It certainly shouldn't come as a great surprise that there are people who think human beings are the worst species on the planet, and that Earth would be a much better place without us.
However, though Slate's Daniel Engber did add some skepticism to his "Global Swarming: Is it time for Americans to start cutting our baby emissions?" article, his conclusion made it quite clear his answer to this question was "Yes":
We know that babies add more to global warming than anything else in our home. Isn't it time to cut back?
For those with a strong stomach, here are some of the lowlights (emphasis added throughout, h/t Ken Shepherd):
According to The World Without Us, Alan Weisman's strangely comforting vision of human annihilation, the Earth would be a lot better off. In his doomsday scenario, freshwater floods would course through the New York subway system, ailanthus roots would heave up sidewalks, and a parade of coyotes, bears, and deer would eventually trot across the George Washington Bridge and repopulate Manhattan. Nature lovers can take solace in the idea that the planet will thrive once we've finally destroyed ourselves with global warming. But Weisman takes the fantasy one step further: Let's not wait for climate change, he says. Let's start depopulating right now.
For those who think people wouldn't possibly take such a recommendation seriously, please be advised that Weisman's book is on the New York Times bestseller list. But I digress:
As social policy, population control seems like an infringement on fundamental human rights. That's been the case in China, where mandatory birth planning has been a ghastly failure in both moral and practical terms. But these days, we tend to think of saving the environment in terms of personal choice, rather than government programs. We're obsessed with our green lifestyles-eating local, driving hybrids, paying off our excess carbon-dioxide emissions. From that perspective, voluntary familial extinction (or at least reduction) might not be such a bad idea. If you want to reduce your carbon footprint, cutting back on kids is the best choice you can possibly make.
Wow. Let's stop having children to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Is it becoming clear just how far the brainwashing by folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore has gone?
But, there was more, for Engber actually calculated for the reader the environmental cost of reproduction:
In the crudest terms, you've added another version of yourself into the world, which means you're potentially doubling your carbon-dioxide emissions over the total life of your family. That's a high estimate, since our kids won't spew as much greenhouse gas as we do-automobiles, appliances, light bulbs, and everything else will become more efficient in coming generations. But these marginal improvements aren't going to make our babies carbon-neutral. They'll just contribute to global warming at somewhat lower rates than we do.
Our other green lifestyle choices can't even begin to offset the cost of adding a brand-new CO2-emitter to the population. When I ran my own numbers through Al Gore's carbon calculator, I discovered that a switch to 100 percent wind and solar power would reduce my emissions by just 1.3 tons per year. That's not even enough to account for one quarter of today's average American. Meanwhile, I'd have to do quite a bit of driving around in a Hummer H3 to mimic the environmental impact of creating another version of me. Not to mention the fact that my children might eventually decide to have their own children, who would emit even more carbon dioxide down the line.
Horrors. Your children might have children. Heck, I remember when folks thought this was a good thing. Of course, that was before Al Gore convinced so many people how horrible they are.
Does everyone now understand why so many conservative writers such as myself have taken this issue on?
When the alarmism being spread by charlatans like Gore and NASA's James Hansen reaches a level where people start advocating population control to solve a problem that no one has yet proven exists, folks that haven't fallen under their spell better do everything possible to counter the propaganda or who knows where the insanity will end.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Heavy Breathing
September 13, 2007 - 14:13 ET by Six String SpiffHmm they might have a point here. All that heavy breathing during sex can probably generate more Co2 than a HuM V!
Coming back to reality... GOOD FREAKIN GRIEF! What next? Suicide for mother earth? These self loathing libs are WHACKED.
The American Revolution Continued
Have you ever heard of the Church of Euthanasia
September 13, 2007 - 15:56 ET by kbworkmanThe creed is "Save the planet, kill yourself".
I thought they had died out.
And don't forget...
September 13, 2007 - 14:24 ET by AtillaKahuna...that this isn't something WE should do, but something YOU should do. Don't think for a minute that Algore will be giving up HIS anything-but-carbon neutral lifestyle any time soon. YOU need to adjust YOUR carbon output, NOT him.
Once again - hypocrisy abounds.
Kahuna - Father of five, and not done yet!!!!
What's the problem here?
September 13, 2007 - 14:25 ET by taylorkIf the looney left want to have fewer children , then I say let them. That just means there will be far fewer future democrats.
...and there would be a vast improvement in the gene pool.
September 13, 2007 - 14:38 ET by RJAlthough abortion has been accomplishing the same thing with the Roe Effect, we can't encourage it for moral reasons.
But this accomplishes the same thing, and it's something we can enthusiastically encourage. ;^>
voluntary familial
September 13, 2007 - 14:26 ET by taznarIf you believe as he does or can be convinced that he's right, I wholeheartedly agree. Do the world a favor and don't have any kids.
How does that theory of evolution go again?
Russians
September 13, 2007 - 14:29 ET by ricklailThe Russians are the problem. Remember the report from yesterday where they encouraged making more little Ruskies?
As I have said before and will say again. A Sovereign God will not put more people on this planet than it can sustain.
A bonafided and certified member of the beer guzzling, NASCAR watching middle class.
A Sovereign God will not
September 13, 2007 - 15:24 ET by taznarAnd for those who don't believe in a Sovereign God, nature is also quite adept at dealing with overpopulation. But then, nature has no mercy.
This is why they love abortion so much
September 13, 2007 - 14:30 ET by Daniel BakerWe need to tie abortion to global warming to show the absurdity of it. Like "Without abortion we would all be burned alive."
_______________________________
Learn about "the best choice for people of faith" http://www.evangelic...
Endangered Liberals...
September 13, 2007 - 14:37 ET by TruthMongerthe only real losers on this idea would be the libs - they would be the only ones to practice it and only extinct themselves - that's what abortion and gay marriage are already doing - this would further accelerate the process...
Anyone gulliable, or
September 13, 2007 - 14:30 ET by bassndudeAnyone gulliable, or stupid enough to belive in global warming should not only be forbidden to have children, but should have any children they do have taken away from them before they create another generation of idiots. So yeah. Liberals should be forbidden to procreate.
Man, that sounds pretty radical dont it? Ah well, what can I say.:-)
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
No, liberals shouldn't be
September 13, 2007 - 22:19 ET by Sonny LykosNo, liberals shouldn't be allowed to exist.
"The Population
September 13, 2007 - 14:38 ET by Chris Norman"The Population Bomb"?
Global Warming now goes retro!
It may be good to note just
September 13, 2007 - 14:42 ET by rwestIt may be good to note just how modest this proposal is. Engber spends most of the last half of the article talking about how this idea is unlikely to gain any traction with anyone. The book is popular not for this twisted Malthusian nonsense, but for its imaginative depiction of Earth without man.
Erlich Disciples
September 13, 2007 - 14:45 ET by scamoramaI remember reading a passage by Erlich describing his experience in India, and the teeming brown masses.
It's readily apparent that what bothers these people is not that there are too many people, but that there are too many of the wrong sort:
Too many brown people; too many black people; too many yellow people; too many red people.
Not early enough white ones.
ZPG = racism.
Well...
September 13, 2007 - 14:48 ET by Bobby JerseyHe can start this process with himself and his ilk friends if he thinks its so good. Insane
Please RSVP
September 13, 2007 - 14:49 ET by Fidel SarcastroLet me be the first to cordially invite all the AGWer's to join this distinguished organization;
http://www.vhemt.org
The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution.
Hannah Arendt
LOL Fidel, is that site for
September 13, 2007 - 15:05 ET by bassndudeLOL Fidel, is that site for real????? Its hilarious.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
One can always dream
September 13, 2007 - 15:54 ET by Fidel SarcastroI certainly hope its real. To quote the fellow up above;
"How does that theory of evolution go again?"
I would guess that the political orientation of the members of VHEMT would fall closer to the nutroots tree than it would the conservative/libertarian one. Survival of the fittest, and all.
The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution.
Hannah Arendt
Fidel,
September 13, 2007 - 19:30 ET by Dave RNow all we have to do is come up with a way to make libs want to join. The more, the better, I'd say. Perhaps my nieces and nephew will grow up in a world with far fewer liberals.
That would be paradise on Earth, indeed.
"I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!”- Rick Roberts
www.vhemt.org...
September 13, 2007 - 16:22 ET by vrwc13They all must have bought into this.
vhemt = Various Hats, Everyone Made of Tinfoil
v
Fewer babies vs open borders?
September 13, 2007 - 14:50 ET by Gary HallTweak - Fewer babies vs open borders?
But let's open the borders, allowing the population to explode by another 100 million, mostly folks with birth rates three times that of the current majority population here in the US.
An observation:
That should be good for congestion and the environment.
How do these folks sleep with themselves?
By the same logic
September 13, 2007 - 15:01 ET by KC MulvilleAdmitting my complete ignorance, I rarely offer any comment on global warming. But this is simply an offense against logic.
By the same argument, continuing your own existence is as "selfish" as having children. If you want to discourage children because they will spoil the atmosphere in the future, you must also discourage your own continued existence, because you will do the same. The fact that you recommend it to be 'voluntary' is irrelevant. If you recommend it to be voluntary, it doesn't change the silliness of what you want others to choose voluntarily.
Maybe the author addresses this, but I don't care. I haven't read the book, and won't. The Amazon review called the author 'puckish,' which means snarky, which means 'smart-ass.' Frankly, since the media is soaked with puckish and snarky commentary, it's getting a little tiresome. True wit is more than just attitude, and I've had enough of attitude.
However, I find it hilarious that an author would do so much research just to make a snarky point. Being a smart-ass shouldn't take so much effort.
Heck, I remember when
September 13, 2007 - 15:04 ET byPlease provide ONE quote from Al Gore in which he says children are horrible.
He supports
September 13, 2007 - 15:13 ET by Clear thinkerHe supports abortion!
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
Al Gore has never said
September 13, 2007 - 15:24 ET byAl Gore has never said children are horrible and I doubt he believes it. Assigning despicable views to Gore and then criticizing him for them is exactly the kind of character assassination and deception that's all too common on the right. Shame on Noel Sheppard for engaging in it here.
Supporting abortion does
September 13, 2007 - 15:27 ET by Clear thinkerSupporting abortion does not equate to him thinking children are horrible?
I'd say anyone that supports killing babies really, really, hates kids!
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
Supporting the right to an
September 13, 2007 - 15:35 ET bySupporting the right to an abortion and encouraging abortions are two different things.
How dumb! I support drug
September 13, 2007 - 15:40 ET by Clear thinkerHow dumb!
I support drug addiction, but I don't encourage it.
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
RottenHam subscribes to his leader's instructions..
September 13, 2007 - 15:49 ET by vrwc13RottenHam subscribes to his leaders instructions..
Yeah, logic, reason, facts play less of a role now in the way we make decisions in America. – Al Gore
"Supporting the right to an abortion and encouraging abortions are two different things." RottenHam
that statement has to be one of the dumbest I have heard in a long time.
v
Do you support the war in
September 13, 2007 - 16:02 ET byDo you support the war in Iraq? Does that mean you support having as many wars as possible for whatever reason you like? See the difference?
Rotten... You need
September 13, 2007 - 16:06 ET by Clear thinkerRotten...
You need therapy!
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
Rotten... You need
September 13, 2007 - 16:37 ET byThat's why I come here!
Good thinking. If you stay
September 13, 2007 - 16:40 ET by Clear thinkerGood thinking. If you stay here long enough you just might get your mind back. We Conservatives don't mind helping the less fortunate.
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
Hammy...try reading
September 13, 2007 - 16:42 ET by vrwc13Well hopefully it's helping...next try curling up with a good book and do some "real" reading...this one will do nicely.
v
The Harsh Reality
September 13, 2007 - 19:02 ET by reelman46Hoepfully not... but look around at the definite trend... the least successful segment of the population is about 3-1 in reproduction advantage. They are led like sheep to the secular socialist agenda by the modern liberals (democrats, aka secular socialists)... the libs love "a lotta sheep voters" so they can do their "fear and smear" routine. Its working... only by razor-thin margins have the socialists been kept out of the White House where they can appoint hundreds of lifetime lefty (secular socialist) judges and do other lasting cultural damage. I have no solutions as long a the socialist game plan is so ineffectively countered by the pantywaist-dominated Repubs. Promise them income redistribution (from others more successful), bus them in to vote with sample ballots completed after instilling fear that those "repub devils" will "take away" this or that freebie. Its not a pretty picture. Denial of reality is not an option. That is one main reason we cannot tolerate another "mushmouth get along conservative-lite" in congress or the White House.
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)
Throw in "close the borders" & if you don't work you don't eat..
September 13, 2007 - 19:17 ET by vrwc13..."I still have the same common-sense conservative beliefs," Thompson said in Iowa, citing his belief in the "sanctity of life, lower taxes, less regulation, market economy, free competition, respect for private property rights, free and fair trade." Fred Thompson
....and I think we just might have a plan that will be able to out-survive them.
v
lib's are having less
September 13, 2007 - 15:33 ET by vrwc13lib's are having less children, and conservatives more...partially due to the RoeEffect. Using global warming is just another way for pro-abortion folks to justify their motives and just one of many ways they will try to "balance out" the future generations. They are at least smart enough to do that math.
v
Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened. -Winston Churchill.
Folks
September 13, 2007 - 16:41 ET by Noel SheppardFolks,
You've allowed this troll to get you all into a lather. This isn't about abortion. Let's read the supposedly offending sentence together:
The THEY are PEOPLE, not children. The entire premise of the alarmists is that PEOPLE are TERRIBLE because we DRIVE CARS and EMIT CARBON DIOXIDE that's destroying the planet.
Therefore, like AGW, this is much ado about nothing. In the future, please take anything this guy says with a grain of salt. He's here to anger people, and you're letting him get the best of you. ns
Noel... No anger
September 13, 2007 - 16:43 ET by Clear thinkerNoel...
No anger here.
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
None here either...there
September 13, 2007 - 16:51 ET by vrwc13None here either...there are many ways the lib's will use GW or anything else to promote everyone else to have less children, like they are. And whether it's having less by contraceptives, GW brainwashing, fear of famine, or abortion; their agenda is clear.
v
The THEY are PEOPLE, not
September 13, 2007 - 16:44 ET byPlease provide ONE quote in which Al Gore says "PEOPLE" are horrible or concede that you are assigning to him a view he never expressed.
It's People Support our
September 13, 2007 - 19:28 ET byIt's People
Support our Troops
NS, This post is
September 13, 2007 - 16:44 ET by TheGingermanNS,
This post is unfair.
You asked for respect from RottenHam and then you engage in the exact behavior that you asked him to refrain from (*calling him a troll).
A troll is someone that isn't interested in debate and is just here to make a mess. As far as I can tell, Rottenham has been on-topic and in the debate in his threads. Someone isn't automatically a troll just b/c they disagree with you.
I don't get it.
GM
September 13, 2007 - 16:50 ET by Noel SheppardGM,
I didn't ask respect from RH, and don't expect to receive it. I requested that he stop calling people deniers.
As for my assertion that he's a troll, I stand by it. I believe his condescending, abusive behavior is trollish, and he's close to being banned. ns
I didn't ask respect from
September 13, 2007 - 16:55 ET byI've abided by your request.
I am neither condescending nor abusive; just disagreeable. Are no contrary opinions allowed here?
Noel, Where has he been
September 13, 2007 - 17:00 ET by TheGingermanNoel,
Where has he been condescending or abusive? He stopped calling people deniers when you asked him to (and it's arguable whether that was abusive in the first place)
The people replying to him have been abusive, but I haven't seen him be abusive at all.
He's been argumentative, but so is everyone on this site.
I see a lot more abuse coming from a lot of the other members and I never see them get warnings. It seems that he is being unfairly singled out, which is obviously your perogative seeing as how you are one of the guys running this website.
I'll say no more on this. Don't want to get too involved but I just don't think your characterization is founded on reality and, thus, is equally as offensive as his denier comment.
I've never seen him on this site before but I think he deserves a fair shake like any other member.
Gingerman, he wasn't "asked" to stop using the word
September 13, 2007 - 21:00 ET by RJ....he was told that the word had offensive connotations and that continued use of it would result in banning. RH bitched and moaned mightily with seveal posts, but knew it was useless to argue. Since then he's made several snotty allusions to it. Not exactly the image you tried to present.
In addition, read Popular Tech's list of really snotty remarks made by RH.
Your defense is foolish, without merit, and makes you look like some kind of a B-movie yes-man.
RJ, we now have a troll tag-team: RottenSwine & Gingerbread boy.
September 13, 2007 - 21:33 ET by Dave RI think we have our very first troll tag-team here at NB. SmellySwine here is the, a'hem, brains of the operation, and Gingerbread-boy is his flack.
I'm not sure, but for some reason, the Stinking Porker is beginning to remind me of somebody.
Dave, I have my suspicions about cleverpig, too
September 13, 2007 - 21:42 ET by RJI mean, what are the odds of TWO porcine names appearing at the same time, with BOTH focused on AGW?
Has anyone ever seen the two at the same time?
Or, maybe, they're just from the same DU, KOS, or MoveOn litter.... :^>
must be a
September 13, 2007 - 21:51 ET byconspiracy since the piglet is from the UK
Support our Troops
RJ,
September 13, 2007 - 21:52 ET by Dave RYeah, there is definitely something rotten going on here porcine wise.
And ya know, that just ain't quite kosher.
"I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!”- Rick Roberts
In addition, read
September 14, 2007 - 07:23 ET byAnd everyone of them was richly deserved.
"B-movie yes-man?" How snotty!
derka derka
September 14, 2007 - 08:50 ET by RJderka derka
The entire premise of the
September 13, 2007 - 16:48 ET byThat is completely wrong. Nobody says "PEOPLE are TERRIBLE." You're just making up positions and assigning them to others again. Environmentalists want clean cars and alternative fuels so we can enjoy a stable climate and healthy ecosystems. Translating that into "PEOPLE are TERRIBLE" is a just a lie.
How about that? Noel thinks I'm winning!
GM
September 13, 2007 - 16:55 ET by Noel SheppardGM,
You think he's not a troll?
You were saying? ns
Yes Noel I still think he
September 13, 2007 - 17:01 ET by TheGingermanYes Noel I still think he is not a troll.
He provided a reply to your assessment which is fine.
The winning comment is true. As we all know from this site, when you get angry, you lose the debate.
GM
September 13, 2007 - 17:04 ET by Noel SheppardGM,
He is here to make people angry, and just admitted it. That's what trolls do, and that's MY final word on the subject. Adieu. ns
NS
September 13, 2007 - 17:07 ET by TheGingermanIt looks to me like he is here to engage in AGW debates.
People getting angry is simply a by-product of his original inent.
Debate?
September 13, 2007 - 17:34 ET by azholmesNot so much. It reads more like a 5th grade shouting match.
Are you really willing to bet your life that socialism will work (this time)?
He is here to make people
September 13, 2007 - 17:07 ET byI admitted no such thing.
Does this mean you're not going to provide a quote from Al Gore in which he says "PEOPLE are TERRIBLE?"
You think he's not a
September 13, 2007 - 17:05 ET byI'm just here to throw my $0.02 in like everybody else. I was simply commenting on YOUR assessment of the argument.
Since I got here, I've been called all kinds of names and subjected to various forms of abuse yet I haven't seen you wag your finger at any of my tormentors once. Why is that?
Names?, Abuse?
September 14, 2007 - 01:11 ET by azholmesI have yet to see you abused or called names. Cites?
Are you really willing to bet your life that socialism will work (this time)?
uhhh...what exactly would
September 13, 2007 - 17:01 ET by mikejuhhh...what exactly would you call it then when the guy the article is about dreams of a world with NO humans and he uses Spotted Al Ron Gorrbard's own tools to show how much humans have on the earth. Al Gore has insinuated that people who don't buy into the idiotic moronic Get Al Richer quick scheme of carbon offsets should be saddened and ashamed that they aren't doing so.
This guy doesn't hate people, he just wants them all gone so they won't screw up the earth. Of course, how many humans live on Mars and it's warming is it not?
I will admit, I don't think Al Gore hates everybody. Just conservatives and those who have exposed him for the fraud that he is.
Rainbow Six
September 13, 2007 - 17:16 ET by BlondeMike,
Do you remember the Tom Clancy novel Rainbow Six? Wherein a bunch of these warmers actually decided to off the population of the world with an Ebola-like virus.
I know we scoff at the mere expression of this idea...the planet would be better off with out people...that these libs spout off about. But it really isn't so far fetched that someday, a group of them will actually try to accomplish this goal.
Just a thought....
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Rainbow Six
September 13, 2007 - 20:48 ET by NofBlonde,
That was the first thing that came to mind when I read this post. T Clancy has some scary accuracy to his books. As a former ET in the Nuke Navy his descriptions about the inner workings of the military aren't too far off, and his scenerio's are tangible. Let us hope there's good people looking for this type of activity.
"When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat" R. Reagan
Hey Nof
September 13, 2007 - 21:05 ET by BlondeI love Clancy. And that scenario is not too far fetched, not with all the idiots drinking the kool-aid.
And if I may say, welcome, here.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
mikej,
September 13, 2007 - 19:21 ET by Dave RI don't think Al Gore hates everybody. Just conservatives and those who have exposed him for the fraud that he is.
LOL-Then I guess its safe to assume that Noel isn't on Al's Christmas card list.
"I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!”- Rick Roberts
"Please provide ONE quote
September 13, 2007 - 18:50 ET by stratman"Please provide ONE quote from Al Gore in which he says children are horrible."
Please provide ONE quote from Noel Sheppard in which he says Al Gore says children are horrible?
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Please provide ONE quote
September 13, 2007 - 19:37 ET byHere you go:
Al Gore does not believe people, including children, are horrible.
RottenHam, This is a copy
September 13, 2007 - 22:42 ET by hydrodynDMRottenHam,
This is a copy of a part of my reply to you in another topic, but it's more appropriate here:
It's obvious that Mr. Sheppard's comment about Gore was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Do you honestly think Sheppard was trying to attribute a false statement to Gore in that off hand comment? Given your other posts, I really don't think you're that dense. That leads me to think that you made an issue of it just to start a fight.
So now you know what Algore believes?
September 14, 2007 - 01:17 ET by azholmesSure, he'd never actually SAY it (on the record), but actions speak louder than words!
Are you really willing to bet your life that socialism will work (this time)?
Ah, there is a positive
September 13, 2007 - 15:19 ET by dscottAh, there is a positive upside to this... less liberals in the future.
This is just warmed over population bomb stuff from the 70s under a different banner. Of course, the liberals being the controllers they are will insist on the government enforcing such a policy on the order of what China does. Never mind that the US birth rate is balanced closely with the death rate. Most of our population increase comes from immigration and those born to newly immigrated people. So liberals, why not stand with us and just demand the borders be secured and walla, end of population increase in the US.
dscott's postulate: The degree to which someone exaggerates or deceives is inversely proportional to the merit of the advocated position.
dscott -- like minds
September 13, 2007 - 18:19 ET by Gary HallI don't remember seeing you on my side of the bed this morning, when I woke up? here's what I said earlier -- needless to say, couln't agree more. (;~> Gary
Fewer babies vs open borders?
But let's open the borders, allowing the population to explode by another 100 million, mostly folks with birth rates three times that of the current majority population here in the US.
An observation:
That should be good for congestion and the environment.
How do these folks sleep with themselves?
They hate people
September 13, 2007 - 15:28 ET by idahobeefJust like Satan, these Leftists hate human beings. How sick. People like Dr. Doom want to kill billions of human beings, surely a crime against humanity?
A wise man (read the book
September 13, 2007 - 16:02 ET by TheConservativeChemistA wise man (read the book "Intellectuals"...an excellent read about the kookiness of leftism going back hundreds of years) said "the "intellectuals" and "elites" (which could be other names for Democrats/leftists) profess to love humanity, yet hate their fellow man"
The Dems have been doing this for years...showing utter disregard and contempt for the sanctity of the most fragile of human life (babies, the elderly, the disabled, etc) yet they profess to be so "compassionate"...just like they were when their commie heroes Castro, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Ho Chih Minh, and others slaughtered MILLIONS in the last century.
"Yesterday's Communists are Today's Democrats....
Yesterday's Democrats are Today's Republicans..." - An analogy made by *ME*
Finally! Something
September 13, 2007 - 15:30 ET by MidAmericaFinally! Something that isn't the fault of men. Only women can have babies. Women and their incessant breeding are killing the planet.
(but even so.... I'm still kind of fond of them)
If libs truly think this
September 13, 2007 - 15:32 ET by Clear thinkerIf libs truly think this way, how come they don't support war???
I think it's a pretty sure fire method of limiting our population!
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
Because...
September 14, 2007 - 01:21 ET by azholmesBecause it's not American white males who are being killed. Duh!
Are you really willing to bet your life that socialism will work (this time)?
Wait now...
September 13, 2007 - 15:32 ET by mattmHelp me understand something; This guy thinks the worst thing on earth is human beings because they generate global warming which endangers human beings; and his solution is to reduce the number of human beings???? Why not just let global warming take care of that? <head shaking in disbelief>
Hey, leftists and Democrats
September 13, 2007 - 15:58 ET by TheConservativeChemistHey, leftists and Democrats should take this advice to heart. By all means, STOP HAVING BABIES, DEMS!!!
THAT would truly save the planet!
"Yesterday's Communists are Today's Democrats....
Yesterday's Democrats are Today's Republicans..." - An analogy made by *ME*
Neo-pagan Liberals
September 13, 2007 - 16:12 ET by NBFNeo-pagan liberals offering human sacrifices to their sky god is just history repeating itself.
That's OK. The old paganism was so thoroughly defeated, no surviving pagan liturgies remain.
Liberal "reproduction" is asexual
September 13, 2007 - 16:34 ET by WingletDriverFor those who think this will kill liberalism: Liberals do not reproduce like humans. They reproduce like viri.
Humans have intimate encounters, get pregnant and raise their children with more regard for their offspring than they have for themselves.
Liberals try to infect young minds through public school/colleges, the media, and government intrusion. Like a virus, they infect normal beings and cause them to malfunction. If we want liberalism to die, we have to take back our schools, media and government. Stop sitting on the sidelines.
Why don't we stop funding
September 13, 2007 - 16:50 ET by mostlymoderateWhy don't we stop funding welfare checks to people that have more children? Why don't we eliminate the "anchor baby" loophole of Mexican illegal's? Why don't we stop sending aid to countries like Africa where the people continue to having children even though they know they can't support them, leading to a torturous existence for hungry babies? I'm just saying, if overpopulation is the problem, wonder how liberals would feel about these ideas? Oh, and stop making employers fund maternity leave!!!
I'm all for it,
September 13, 2007 - 17:02 ET by SlicksterThe perfect reason not to fund anyting in Africa, junk the anchor baby program and get rid of illegal immigrants.
"ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING AND HAVE NOT SIGNED OFF ON KYOTO!"
The 14th Amendment was
September 13, 2007 - 18:42 ET by KhyrisThe 14th Amendment was designed to confer citizenship to former slaves. Nothing more, nothing less.
"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Senator Jacob Howard, Co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
Post it everywhere, post it often
Do not feed the Troll = Rotterham
September 13, 2007 - 18:43 ET by PopularTechHe makes statements in an authoritive definitive nature as if he is the
final authority on the issues when he is not. Do not be fooled, he has
been proven wrong on multiple occassions and simply invents strawmen
arguments, dismisses ALL evidence to the contrary by stating it is
disproven without disproving it or he "throws it away" and when backed
into a corner either changes the argument or flat out lies. His rabid
responses is a desperate last ditch attempt by someone who knows the
science is going against his beliefs.
You cannot have a discourse with him, it is simply impossible - do not engage him, ignore him. Trolls feed on responses.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Reincarnation
September 13, 2007 - 19:01 ET by Free StinkerI think we might be dealing with a reincarnation here...
RottenHam (RH)
RHayes (RH)
But I could be wrong...
Definately (RH) blood
September 13, 2007 - 19:16 ET bybrothers at the least
Support our Troops
Kinda redefines the term
September 13, 2007 - 19:21 ET by Free StinkerKinda redefines the term Rh+
. . . and no matter how horrific the terrorist attack, it's conducted by losers. Winners don't need to hijack airplanes. Winners have an Air Force. --P.J. O'Rourke
Popular Tech
September 13, 2007 - 18:55 ET by krismcsherryYou cannot have a discourse with him, it is simply impossible - do not engage him, ignore him. Trolls feed on responses.
Wise. Of course, you're right. Duly noted. But it was so much fun. ; )
RottenHam Quotes
September 13, 2007 - 20:01 ET by PopularTechHere are some of his typical replies:
"...we can throw that one in the garbage with the rest of your nonsense."
"So, all of that cosmic ray garbage goes right down the crapper."
"Like all deniers, your argument is based on a bunch of discredited and fringe ideas."
"None of that matters because it's all incorrect."
"No wonder you guys are such jokes in the scientific community."
"This is just a pathetic attempt to brush away an inconvenient truth"
"Al Gore has the evidence on his side. Deniers don't."
"Only if by "truth" you mean "right-wing lies about the climate."
"It's you who behaves like a lame knee-jerk 'denier' "
"It's written by a fringe group of deniers"
"So all of those half-truths and sophistry were just for me?"
"They were probably the same lame long-refuted denier arguments that we've all heard before."
"It's just another way deniers lie about the climate."
"...in typical denier fashion, you cherry-pick here"
"I could say the same thing about deniers. They've lost every scientific point. They're nowhere to be found in the professional literature."
"If you look in the peer-reviewed literature, there is no debate over the causes of global warming."
"Sadly, modern conservatives spend much time carrying water for polluters."
"...global warming was settled years ago and deniers lost."
"The debate IS over because there's simply no evidence supporting the denier position."
"You've been pushed into the dunces' corner with the creationists"
"I'm not going to tell you my background..."
"I could tell you I was a climate scientist or an engineer or a hairdresser and it wouldn't make any difference."
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
For a guy who says he's not
September 13, 2007 - 20:27 ET byFor a guy who says he's not going to engage me, you can't seem to let it go, can you?
Popular was talking
September 13, 2007 - 20:32 ET byto me mind your own business.
So, Popular Tech, did this cognatively dissonant swine have any other examples of it's denier behavior?
Support our Troops
...to me mind your own
September 14, 2007 - 07:21 ET byIsn't that what private messaging is for?
You missed the best one(s)!
September 14, 2007 - 01:29 ET by azholmes"There comes a point where the evidence is so strong that skepticism is no longer appropriate."
And, shortly thereafter: "There's a difference between reasonable and unreasonable skepticism."
Wow, just... wow.
Are you really willing to bet your life that socialism will work (this time)?
Well, look at the bright
September 13, 2007 - 19:17 ET by kgWell, look at the bright side. Perhaps they, themselves will stop having babies and thus reduce the spread of their ilk. That alone would be a great improvement.
Doo-Di-Do-Do ... Doo-Di-Do-Do ...
September 13, 2007 - 19:48 ET by drillanwrGee ... they want Americans to cut back on having babies, huh? Well, from what I observe, middle and upper class "Americans" have cut back ... It's the "poor" who keep having birth after birth ... Far out numbering the births of middle and upper class birth rates.
Will these Global Warming Cultists go into poor neighborhoods and preach the word of Zero Population Growth as stridently? And how about those illegal alien women having anchor babies in this country? Will they address them personally??? Will they take pregnant "poor" expecting mother aside and coax them into "opening wide" for the abortion clinics?
A little off-topic, but itching at the back of my mind because of this thread's subject >>>
While I'm not as computer/internet literate as many here, I do stumble across some really "out there" things from time to time. Like this group of "believers" who say their leader was contacted by "aliens" and told they planted our DNA here and that we weren't meant to be "reproducing", but were intended to clone ourselves (and they're pissed we aren't human cloning yet, and demand we STOP reproducing) ... Anyhow, their founding members are ... <wait for it!> ..... FRENCH! As a matter of fact, y`all may recall a couple years ago when member/doctor Brigitte Boisselier CLAIMED to have successfully cloned a human baby.
For some reason I wonder if the GW Cult is secretly hand-in-hand with these bozos ... And since I last checked in on their zoo sites a couple years ago it seems they're now reaching out to Muslims:
http://www.rael.org/rael_content/rael_summary.php
The messages dictated to Rael explain that life on Earth is not the result of random evolution, nor the work of a supernatural 'God'. It is a deliberate creation, using DNA, by a scientifically advanced people who made human beings literally "in their image" -- what one can call "scientific creationism." References to these scientists and their work, as well as to their symbol of infinity, can be found in the ancient texts of many cultures. For example, in Genesis, the Biblical account of Creation, the word "Elohim" has been mistranslated as the singular word "God", but it is actually a plural word which means "those who came from the sky", and the singular is "Eloha" (also known as "Allah").
http://skepdic.com/raelian.html
Raël claims that the Elohim have taught him that the human race was created from the DNA of aliens some 25,000 years ago. (In fact, all life on earth was created in alien laboratories.) Among other things, Raël has also learned that cloning is the way to immortality and there is no God or soul.
Don't they sound like the kissing kin of the GWCult?
"Should People Stop Having
September 13, 2007 - 22:02 ET by ckc1227"Should People Stop Having Children To Halt Global Warming"
I have better solution: Stop teaching children(and adults) about all this global warming nonsense, and global warming will go away. Once people stop believing in the fantasy, the fantasy will cease to exist. And it won't require wasting billions of dollars either.
But, that's the beauty of it...
September 14, 2007 - 01:43 ET by azholmesOnce the "Warming" stops (and it will, all by itself), the AGW cultists will claim that it was due to their efforts. Amazing what changing lightbulbs can do!
Or, if the natural warming cycle continues (for a geologic blink of an eye), then they will again claim that "the sky is falling".
Of course, our best chance of surviving their worst case scenarios would be to have a thriving economy capable of continued innovation on a massive scale. What a shame that that is what they will kill with their punitive measures (taxes).
Are you really willing to bet your life that socialism will work (this time)?
Once the "Warming"
September 14, 2007 - 07:17 ET byAnd if it doesn't stop? What will "skeptics" say then?
Alternative fuels and clean energy will "kill" the economy? Sounds pretty "Chicken Little" to me.
Good news ! The warming has stopped.....
September 14, 2007 - 11:50 ET by GMFRH,
You ask - 'what if the warming doesn't stop?'
Well, the good news is that GW is over. Since 1998 there hasn't been any warming. And that was before the recent adjustments to the US temps. In fact global warming was never global. The southern hemisphere shows no warming - so I think it's false advertising to call it global - but I doubt that Al will give you your money back.
Al was right about one thing - Truth is pretty inconvienent - that is why the left fuelled AGW myth is not zero emissions but it is zero truth...
"Alternative fuels and clean energy will "kill" the economy? Sounds pretty "Chicken Little" to me."
Well biofuels are great for destroying the environment and driving up food prices. Still I know you're the kind of guy who will say who needs the Amazon - level it and grow fuel! And starvation in the third world ? Not a problem - after all dead people have a really small carbon footprint.
GMF, you're talking to a ghost.
September 14, 2007 - 11:58 ET by Dave RLOL-Hate to tell ya, but DecomposingPorcine has been returned to the mud-filled sty from which he crawled out from, as his plug has been pulled.
I guess he finally went too far.
"I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!”- Rick Roberts
DecomposingPorcine
September 14, 2007 - 11:58 ET by Jack BauerLOL -- not a pleasant image!
Jack,
September 14, 2007 - 12:36 ET by Dave RLOL-Yeah, I'll never look at my country ham & eggs the same way again.
"I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!”- Rick Roberts
Since 1998 there hasn't
September 14, 2007 - 12:58 ET by dscottSince 1998 there hasn't been any warming. And that was before the recent adjustments to the US temps. In fact global warming was never global. The southern hemisphere shows no warming - so I think it's false advertising to call it global - but I doubt that Al will give you your money back.
Haven't you heard, the cultists are doing mental gymnastics by claiming the land mass of the Southern Hemisphere is so small as not to affect the outcome of the average Global Temperature. The US land mass is too small to affect the outcome also. So the only temps we need be concerned with is Europe and Asia...
Here's a revelation cultists, the average Global temperature is supposed to be based on every area of the Globe including that of the oceans. Hence if the Southern Hemisphere, both land and sea aren't showing an elevated temperature, half the planet is not warming and therefore it can't be called "Global Warming". Anyone who deals with numbers for a living knows that averages are deceptive because they are made of both the high and low values. So if Europe and Asia have significantly more warmer temps than the rest of the world, the average is dragged up over the mean.
dscott's postulate: The degree to which someone exaggerates or deceives is inversely proportional to the merit of the advocated position.
Oh, It'll stop.
September 14, 2007 - 12:23 ET by azholmesI'm confident there will be another ice age someday. This planets' climate works that way. You should look into it.
You seem to have missed the "(taxes)" part. Every Warm-monger I have seen has advocated that the government take care of AGW (Kyoto...). Government gets its' resources by taxing its' citizens. You can't tax someone into prosperity. You should look into it.
Are you really willing to bet your life that socialism will work (this time)?
I have better solution:
September 14, 2007 - 07:19 ET byYes, just trust the oil companies. They wouldn't lie to us, would they? How would ending the teaching of climate science drop global temperatures and refreeze glacier?
Global warming will go away
September 14, 2007 - 12:30 ET by misterbee241Global warming will go away when the funding dries up anyhow. What do you hear about acid rain and the ozone hole these days? I guess they're fixed.
YES, ABSOLUTELY, STOP HAVING CHILDREN TO SAVE THE PLANET
September 14, 2007 - 06:23 ET by lunaticcringeradioif liberals believe that having no more children will save the planet agree with them, we don't need any more liberals running around.
and jesus didn't help me with that comment, it was a pretty pedestrian attempt at observational humor, just like most every other pedestrian act that people like to garner a public image when they say they thank jesus. you know like when a football player is interviewed about game saving move andhe's praising jesus, oh jesus helped me with this, jesus helped mewith that, oh jesus jesus jesus. yeah butin the meantime he's under indictment for some other criminal act and or he beat his wife the night before, or went out on a drunk driving binge the night before. that's when public people call on jesus to soften up thier image so you forget about all the other stuff like dog fighting. i still think that;s what kathy griffen was trying to point out. if not that's what i am.
lunaticcringeradio
Forty three million
September 14, 2007 - 12:28 ET by misterbee241Forty three million abortions since 73. What's the problem - we're not moving fast enough for Weisman?
RottenH said
September 14, 2007 - 21:07 ET by acadia1755" Environmentalists want clean cars and alternative fuels so we can enjoy a stable climate and healthy ecosystems. Translating that into "PEOPLE are TERRIBLE" is a just a lie."
A Lie you say? Really?
—Stewart Brand (writing in the Whole Earth Catalogue).
—Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists
—David Foreman, Earth First!
—Pentti Linkola
—Amory Lovins in The Mother Earth–Plowboy Interview, Nov/Dec 1977, p.22
—Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)
—John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
—John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
—Economist editorial
—David Foreman, Earth First!
—Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!
—Earth First! Newsletter
—David Graber, biologist, National Park Service
—Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project
—Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund
—Lyall Watson, The Financial Times, 15 July 1995
—Carl Amery
—Lamont Cole
—Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund