Two bits of good news

Reading The Times this morning I saw that the world's population is soon to hit 11 billion in 2100 (according to Science). The Guardian like the Times is very pessimistic in its presentation but if you are pro-life you will look at it more optimistically I would hope. Also gratifying to some extent is that this is not what the experts expected. Clearly a growing population (like a growing family) brings its own problems but there is no reason to be gloomy just because there are going to be more people. Lack of healthcare, poverty, pollution and rising unrest and crime are all problems caused by greed rather than booming populations I would guess.

I'm trying to hide the line The preference for large families is linked to lack of female education which limits women’s life choices from the wife.

The world’s population is now odds-on to swell ever-higher for the rest of the century, posing grave challenges for food supplies, healthcare and social cohesion. A ground-breaking analysis released on Thursday shows there is a 70% chance that the number of people on the planet will rise continuously from 7bn today to 11bn in 2100.

more here

The other interesting article was from something in Nature Communications saying that trees are growing faster due to climate change. See the article here. It begins

The Earth’s forests are a crucial resource for absorbing human carbon output and slowing, at least to a degree, the pace of climate change. But climate change also is altering the forests themselves. For one thing, it seems to be making trees in some places grow a lot faster.

April Snow

It didn't last long but it was the real thing. No jokes about global warming, eh?

Can't make it up

I heard Lord May say this on Radio 4 last night
'The basic facts that global warming is a reality and we are creating it by this time is about as disputable as the fact that we got here by processes of evolution by natural selection.'

And why am I sceptical?

By the way, do you remember last week Drudge had on his home page a picture of two polar bears? Actually, that picture goes back to 2004. I did a little research. I have found something. That picture has been totally misrepresented. It was of two polar bears on what looks like a melting glacier, a little ice floe that has split away, and they are supposedly stranded. That picture was taken back in 2004, and the caption for the original picture talks about how these polar bears, a mother and her cub, are playing around on an ice sculpture created by waves! An ice sculpture created by waves, a phenomenon that occurs when you have real cold water and cold air in the north like at the Arctic Circle. Now, nobody can tell me that waves are part of global warming, because waves have been in the ocean ever since there's been the ocean. So global warming had no impact whatsoever on where those polar bears were! They chose to be there. They swam out there, swam up on the ice floe. They can swim hundreds of miles, on top of the water, the surface, underneath. The whole thing was a fraud, and it is a great little microcosm for the entire global warming escapade. I got a whole global warming stack that we'll get to today again -- and, folks, again we've got record cold weather this week, and we don't have any broadcast news stories questioning global warming! All summer long, or in late fall, we can get really hot temperatures and they'll go banshee over the "fact" that there's global warming. Now, there's this cold front today that's going to be all week, 35 wind chill in Chicago last night, and no news about global warming whatsoever maybe being questionable.