>>>>>The sun is 20% dimmer because of particulate matter in the atmosphere.
>>>>>Global warming would be worse if it weren't for the pollution.
>>>>>I got to thinking about this the other day and it occurred to me that somewhere in the bowels of a government there is
>>>>>a person who has realized that the warming is a symptom of over population. Therefore, the immediate reduction
>>>>>of the planet's human population to a safe level must be initiated to save mankind and disease or some other
>>>>>deadly item will be unleashed upon us. Of course, I might be wrong and mother nature will knock us back automatically
>>>>>or maybe we'll all be baked. :-|
>>>>
>>>>But not all of the population contributes to pollution and warming equally. So it would make sense to remove the worst offenders first and work the way down until the balance is reestablished. If that was the case.
>>>
>>>Supply and demand is the underlying cause
>>
>>Ah, but you need to ask yourself "supply of what", and "demand for what". Why is pollution manufactured if there's no demand for it? ;).
>
>Supply of most products and the demand for them and even the research for new products. The process (system used by humans) almost always has pollution as a by-product.
>Why are you asking questions for which you already know the answer? Are you trying to teach people again, Dragan?
>
>But the point I was making is the possibility that this statement is true - "somewhere in the bowels of a government there is
>a person who has realized that the warming is a symptom of over population. Therefore, the immediate reduction
>of the planet's human population to a safe level must be initiated to save mankind and disease or some other
>deadly item will be unleashed upon us."
>
>Reduce the population and you reduce the demand. Therefore you reduce the CO2 output and the planet hopefully returns to it's cooler state and life continues.

How do you propose reducing the population?