"john fernbach"  wrote in message
news:1191619866.488464.80800@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>From the Guardian,
Friday October 5, 2007
limate change disaster is upon us, warns UN
· Emergency relief chief calls for swift action
· 12 out of 13 'flash' appeals in 2007 related to weather
· In pictures: floods, droughts and storms across the world
· World in crisis map, 2007


"The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world
will undergo

famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to
death in

spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control
is the

only answer."



"a minimum of ten million people, most of them

children, will starve to death during each year of the 1970s. But
this is a

mere handful compared to the numbers that will be starving before
the end of

the century"



"By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce

the earth's population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion
people."

He added that by 1980 the United States would see its life
expectancy drop

to 42 because of pesticides, and by 1999 its population would
drop to 22.6

million. In the seventies, Ehrlich envisioned the President
dissolving

Congress "during the food riots of the 1980s," followed by the
United States

suffering a nuclear attack for its mass use of insecticides.



 "Our position requires that we take immediate action at home and
promote

effective action worldwide. We must have population control at
home,

hopefully through changes in our value system, but by compulsion
if

voluntary methods fail."



 "luxury taxes could be placed on layettes,

cribs, diapers, diaper services, [and] expensive toys..." and
suggested

giving "responsibility prizes" to couples who went at least five
years

without having children or to men who got vasectomies. He called
for setting

up a federal Bureau of Population and Environment to oversee
reducing U.S.

population growth.



Paul Ehrlich is the modern version of |Thomas Malthus| -- the
most visible

and persistent predictor of mass famine and economic catastrophe.
Unlike

Malthus, though, Ehrlich doesn't seem to learn from his mistakes;
when one

of his predictions of disaster fails to come true, Ehrlich simply
moves on

and makes other predictions of disaster, constantly pushing back
the

timetable for massive world famine, perhaps in the desperate hope
that if he

keeps predicting the same thing, eventually pure chance will
fulfill the

conditions he requires.


-- 

Regards

Bonzo

“The IPCCs alarmist case regarding dangerous human climate change
rests not on empirical data, but on unvalidated computer models,
failed greenhouse theory and anecdotal accounts of climate
changes, such as glaciers melting, that may well be of wholly or
largely natural origin.”
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University,
Townsville

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan"  wrote
>> 1998 14.57  *********************o*****
>> 1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
>> 2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
>> 2001 14.48  ************************o
>> 2002 14.56  *************************o**
>> 2003 14.55  **************************o*
>> 2004 14.49  *************************>>o
>> 2005 14.63  *****************************o**
>> 2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o
>>
>>   Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.

"Bonzo"  wrote
> The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
> They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
> Voodoo statistics!

  Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
below.  In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the crude
nature of ascii graphics.  Nevertheless it represents the best line that can
be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance between
the line and the real data.  It's called a least squares curve fit.

  You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics in
general aren't you Bonzo.

  Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds scientists.

  "Voodoo statistics"  Ahahahahahahahah...  You need to go back to public
school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.

  Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....


"Bonzo"  wrote
> Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>
> 1998 366.50 2.5721     14.57
> 1999 368.14 2.6148     14.33
> 2000 369.41 2.6399     14.33
> 2001 371.07 2.6672     14.48
> 2002 373.16 2.7032     14.56
> 2003 375.80 2.7487     14.55
> 2004 377.55 NA            14.49
> 2005 379.75 NA            14.63
> 2006 381.90 NA            14.54

  No?  Lets plot the data and find out shall we?  Here it is along with the
best linear fit to the data shown as "o".

1998 14.57  *********************o*****
1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48  ************************o
2002 14.56  *************************o**
2003 14.55  **************************o*
2004 14.49  *************************>>o
2005 14.63  *****************************o**
2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?