Maybe you can explain this global warming conundrum?

You're hitting on concepts about misanthropy and Malthusianism.

This is an interesting read: http://www.frankfuredi.com/index.php/site/article/...

only repeating the standard junk technological information would not make it actuality,your fist assumption it fataly unsuitable,the sunlight has been emmitting image voltaic flares stonger than any recorded in two decades because 2001,indicating an boost of a minimum of 40,000,000 jewels of electrostatic microwave warmth which extra particularly clears the outer and inner layers of the earths protecting ozone layer,to my wisdom we've not got any result on the suns means to warmth or cool its self and this actuality has under no circumstances been disproven or perhaps disputed because of the fact it grow to be placed forth in 2002 purchase the meterologist sociity,this actuality on my own will clarify an will boost interior the exterior tempreture over the final 3 many years,and specific longer,additionally your declare of the present fee of warming is base on the Luger-Albertson laptop style based on the quantity of oxygen recent in middle samples drawn from glacier ice,yet this looking is desputed with the help of various scientists as a unsuitable formula,so even this might account for a unsuitable result interior the fact you made as to the cost of temp boost after the final ice age,yet a Toronto scientist Dr Calvin Woodridge has placed forth his opion in this count pointing out that the fast boost if shown and that i repeat IF shown stunning might if fact be told represent at climatic top preceeding a cool down previous to the onset of yet another ice age at a while interior the destiny,Please understand that identifying on out people and orginizations that placed forth the opion and statements which you compromise with would not talk nicely of a guy or woman objectivity,and with the help of no way cause them to data.

You can't, the same people who are saying that the World is over populated are not looking at food production or anything else but level of living standard. It is just like the CO2 crowd using huge assumptions that are not proven as proven fact to make their claims. Both have no basis in any thing factual just how they interpret the information.

But by reducing co2 levels they will be killing millions of innocent people with breathing problems. if you have any form of asthma where you need to hod a bag over your face to steady your breathing your problems are brought about from to little co2, not to much.

For those who say people should be limited to one child, China has that policy. Have you checked their population lately?

I personally think that people should start having less kids and adopt more. Its alright to have one kid of your own and maybe adopt another. Sure, it costs money. But in the long run, it will help our situation

Great question... so many of our modern problems are interconnected and complex, but the common denominator in any honest investigation of so many of these issues is the explosion of the human population and the amplification and expansion of theses problems by too many people doing the same things with out regard to cause and effect.

Your trying to make a logical conclusion from the irony of the dilemma and create a link between environmentalism and genocide... and I would call that just another attempt to vilify so called warmers, greens and environmentalists.

I'd say your trying to launch a lead balloon and create a straw man painted a new color for the deniers, polluters and the right wing fringe to attach!

Nice try, but I think if you actually got to know some of us so called warmers you'd find we are willing to make sacrifices and lead by example rather than sign on to an over simplified solution at the expense of billions of our fellow human beings.

Just because the human population should ideally be smaller doesn't mean we want to kill people off. If we were smart, we would reduce the population to a more sustainable level in a controlled manner, by adjusting birth rates. But people seem to think it's their inalienable right to have 6 kids for some reason.

Alarmists typically are swayed by or are among those that are anti-human, anti-freedom, anti-American, anti-industry, anti-free market, secularists, and generally clueless when it comes to science and facts. You would think Ehrlich wouldn't have a shred of credibility since his predictions have been proven wrong over and over again, yet these same predictions of doom and gloom keep getting resurrected over and over again by those who are too arrogant to accept that they can be wrong.

Yes, let's have lots of babies so that living conditions will get worse on Earth and people will die off.

It's this kind of thinking that makes people hate deniers. It's amazing not just how stupid people are, but how stupid they seem to want to be.