by the Rockfellers, Illuminati, etc. They take their marching orders from an evil alliance of the Venusians, Martians, and 11th-Deminsionists.

Jeez . . .

Wildflower— I think my language is fairly accurate.  If people believe in something because an authority tells them to, then they are authoritarians.  Authoritarian or not, if they can’t give an explanation of their beliefs based on physical evidence, then their thoughts are faith-based rather than reality-based.  Some of my language may be hyperbolic, but I have to hope that persons of normal intelligence can detect hyperbole.  If it seems to border on the abusive, that is because abuse seems to me the preferred currency of exchange in these discussions.  I just read another article on this subject (on another web site) which starts off with the assumption that all who disagree with the author are psychopathic or terminally stupid, although in this case the writer was on the other side.  Or the other other side.

As for the supposed substance of this discussion, precisely what actions do you have in mind?  My experience of contests between bourgeois factions, whether public or corporate, has not been encouraging.  First of all, one has to enter their framework rhetorically and conceptually even to speak about the issues, as they see them, at all.  Given the difference between my values and viewpoint and theirs, this is a pretty repugnant step.  And then, much of the important information is concealed, obfuscated or disguised, as it is likely to be in any power hierarchy.  It doesn’t matter much whether the issue is war and empire, medical care, the economy, the financial system, business, corporations, taxes, the environment, education, land use, immigration, the penal system, welfare—the structure of power is pretty much the same: people not well up in the pyramid don’t count, and don’t know what’s going on anyway.  So I generally forbear to advise the bujis on their conflicts and instead question the whole system that allows them to rule us. 

Also, I prefer to “act locally” as bumper stickers on SUVs tell me to as they whiz past.  I’d display a bumper sticker too, but I can’t fit one on my bicycle.  Maybe I could wrap one of the official ones around my head….

RE Anarcissie, December 16 at 7:24 p

So you’ve opted for scoundrel, have you? I sort of suspected as much.  It was your descriptive language on another Truthdig forum that gave you away.  Only a scoundrel would complain about abusive language while describing his/her fellow posters and various other segments of the public as a “bunch of hippie
anarchists, shills, lower orders, the bourgeoisie and their adherents, authoritarian faith based culture of global warming warriors.”

I understand your theory as to how this AGW crisis developed, and that you’ve noticed that everyone is struggling for a solution - granted, some potential solutions more self serving than others - but I don’t fully understand why you consider action versus inaction to be vacuous in regard to this AGW crisis. It
seems to me that if the human species as a whole had felt this way, our species would have disappeared from this planet a long time ago.

wildflower, December 14 at 4:14 pm:
‘Re Anarcisse: “As I mentioned before, this argument is a version of Pascal’s Wager and it has the same defects as Pascal’s Wager.

If you’re advocating inaction in regard to carbon dioxide emissions, Anarcisse, be honest and tell us . . . are you a fool or a scoundrel?...’

If that’s the choice, I think I’d prefer to say I’m a scoundrel.  Of course, if I’m a fool (too), I wouldn’t know it, would I?  I’d be very, very sure of everything, I suppose.

The question about action versus inaction is pretty vacuous, though.  The ruling class is capitalist.  Capitalism dictates expansion.  Expansion must eventually lead to some kind of breakdown because nothing can expand forever.  The more intelligent members of the r.c. recognize this, especially in regard to the physical carrying capacity of the planet, but they have not yet figured out how to retain their power, wealth and advantages if they don’t keep traditional capitalism going.  So they are struggling with one another about it.  It makes very little difference to them what you and I think about the issue. 

But suppose it did; we would still have the problem of knowing how and where to commit our resources, and how much of them to commit.  The answers would not come through faith and verbal abuse.  That is obvious, and obviously it doesn’t matter to anyone here (with a few exceptions), because I’ve pointed it out, and yet we have such as your remarks above.

Now, if you don’t mind, I’ll get back to undermining civilization, and so on.

RE Gordy, December 16 at 7:30 am

I believe our dialogue has almost come full circle and we are once again back to the issue of faulty logic and disingenuous arguments.  It began with faulty logic and Bill Bonner’s disingenuous statement that “there aren’t really any
climate scientists and nobody really knows what is going,” and ends once again with faulty logic and another disingenuous statement. 

As to fools and scoundrels, lets these words back into the context in which they originated on this forum:

“The willingness of some politicians and pundits to bet the planet on the claim that climate scientists are talking through their hats, which involves the larger claim that they have managed to assemble an enormous conspiracy to
perpetrate a hoax, calls either their intelligence or their morals into serious question. And that goes for the journalists and media moguls who treat their ravings as if they represented simply one side in a reasonable argument.

If anyone tries to tell you that uncertainty about climate change is a reason for inaction, he’s either a fool or a scoundrel. Probably a bit of both.”

[Precaution, Uncertainty, Insurance & Morality – Mark Kleiman]
http://www.samefacts.com/

Yes Wildflower, I have noticed that there are a lot of
crazy angry ad hominem attacks on this website, by many
of the regular posters, not just you…  I also noticed
that no one ever seems to change their point of view;
in fact they just dig in the more stubbornly the more
abuse they give and take…  I thought that might not
be coincidental… 

Fine - the world’s full of fools and scoundrels except
you, whatever.

Re Gordy, December 15 at 8:38 pm #

Yes, each of us has to make our own decisions and be responsible for those decisions. Like you, I’ve also given a lot of thought to the issues, and as I shared previously, I believe the AGW issue is critical. Hopefully, the leadership in this country will wake up to their sworn duty and implement an aggressive plan soon.

I appreciate the “heads up” in regard in the “trivial” forums you mentioned, but I like Truthdig, and I think I’ll stay.  I’ve been a big fan of Robert Scheer for a number of years, and I enjoy stopping by and posting from time to time.  To date, Truthdig has never complained about anything that I’ve posted, and I’m sure Truthdig will let me know if there is a problem.

As for your Anarcissie comment, I’ve read a few of this poster’s comments, and I’m confident that he/she did not feel belittled. In one thread alone, I noted Anarcissie had used a variety of offensive descriptions to categorize fellow posters, journalists and sectors of the public, such as, “ bunch of hippie
anarchists, shills, lower orders, the bourgeoisie and their adherents, authoritarian faith based culture of global warming warriors.”  . . . So you see?

Wildflower, please don’t assume that I have never
given any of these matters thought, or read about
them in depth, just because I do not come to the same
conclusions as you.  Your source does not persuade
me, sorry. 

I just don’t see that point of what you’re doing
here.  You are smugly point-scoring, trying to
belittle Anarcisse and I don’t see what good comes of
that.  Your attitude does discredit to what might be
a good cause.  There are more appropriate, trivial
forums where you can enjoy the sport of flaming
people.

RE GORDY’S COMMENT:  “please don’t chop up what I said and ?skirt around the point, which is that I don’t know, you don’t ?know.” 

Gordy, we have an old saying in this country -  practice what you preach. As to what I know and don’t know, I can only say I’m convinced the AGW situation is serious, and feel it is urgent that we implement a plan.

I understand you are undecided about AGW reports, which is why I urged you to consider doing more research and to reflect upon the common sense reasoning of others like Kleiman’s argument in his “Precaution, Uncertainty, Insurance & Morality” post. Gets to an interesting point right away, don’t you think?

“Whether to apply the “precautionary principle” in an actual situation depends on the size of the potential disaster, the probability that the disaster will come about if no action is taken, and the costs – including the opportunity costs – of
taking the action. So at the end of the day there’s not much “principle” left, just a heuristic for doing decision analysis.

But one point ought to be clear: greater uncertainty argues for more caution – more willingness to accept certain current losses to avoid possible large future losses – not less.  That’s because it’s easier to adjust to small changes than it is to large ones, so damage is likely to increase more-than-proportionally as
the size of the change increases. . .”

Mark Kleiman post continued at: http://www.samefacts.com/

RE GORDY’S COMMENT: “what may be needed ?is a painfully honest rethink of the entire ?personality and way of life.

I believe the only segments of our society that are determined to maintain the status quo are the big corporations like the oil and coal industries. These people are just as dirty as their coal and carbons. I recall reading an article that showed that in just one year alone EXXON spent approximately 2.1 funneling
money to climate change deniers.

RE GORDY’S COMMENT: “You ?shouldn’t go calling people fools and scoundrels. . . I doubt that Anarcisse is a mentally sub-normal moron or a sinister propagandizing oil-?baron.”

I asked Anarcissie a simple straightforward question in regard to his/her advocacy position. Also, please not my dictionary defines a fool as someone who behaves irresponsibly, and it defines a scoundrel as someone who behaves dishonorably. Granted, it’s an 8-year dictionary and the usage of these words may have been expanded recently to include your definitions. I dunno.

Wildflower, please don’t chop up what I said and
skirt around the point, which is that you don’t
know.  I don’t know, you don’t know.  You
shouldn’t go calling people fools and scoundrels. 
Somehow I doubt that Anarcisse is a mentally sub-
normal moron or a sinister propagandizing oil-
baron. 

As to the ‘what have we got to lose’ question, I
thought my answer to that should be clear by now:
what we lose is sight of the root problem. 
Individuals and groups show the same psychological
trait of wanting to purse superficial ‘changes’ that
will allow business-as-usual when what may be needed
is a painfully honest rethink of the entire
personality and way of life. 

Reducing emissions will be expensive and difficult,
and worse than useless if it salves our conscience
and effectively gives us environmentalists’ official
blessing to go on turning finite resources into junk. 

I know that a lot of climate-change activists see
this as a first step; the big scary issue of the
moment that they can use to win some ground, but if
they let go of the fundamentals they will lose the
wider argument.  If they choose to commit all their
forces and their credibility to this one issue,
society will not be as receptive when the next
doomsday issue pops up. 

Environmentalists’ proper function is to increase the
general awareness that the Earth, the Commons, is
finite and requires good stewardship; that a
rapacious way of life is unsustainable - NOT that we
can all live like the American middle-class, own two
cars per family, produce a disposable glass bottle
just for one beer, buy our kids mountains of plastic
toys - and magically offset the damage with a carbon
tax.  That is the wrong message.  We can choose
cooperative living, thatched cottages and local food
today or we will be forced to live in various states
of anarchy or despotism, in ruins, eating
reconstituted jellyfish or worse tomorrow.  That is
the reality and so far I don’t see it dawning on most
of those who can only see carbon, carbon, carbon; who
think that their wasteful lifestyle is redeemed by
the weekly trip to the recycling centre in their SUV. 

I know that the middle-class is not the force it was,
but direct action can still turn things around. 
Online debate is the ‘mind’ of direct action.  I am
not middle-class anyway; I am poor - I don’t see why
you think the middle-class is what it takes to save
this world - isn’t that what you were implying?  I am
not holding out for extraterrestrial mining to save
us.

RE GORDY: “Admit that you have just ?plumped to be in the camp of the believers - you have ?accepted the ‘wager.

Have you considered it might be a simple matter of drawing a conclusion?

RE GORDY: “You DO NOT KNOW that ?the anthropogenic climate-change theory is right: it ?has not been proven; there is evidence for and ?against even if you refuse to see that.”

What can I say? I believe the AGW evidence is overwhelming so I drew a conclusion. What is your specific rationale for remaining undecided?

RE GORDY: “You will accept shaky ?arguments if they confirm your prejudices; you will ?deny the goodness and rationality of others if they ?disagree with your faith.”

Trust me, Gordy, I had no prior opinion on carbon dioxide emissions until started I started reading about the negative impact they are having on our planet.

RE GORDY: “Scientific consensus has been ?wrong before.”

True, but I’m convinced this is not one of those times.  Besides what do we have to lose – just dirty coal and carbon dioxide emissions?

RE GORDY: “. . . ending the drive ?for continual growth and individualistic profit - ?would solve the problem you are worried about as a ?side-effect while simultaneously solving all environmental issues, and many social ones to boot.

Profits? Growth? Haven’t you heard, Gordy.  There is no middle class any more.  Greedy corporations along with their self serving politicians have taken it all, and now they want to destroy the only thing we have left – the planet.  Our only hope is they head out to another planet when survival gets tougher here on earth.

Wildflower, that way of talking is totally unhelpful
- I’m shocked that you’ve suddenly sunk to that
level; up to now I thought I was talking with an
intelligent person. 

Maybe you will turn out to be right about climate-
change, but right now your bitterness and
defensiveness looks like that typical of those
clinging to a shaky view.  Admit that you have just
plumped to be in the camp of the believers - you have
accepted the ‘wager’, but you DO NOT KNOW that
the anthropogenic climate-change theory is right: it
has not been proven; there is evidence for and
against even if you refuse to see that. 

And what the hell do you object to so strongly about
what I said anyway!?  Anthropogenic climate-change is
a theory; theories are always being questioned, and
it is rude and stupid of you to insult people for not
being convinced.  Scientific consensus has been
wrong before.  What I suggest - ending the drive
for continual growth and individualistic profit -
would solve the problem you are worried about as a
side-effect while simultaneously solving all
environmental issues, and many social ones to boot. 

And Anarcisse is right about the flaw in the ‘wager’
argument - damn, I mean, it’s a pathetic argument. 
You’ve got to see that.  The wager in its original
context was proposed by a man desperate to justify
his faith, and in doing do he betrayed reason.  It’s
a truly disingenuous argument.  It seems to me that
you are doing the same.  You are a true believer; you
want to burn the heretics; you will accept shaky
arguments if they confirm your prejudices; you will
deny the goodness and rationality of others if they
disagree with your faith. 

Just play nice - be polite and reasonable, otherwise,
why bother posting?  You have no power here except
to:

a) contribute to a debate/open hearts and
minds

b) look like an obnoxious idiot

Re Anarcisse: “As I mentioned before, this argument is a version of Pascal’s Wager and it has the same defects as Pascal’s Wager.

If you’re advocating inaction in regard to carbon dioxide emissions, Anarcisse, be honest and tell us . . . are you a fool or a scoundrel?

wildflower, December 14 at 3:06 pm:
’...  For the naysayers, I believe they need to take little more time researching and reflecting upon the issue.  After all, what have they got to lose? ...’

As I mentioned before, this argument is a version of Pascal’s Wager and it has the same defects as Pascal’s Wager.

RE GORDY: “In my opinion worrying about carbon-levels in the ?atmosphere is like reacting to a house-fire by ?campaigning against smoke.” 

Gordy, I believe there is an urgent need to put a serious plan in place to deal with these carbon dioxide emissions, and I believe everyone who inhabits this planet should be listening closely to what these scientists have to say.  For the naysayers, I believe they need to take little more time researching and reflecting upon the issue.  After all, what have they got to lose?

If you are interested, there is a well thought out argument by Mark Kleiman on the Reality Based Community site. He discusses the “precautionary principle,” climate models, risks, possibilities, and action VS inaction. Again, I think it’s a well thought out argument. I share his views on our politicians and pundits as
well:

“The willingness of some politicians and pundits to bet the planet on the claim that climate scientists are talking through their hats, which involves the larger claim that they have managed to assemble an enormous conspiracy to perpetrate a hoax, calls either their intelligence or their morals into serious
question. And that goes for the journalists and media moguls who treat their ravings as if they represented simply one side in a reasonable argument.

If anyone tries to tell you that uncertainty about climate change is a reason for inaction, he’s either a fool or a scoundrel. Probably a bit of both.”

[Precaution, Uncertainty, Insurance & Morality – Mark Kleiman]
http://www.samefacts.com/

- and now, there is the new war against Americans in their homeland, journalistically spearheaded by Rupert Murdoch types,
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/45.html

Question: why did the Kenyan, Mr. Hussein Obama place one million reservists at the disposal of NORTHCOM, and why did he bestow “lethal authority” onto the CG of Northcom?

The ‘Human’ Factor Missing in Copenhagen, is also missing in
the
White House. Unfortunately, what is there, is a
fascist agenda calling for the destruction of America
(mission accomplished), enslavement of the populace
in a web of debt (done deal). With control of the
food supply & in an increasing number of areas the
water supply as well, the miscreants of the
Government Sachs Cabal are pulling all the strings.
Bush3’s speech delivered with arrogance, impunity & a
stealth sales pitch which projected: ‘I am the head
of the largest arms dealer in the world & my
assistant will take any orders you’d like to give me
before I leave. War is peace, profitable, &
permanent, & with unemployment rising steadily, there
is no shortage of fodder for the battlefields. The private mercenary army is trained & ready to handle any Tiananmen Square type of protests. The
MILITARY INDUSTRIAL CONSPIRACY continues unabated.’

Which scientists have calculated-in the effect of the
loss of 1/4 of the world´s forests?  One-fourth of the
world´s forests certainly had an effect on the
cleanness of the atmosphere, and rain patterns if their
areas. Or, is this too much of a political hot-potato,
while Mr. Al Gore´s “buddies” are going strong for an
additional 1/4 of the world´s forests?

Wildflower, I don’t care about Bonner; I didn’t read
the article - I am only interested in the contentions
that climatologists are not ‘true’ scientists, that
the climate-change consensus is wrong, and in your
comparison between climatologists and Einstein. 

In my opinion worrying about carbon-levels in the
atmosphere is like reacting to a house-fire by
campaigning against smoke.  We have allowed our worst
impulses to give birth to machine-like social
structures that require continuous economic growth in
order to survive.  We have created a situation where
the fate of every human depends on the survival of
these structures.  Continuous economic growth
unavoidably means the consumption of more and more
natural resources. 

Governments and corporations are worried about
environmentalist dissent, but they like this narrow
focus on the relationship between carbon and climate-
change because it will allow them to go on destroying
the Earth in order to make a few people extremely
rich.  It has become politically expedient.  Reducing
carbon emissions might involve taking an economic
hit, but even then it will be far preferable to
confronting the real underlying need to simply
consume less and accept a drastic reversal of
economic growth.  If we focus on carbon as the
great singular threat, it will just be something else
tomorrow.  There’s absolutely no point in investing
in a distraction.  If we focus on the root of the
problem the carbon issue (whatever the truth of it
may be) will solve itself.

RE GORDY: “Perhaps Bonner’s expression is off; maybe he shouldn’t be saying that the climatologists are not ?true scientists just because they might be ?overconfident in their conclusions about a poorly-understood aspect of
nature.” 

Since Bonner was equating climate science with the stock market in the actual article, I’m more inclined to think it is Bonner who is suffering from over confidence in his assessment of the situation. His thoughts on the subject show that the poor guy has a very poor understanding of any of the key issues on the table in regard to climate warming. 

RE GORDY: “But I can see what he’s [Bonner]?getting at.  He think that the climatologists are ?still at the eye-of-newt/lead-into-gold stage, and ?that we should not be taking their prescriptions as ?trustworthy hard science.”

I don’t think Bonner has spent more than 5 minutes thinking about climate warming. The only thing that appears to be on his mind is gold, gold, and more gold. Oh well, what is that old saying “a fool and his gold are soon parted.”

Wildflower, Bonner said that there’s no such thing as
a true ‘climate scientist’ and you made a comparison
with physicists, implying (if I read you correctly)
that the outstanding physicists who advance the field
are, like climatologists, investigating out on a
limb, yet very much still worthy of the term
‘scientist’.  In the past and present there are other
examples of disciplines that start off deeply
uninformed, in a state comparable to the pseudo-
science of alchemy, and which gradually become
what we think of as legitimate sciences as
observation gradually supplants guesswork and the
false patterns and correlations that we as humans
tend to perceive everywhere. 

Knowing little does not in itself a pseudo-science
make.  The problem is the way people invent
‘scientific’ dogmas and false correlations and then
assert their truth authoritatively. 

Perhaps Bonner’s expression is off; maybe he
shouldn’t be saying that the climatologists are not
true scientists just because they might be
overconfident in their conclusions about a poorly-
understood aspect of nature.  But I can see what he’s
getting at.  He think that the climatologists are
still at the eye-of-newt/lead-into-gold stage, and
that we should not be taking their prescriptions as
trustworthy hard science.  The alchemists back in
their day were every bit as confident that
their prescriptions would grant humankind
immortality.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, world population was about two billion people and had doubled to 4 billion by 1975 and is predicted to double again to eight billion in the next twenty or so years. Thomas Malthus once postulated that human population would eventually outstrip food supplies.  So far that hasn’t happened, but Malthus’ theory does not apply to the effect of our population growth on this planet. My view is that human overpopulation, is, in fact, a root cause of global warming. Our small, finite planet is growing smaller-figuratively- as our population increases.  How many people can you crowd into your house or apartment until it becomes, stinky, dirty and uncomfortable?

Re Gordy: “It just doesn’t compare.”

I wasn’t trying to compare the two sciences.  My comment was directed toward Bonner’s proclamation that “there aren’t really any climate scientists,” which is a rather nonsensical thing to say.

Wildflower, it just doesn’t compare.  Einstein was
working with elegant laws that were hidden and had to
be puzzled out; the climatologists are working with a
vast dynamic system and trying to simplify something
that is not elegant or simple.

Re Prosefights’s Bonner:“The trouble is there aren’t really any climate scientists and nobody really knows what is going on. . . It’s just guesswork.”

One wonders what someone who thinks like Bill Bonner would call a theoretical physicist like Einstein – a good guesser?

Bill Bonner writes at The Daily Reckoning Friday December 11, 2009.

Anthropogenic Global Warming, or AGW, is what climate scientists call the hypothesis that human behavior is causing the world to heat up. Anthropogenic means ‘caused by humans.’ Supposedly, humans release carbon dioxide that creates a greenhouse effect, raising temperatures. That’s what the scientists claim.

The trouble is there aren’t really any climate scientists and nobody really knows what is going on. Real science requires an ability to reproduce results and disprove an assertion. If there’s no way to prove that a hypothesis isn’t so, it’s not really science. It’s just guesswork. Nobody can prove much of anything related to the earth’s climate. You can’t do a controlled experiment. All you have is cogitation and conjecture.

Re Cosimo diRhondo: “At least not reward people for breeding like rabbits by way of tax deductions for each child.  This is so incredibly absurd, I’m shocked it isn’t being discussed more.”

Actually, the deduction has always seemed a rather trifling amount to me and it’s hard to believe that any parent and/or potential parent would see it as a reward.  In fact, I suspect most parents and/or potential parents in the U.S. would consider the deduction amount more of a punishment than a reward, especially those who are paying attention to what is going on in the U.S. today.

I was just reading, for example, that the U.S. tax code allows a publicly held corporation to deduct unlimited amounts for their “executive” babies. Technically, the code is suppose to limit this “compensation” deduction to $1,000,000 per executive child, but as usual there are loopholes which allow these corporate parents to deduct unlimited amounts for their babies.

I don’t know about you, but as a parent – a non-corporate parent I should say - this variance seems outrageously unfair to me.  Granted, there was a time when one might say you can’t compare the tax deductions allowed for corporations with the tax deductions allowed for families, but this has all
changed since corporations have declared their “personhood.” 

Personally, I feel the tax deduction for children should be the same amount for all of us. And if the U.S. tax code continues to allow this “performance based loophole” to be utilized by these corporate parents for their executive babies, it should be open to non-corporate parents and their babies as well. After all
non-corporate babies also perform and are just as entitled – if not more.

wildflower, December 10 at 4:37 pm:
‘Re Goodman: “It turns out that every society that offers a range of contraceptive options and information to women has a fertility rate of two children or fewer —- and this includes developing countries such as Iran and Thailand.

Interesting article and information.  Believe we need to pass this on to U.S.religious organizations that continue to oppose contraceptives.’

I thought Iran was one o’ those evil theocracies.

In any case I am beginning to wonder about those population figures.  I notice that wherever accurate censuses are taken, the population doesn’t seem to be growing all that fast.  (In some places, like the old East Bloc, it has actually declined a bit.)  Where they are not, very large figures are offered.  In some places, contradictory figures are given: for example, in central Africa, millions of people are supposedly being killed by civil war, AIDS, and famine, and yet the population is supposed to be growing rapidly.

I do agree that if you give women a choice, religion or not, most of them are not going to devote their entire lives to the very laborious tasks of having and raising large numbers of children.  Religion probably doesn’t make that much difference.  In the United States there is practically no difference in the use of contraception and abortion between different religious categories.

We could support a larger population by inventing
cleaner technologies and being less wasteful, but if
the population continues to grow then overpopulation
will be a problem merely deferred, not resolved. 

No one would suggest that an animal overpopulation
should be solved just by changing the way they live;
the animals would simply be culled or sterilized.  We
think we’re pretty damn important, don’t we? 

The truth of the situation is actually very simple
and we could solve our problems humanely and move on,
but I’m sure we’ll remain stuck in a self-created
morass until dire emergencies force change upon us.

We could support a larger population by inventing
cleaner technologies and being less wasteful, but if
the population continues to grow then overpopulation
will be a problem merely deferred, not resolved. 

No one would suggest that an animal overpopulation
should be solved just by changing the way they live;
the animals would simply by culled or sterilized.  We
think we’re pretty damn important, don’t we? 

The truth of the situation is actually very simple
and we could solve our problems humanely and move on,
but I’m sure we’ll remain stuck in a self-created
morass until dire emergencies force change upon us.

Not only in Copenhagen is the “human factor” missing.

Truth Alliance, 09.12.2009 cited, not copied:
—Obama casts the illusion of a 2011 withdrawal from Afghanistan, yet is adding 30,000 US soldiers.
- - Obama will now have 222,000 US troops in the AF-Pak-Iraq regions, 36,000 more than Bush’s highest total of 36,000.

Private Military “contractors”:
The number of private contractors deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan is rarely reported in the US press… a Congressional investigation revealed a record high 69% active duty soldiers are not soldiers, but rather private mercenaries. A Pentagon report revealed an Obama total of 242,657 private contractors in action as of June 30, 2009.

OBSERVATION: the money is needed for supplies and food for our illegal soldiers and mercenaries - and of course bribes - in the Ir-Af-Pak regions. This while the Hussein Obama administration continues to wipe out the IR-AF-PAK local leadership for OIL VULTURES, most whom reside in the US at least six months/fiscal year. The couple-million “Wetbacks” are already on the official “Dole-Rolls,” receive money and food. Thus, only honest, indigenous Americans need go hungry.

AS FAR AS DEATHS DUE TO TOBACCO-SMOKING IS CONCERNED: while researching literature in a related area in 1986, I discovered that approx. 15% of bronchial illness in the N.J.-N.Y. area were folk who had never smoked - . Has the %age increased in the last 23 years ?

This just in:
DEMOCRACY NOW
Thursday, December 10, 2009

Mayors: 26% Rise in Food Aid Needs

“The demand for food aid in the United States has
seen its largest increase in nearly two decades. In a
report this week, the US Conference of Mayors says
cities reported an average 26 percent rise in hunger
assistance requests, the highest since 1991.”

Starvation is here to stay, along with increasing
unemployment, permanent wars,and tobacco consumption.

WHO: Smoking kills 5 million every year

By MARIA CHENG, AP Medical Writer
Wed Dec 9, 8:58 am ET

LONDON – Tobacco use kills at least 5 million people
every year, a figure that could rise if countries
don’t take stronger measures to combat smoking, the
World Health Organization said Wednesday.
In a new report on tobacco use and control, the U.N.
agency said nearly 95 percent of the global
population is unprotected by laws banning smoking.
WHO said secondhand smoking kills about 600,000
people every year.

The ‘Human’ Factor Missing in Copenhagen
Posted on Dec 9, 2009 By Ellen Goodman

“There are nearly 7 billion people in the world
today. Scientists project 9.5 billion people by 2050.
In fact, there could be 8.5 billion or 10.5 billion.
Depending on what we do.”

Hey Ellen Goodman:

The HUMAN FACTOR is also missing in the White House.

I submit that what the population will be in 2050
does not depend on what “we” do,
but rather what the fascists controlling our food &
water supplies will do, and
they will never allow that many useless feeders to
survive.

In fact, a stated goal of the NEW WORLD ORDER:ONE
WORLD GOVERNMENT,
MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE, is to reduce the world
population substantially.

Currently over one billion people around the world
are being starved to death,
and with the financial meltdown conditions are
worsening.

Please see:

Food Is Power and the Powerful Are Poisoning Us

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090906_food_is_ power_and_the_powerful_are_poisoning_us/

Posted on Sep 6, 2009 By Chris Hedges

He says:
“Our most potent political weapon is food. If we take
back our agriculture,
if we buy and raise produce locally, we can begin to
break the grip of corporations that control
a food system as fragile, unsafe and destined for
collapse as our financial system.”

Ona, It’s Ellen Goodman, not Amy Goodman, a world of difference.  I sometimes almost read the name wrong myself.

A column from the writer who wants to ration health care for the old. (May 7th, I think, 2009 on TruthDig).  Maybe we need a discussion of who is human.

Re Goodman: “It turns out that every society that offers a range of contraceptive
options and information to women has a fertility rate of two children or fewer—
and this includes developing countries such as Iran and Thailand.

Interesting article and information.  Believe we need to pass this on to U.S.
religious organizations that continue to oppose contraceptives.

Thanks Amy, your clear eyed reporting always gives me hope for journalism in general.
One would think that the effects of climate change and the natural disasters that follow would be changing womens ability to conceive and carry to term. That may be true in part but the boom in the US of preemies and the extrordinary care they demand may be an indicator.
My hope would be that the current president will loosen/erase the restraints placed by the former president on the full contraceptive story for offical aide workers and NGOs from the US so we might begin again to slow not only unwanted pregnancies but the horrible spread of HIV-Aids and all the accompining immune disorders and disease that comes with poor health.
We can’t muzzle the rabid-right we need to continue to take action around their unreasonable, miserable messages.

It would be in the best interest to have public discussions on the population of
humans on earth and the affect we have because it won’t just be a matter of some
jackoff deciding to wipe out huge numbers of people to ‘make more room’ but it
will be about the simply sudden way nature will react to the affect from all of us.

While genuine scientists continue to be unable to
establish “warming and the source of warming” on the earth´s surface, the synthethic brainchild of the son of the former “alleged cattle-thief” in Tennessee has gained him millions, already, and increased the tizzy among the leadership of world nations.  It is as equally invalid as the concept of “overpopulation.”  The conducting of genocide by WHO cretin-types, via alleged “vaccines” that maim and kill by over-twirking the auto-immune system, is simply “modern-day” ego-gratification by the NAZI/illuminata satanists, who began to steer Americans into the accident lane at the end of WWII,and have overtaken the pharma-industry.

The fraudulent misuse of
  1. alleged flu-viruses, created in US Army
Bio-Weapon labs, as well as their murderous, alleged vaccines,
  2. the fraudulent oil-acquisition wars in the
Near East and eastern Europe, hyped as the spreading of democracy, by the Rockefeller branch of the illuminati,
  3. earth-warming to establish CO2 and carbon
“Units” as world-wide barter, controlled by                  
political shills in the USA,

is swiftly steering earth humanity to self-
destruction..  Americans are increasingly gaining
insight, as the EU acquires significant control,
but the self-destruction is a bit too far advanced for simple correction.

This while the “hero of the down-trodden” has
“alerted” one million soldiers for Northcom, and
bestowed the commanding general with authority to
murder millions of American citizens, if they
actively protest. 

All this in the land of the free and the home of the brave?