EnviroWave by Robert Green

In "The Global Warming Hoax" Bud Simmons posts the article "The real climate change catastrophe" by Paul Driessen which leads with the statement 'Asserting "the science is settled" ignores the debate that still rages. Proclaiming that "climate change is real" ignores Earth's constant, natural warming and cooling.' And concludes with the argument that real catastrophe is not some climate cataclysm, but is a handy argument for repressing the lives of impoverished nations.

The first statement moved me to research this a little further. I have another argument against the latter.

It seems that most scientists who have studied the heating and cooling patterns of the Earth, agree that patterns are evident in the historical data. However, the significant changes to our environment are marked by a fact that is not present in this article, and is not present in many articles that claim to debunk the myth of global warming. The ignored fact is that during the cycles of heating and cooling identified in the distant and relatively near past (of 200 years and greater) are consistent with a stable population of humans of about 500 million. At 1804, the global population reached one billion. In 1927, the world population reached 2 billion. In 1987, the world population reached five billion, and in 2005, the world population reached 6 billion people.

Over most recent 200 years of history, there have been a number of things that have allowed the human population to boom to its current state. The use of soaps, antiseptics and other medical miracles have improved the quality of life and reduced the impact of diseases decreasing the mortality rate, and increasing the birth rate. Advances to the way we produce and harvest animals and foods has also evolved to become more voluminous and efficient.

Now that we have over 6 billion people on earth, each breathing and working in more industrial modes and with greater efficiencies, it seems reasonable that humans are having an impact on the environment. The increased resource demands on animals, food, water and oxygen, are having an "unnatural" affect and it’s showing up in scientific data that is rejected by the global warming hoax community.

We have already seen examples in smaller communities, such as the Florida deer population, which have yielded smaller and fewer animals each year due to overeating of its available resources. An additional example is Algae blooms in the ocean that bust (die out) because of their ravenous demand for oxygen and nutrients that cannot be found in the water immediately surrounding their colony as they grow.

I think the Earth may be reaching its carrying capacity very soon. This brings me to my arguments for Mr. Driessen's conclusion, that it’s unethical to not allow impoverished nations to flourish with hydroelectric or nuclear power, or modern technologies and conveniences, or insecticides that will help reduce mosquito born disease to improve their quality of life.

To me, the real problem exists when we have artificially grown the population to a point that the earth can no longer sustain its population. A sustainable population is possible, considering two things: First, the birth and mortality rate must balance each other. Second, we must consider that life in impoverished nations may not be sustainable with local resources. It may be necessary to either relocate the inhabitants to locales where resources exist, or discover or provide the means to sustain and improve the lives of those in impoverished nations where they are.

People's quality of life is extremely poor when they cannot cultivate land or get the electricity to power the homes and tools of every day life. Life has no quality at all when plants, animals or people cannot survive the environmental revolt caused by a deteriorating atmosphere from direct, or even indirect, human involvement.

To say global warming is a hoax may or may not be true, but to deny the impact of human involvement on our environment is simply not reasonable, and is the ignored fact in the existing environmental problem.

Robert