On Jan 1, 6:59 pm, tg earthlink.net> wrote:

Nonsense. Oil and coal have little to do with bioengineering and the
farming technology that is here today. If the steam engine had won out
we may not even need oil or coal. We would need something to burn to
heat the water but it would not necessiarly have been oil or coal. Oil
and coal have kept population from growing higher. They have been used
in industry. Once production was moved from self owned farms there is
not the incentive to have big families and exploit child labor. A
combination of moving off the farm and out lawing child labor has kept
population rates down. Industrialization slows population growth and
reduces global warming. Most of global warming is methane.
Industrialization means fewer beast of burden and less burning of
dung. Reducing dung burden and the need for oxen and donkeys in the
third world will do more for global warming than Kyoto ever dreamed
of. Modern industry emits a lot of CO2 but not never as much as good
ole fashions cows, donkeys, horses, and other beast of burden. Take
them out of the production process and you greatly reduce global
warming. The third world is the problem and that problem is solved by
MORE GROWTH!!! It is solved by industrializing and reducing methane
emissions. I have yet to see a real scientist who does not quote
Methane as the biggest problem for global warming. All the CO2
emissions in the first world do not even come close to matching the
methane problem.

This is largely because the enviro nuts do not want windmills nor
nuclear power. Nuclear power is safe and has no emissions. The waste
can be safely contained. The libs don't want that because windmills
kill birds and they keep talking about 3 mile island like it was a
horrible incident.

I never made the assumption that population should keep growing. It
can't forever. Economic growth and population growth are too different
things. Population growth will reach 0 some day. That does mean
economic growth will. Industrialization of the third world is the best
way to slow population growth. As the medical technology gets there
and there is no longer the incentive to exploit child labor birth
rates drop. Giving them the economic growth to reduce child mortality
rates is the best way to lower population growth. Poor countries have
such large families because so many children die. It is a biological
response to have children that live past you. When you the mortality
rates are high for kids people have a lot of kids to make the odds
better at least one survives. Economic growth in the third world
reduces that necessity. Economic growth is the best solution for
reducing green house gass and slowing the population increases. The US
cites all of this crap about how much green house gasses modern
economies produce. However, science tells us methane is the biggest
contributor to global warming. Industrialized countries produce less
methane. They have less population growth and they use fewer animals
in production. Industrialization gives less incentive for breeding
beast of burden as well as decreasing birth rates of humans.
That is why physical scientists have to listen to economist. They
understand why global warming is happening. We understand the
incentives that help accelerate it and how to change those
incentives.