World wide one child policy

[Irving]

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438


Anyone else think this reporter is an ill-informed jack ass?
She says that the only way to save the planet is to institute a world wide one child policy like China has. She says that China is leading the way in measures to reduce global warming just by having the policy, and that the 1 out of 5 people in the entire world living in China, are not over populating the planet. I'm not even sure I can take this article seriously. Doesn't this lady realize that the majority of 1st world countries have had declining birth rates for years now?

[SA Friday]

What's Global Warming and where's the proof it exists?

A premis based on a lie is false.

[Irving]

Well, my problem with the article was more along the lines of how she doesn't understand that most of the 1st world countries already have a declining population.


Also, I edited my first post because it's a lady.

[BadShot]

Not so much that we are currently over populated, but we are beginning to realize the limits of global resources. One child... yeah sure, why not. Then again I've got 7 kids, so yeah, try to limit me now bitches!

And SA Friday, while you might think that Global Warming is a farce.. you might refocus the concept to Climate Change. I think the majority of organizations have changed their catch phrasing. But, having seen a conservation agencies efforts and data collection, I can say with confidence that there is hard science to support the reality that we, human beings, are indeed impacting the environment to the point of it being worthy of concern. I don't agree that the chicken little approach that many are taking is the right one, but it is scientifically factual.

[Zundfolge]

You'll notice that EVERY SINGLE "solution" to every "problem" proposed by the left takes liberty from the people and gives power to the government.

Its pretty obvious what their real goals are.



As for man-made threats to the environment, I am 100% convinced AGW is a lie. If its wasn't they could prove it without "cooking the books", since its clear these people are religiously committed to proving that mans actions are harmful to the earth, if we were seriously damaging the world in some other way (ie, not via carbon induced global warming) then they'd have dug that info up and proved it with clean, un-faked science.

Certainly there are places where man made pollution is having a deleterious effect on the local environment, there just simply is no global threat to the environment posed by man (with the possible exception of widespread nuclear war).

[Bailey Guns]

And SA Friday, while you might think that Global Warming is a farce.. you might refocus the concept to Climate Change. I think the majority of organizations have changed their catch phrasing. But, having seen a conservation agencies efforts and data collection, I can say with confidence that there is hard science to support the reality that we, human beings, are indeed impacting the environment to the point of it being worthy of concern. I don't agree that the chicken little approach that many are taking is the right one, but it is scientifically factual.

Yeah...every time "they" (in this case, the "they" are the ones who demand change in the name of AGW) run into a roadblock selling their product the catch phrase changes. It's a standard tactic used to deflect attention from the issue. Cute. For example, we used to have anti-gun organizations talk about "gun control". Now the new "catch phrase" for many of them is "gun safety measures".

And we're not talking simply about man's impact on the environment...we're talking about the global climate, specifically. Big difference. If we have a factory dumping pollutants into a river, it's easy to measure the negative impact. As for measuring man's impact on the climate...I sure as hell haven't seen any "hard science"...at least none that's irrefutable.

Sure...I believe climate change exists. I also believe that it's pretty much a naturally ocurring phenomenon that would happen with or without man on the planet. As far as it being "hard science" that man is affecting our climate? For every scientist that says this is the case there's at least one who says it isn't. So I don't buy that for a minute. And now we have the .gov saying even CO2 is a dangerous byproduct of man's existence.

AGW is a scam, pure and simple, in my opinion. I believe Zundfolge nailed it when he said:

You'll notice that EVERY SINGLE "solution" to every "problem" proposed by the left takes liberty from the people and gives power to the government.

You can believe in the hard science agenda of the left if you want to. No fair bitching when it starts taking (more?) money out of your pocket, though.

[SA Friday]

Not so much that we are currently over populated, but we are beginning to realize the limits of global resources. One child... yeah sure, why not. Then again I've got 7 kids, so yeah, try to limit me now bitches!

And SA Friday, while you might think that Global Warming is a farce.. you might refocus the concept to Climate Change. I think the majority of organizations have changed their catch phrasing. But, having seen a conservation agencies efforts and data collection, I can say with confidence that there is hard science to support the reality that we, human beings, are indeed impacting the environment to the point of it being worthy of concern. I don't agree that the chicken little approach that many are taking is the right one, but it is scientifically factual.

Opinions vary.... Think what you will, but annually the entire world's bovine population puts out more ozone depleting gasses via methane than the world's total industrial emissions. Agreed we cannot dump irreverable impacting poisons into the world, but that is entirely different than what global warming asshats like Al Gore are selling. They promote scientific fact that requires faith, and that's bad juju. I don't want mercury in my water table, but then again I don't want Govt forcing $5k worth of emissions controls on to my truck based on faith science or having to shoot steel at waterfoul instead of lead based on a DNR guess. The 'global climate' had been fluxuating as far back as the scientists have explored. Why would it be different now, and the polar bear population is far from in danger. Some enviornmental impact is clear and concise. Using mercury in gold mining, strip mining with pressure hoses, logging entire mountains, the proof is there these have terminal impact to the surrounding areas. Lumping them into this huge picture and concluding we are melting the polar ice caps is science based on faith. Making wide sweeping decisions based on this junk science is criminal.

[newracer]

Not so much that we are currently over populated, but we are beginning to realize the limits of global resources. One child... yeah sure, why not. Then again I've got 7 kids, so yeah, try to limit me now bitches!

And SA Friday, while you might think that Global Warming is a farce.. you might refocus the concept to Climate Change. I think the majority of organizations have changed their catch phrasing. But, having seen a conservation agencies efforts and data collection, I can say with confidence that there is hard science to support the reality that we, human beings, are indeed impacting the environment to the point of it being worthy of concern. I don't agree that the chicken little approach that many are taking is the right one, but it is scientifically factual.

I'd like to see that hard science.

[Irving]

It doesn't bother anyone that this person is spouting a one-child per family solution to a problem that doesn't even exist?


http://www.indexmundi.com/map.aspx?v...+population%29
Look at this map of fertility rates and you'll see that nearly every single country that is blamed for mass pollution already has a dwindling birth rate. Why is the author even suggesting this plan then?

**Note: I tried to look up where the birth rate switches from positive to negative, but I'm kind of busy at work and didn't find it.

[GreenScoutII]

I have four children of my own. This day and age, mine is considered a large family. Historically, we would have been considered average to small in size. Do I think the world is becoming overpopulated? No, I really don't. Overpopulated as compared to what?

As far as environmental inpact, yes more people on earth will consume more resources. This is more of a concern if we are talking about food supplies and access to potable water. The population surge is largely in asia. Specifically China and India. As such, these places are where we are observing the growing pains. I think over time as these countries modernize they will observe the same phenomenon (sp?) as western countries in terms of birth rate. It will decline and eventually stabilize. My point is this supposed problem is inherently self limiting.

As far as global warming is concerned, sure, I can see tha data and agree the earth does appear to be getting warmer. So what? Science has also documented that the earth has done this countless times before. We have ice ages followed by warming periods followed by ice ages again. Its all part of a natural cycle. Do humans contribute to it? Possibly. I think climate change will occur independently of any of our actions though. I do believe in developing clean energy sources and using them as much as possible but not because it will "save the Earth"..

Consider the so called green house gasses. Carbon dioxide and the like are also produced in massive volumes when volcanoes erupt. I think what we as a species produce is paltry by comparison.

Just my two cents fellas.....