Al Gore's Ugly Rhetoric

The latest pseudoscience from the former vice president

For years, the Sierra Club and other environmentalist groups have warned us that too many babies will destroy the Earth.

"We are experiencing an accelerated obliteration of the planet's life-forms—an estimated 8,760 species die off per year—because, simply put," explained environmentalist Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter, "there are too many people." (Well, not exactly that simple when one considers that millions of species had disappeared long before humans selfishly began drinking from plastic bottles.)

In one of his recent works of speculative fiction, The New York Times' Thomas Friedman asked: "How did we not panic when the evidence was so obvious that we'd crossed some growth/climate/natural resource/population redlines all at once?" Dunno. Maybe we value reality? Perhaps we believe in the ability of humans to adapt and to innovate. Perhaps we've learned that Malthusian Chicken Littles slinging stories about the impending end of water or oil or natural resources are proved wrong so often that we ignore them.

Though, admittedly, it's difficult to ignore the charismatic pseudoscience of Al Gore. "One of the things that we could do about it is to change the technologies, to put out less of this pollution, to stabilize the population, and one of the principal ways of doing that is to empower and educate girls and women," the former vice president explained at the Games for Change Festival. "You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children (they) have, the spacing of the children."

No doubt capitalism appears terribly unstable to the autocratically inclined Gore, but nonetheless, in this country "fertility management" is not only already ubiquitously obtainable by girls and women but also obtainable by boys and men—and for free at any Planned Parenthood and at many schools. There is also post-fertility management, or 1.3 million yearly abortions—because no one should be punished with a baby.

Then again, perhaps educating and empowering girls should be the job of parents. After all, Gore has blessed the Earth with four of his own offspring. Does he believe the world would be better off without two of them? If not, why does he assume that an "empowered and educated" woman would reach the conclusion that having fewer children is a more logical and moral choice? (Many, including Bryan Caplan, author of the superb new book Selfish Reasons To Have More Kids: Why Being a Great Parent Is Less Work and More Fun Than You Think, would probably make a strong counterargument.)

Gore hasn't embraced any nefarious brand of population control. But President Barack Obama's "science czar," John Holdren, co-authored (with Paul Ehrlich of Population Bomb notoriety) a book in the 1970s that toyed with the idea of compulsory sterilization and coerced abortions—to "de-develop the United States." (Boy, the tea party is so radical!) Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, openly advocated for population control to weed out undesirables. You'll remember that in a New York Times interview, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she "thought that at the time Roe (v. Wade) was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of."

Whatever did she mean?

If "too many" people are killing 8,760 species every year, isn't it an imperative to do something? What is holding us back? If unrealized human life is only going to sponge off the Earth and decimate our natural resources, don't we have a duty to limit population growth?

Forget that the populations of Brazil and India and a number of other nations continue to grow and life continues to improve. Forget that our own standard of living steadily increases while our population steadily grows. Forget the never-ending ingenuity and development of mankind—especially anything that has to do with fossil fuels. For Gore, people are parasites, millions of little environmental disasters. And when a man embraces debunked 19th-century notions rather than empirical evidence, well, surely another Nobel Prize is in order.

David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Blaze. Follow him on Twitter @davidharsanyi.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • cheap nfl jerseys china||

    If "too many" people are killing 8,760 species every year, isn't it an imperative to do something? What is holding us back? If unrealized human life is only going to sponge off the Earth and decimate our natural resources, don't we have a duty to limit population growth?

  • Warty||

    I like that the link is cheapravensjerseys.com, and most of the jerseys seem to be Colts players. Fuck you, Baltimore.

  • Tango Mike||

    Pssst.. Warty, it has been a long time since the Colts played in Baltimore.

  • Ted S.||

    Remember, the Colts left Baltimore in the middle of the night to evade an attempted eminent domain seizure.

  • Almanian||

    Memories are looooooooong in Cleveland. Loooooooooong.

  • ||

    ...imminent eminent domain...

  • Ben Wolf||

    Gore is advocating population limits by providing education to women. Education level is far more closely linked to lower fertility rates than things like wealth.

    So what's the problwm?

  • ||

    Educating? Give me a break. Gore "educated" us about global warming until he became a millionaire. Sorry, Gore is a "do as I say, not as I do" liberal. Besides the four kids, check out the size of his home, how much energy it takes,etc., etc. More liberal claptrap.

  • Ben Wolf||

    Gore is advocating population limits by providing education to women. Education level is far more closely linked to lower fertility rates than things like wealth.

    So what's the problem?

  • MGRemmele||

    Problem is people aren't the problem

  • Ben Wolf||

    I'll ask again; whst's the problem with advocating for increased access to education in the developing world?

  • ||

    Nothing, if the countries that make up the developing world decide for themselves that it's in their own best interest to provide such education programs for their population; education that would align with a particular country's history, culture, religious beliefs, etc. But I wonder what Al Gore's beady little brain envisions when it comes to birth control "education"? No doubt it would be some NGO affiliated outsider with preconceived notions about what's best for you, swooping in and imposing his own worldview. Possibly someone who might benefit economically from urging birth control on women who may not want it or whose culture and/or religion may preclude it? Someone who may just enjoy the power that comes for making life and death decisions for people? Given Gore's arrogant "I know better than you" attitude it's no wonder pronouncements like this sound alarm bells with people.

  • ||

    It's not hard to imagine Gore's solution to "too many babies", if he had the power to enforce a solution. Just think "cap and trade". He can't openly advocate limiting childbearing by force, but there are plenty of ways of economically punishing anyone who doesn't go along with the program.

  • ||

    Or even in the developed world. Vouchersvouchersvouchersvouchersvouchersvouchers

  • Ben Wolf||

    "I wonder what Al Gore's beady little brain envisions when it comes to birth control "education"?"

    Why don't you ask him, because to my knowledge he has never advocated harming anyone in order to limit population growth. Demonizing those whom we disagree with is completely unproductive and serves only to stop critical thinking processes.

    Which, by the way, is exactly what Harsanyi did in this article. He brought what had potential to be a reasoned discussion to a screeching halt.

  • ||

    Okay, I'll answer. Increased "education", especially in the countries whose populations are growing, will quickly turn to govt. compulsion (think China). Want that?

  • Sleeping Dog||

    Which 8,760 are you talking about?

    Please point them out to me!

    Oh...you can't?

    Why?

    BECAUSE IT'S A MADE UP NUMBER THAT SOME GREEN PULLED OUT OF HIS ASS!

  • ^_^||

    It turns out that 11,402 species are *created* every year. I *know* this because I can make up numbers too!

  • Ben Wolf||

    I would tend to agree. I'm not aware of a scientific basis for 8,760 extinctions per year, certainly not to such an exact number.

  • Old Salt||

    I once read in Time (and this was back in the nineties, mind you) that there's only been less than a 1000 or so KNOWN species whose extinction have documented in the entire course of human history. MOST of these were plants (usually foods and/or medicinals) that were over harvested or died out from disease. Only a fraction of those extinctions were animals and even then not all of them could be blamed on humans. So claiming 8000+ extinctions a year smells like weapons grade bullshit to me!

    Not to mention, if the greenies get their panties in enough of a wad to run TV spots for polar bears (ONE species mind you) then I'm MORE then certain that some pot smoking "artist" hippie chick (who could be sooo hot if she would just discover the magic of a shower) would have built some environmentalist version of the Vietnam Memorial Wall and inscribed (probably in her THC fueled blood) the names of all these extinct species that humans have supposedly "murdered"!

    (Yes, I had an actual girl in mind when I wrote this and her hippie heritage is strong enough that her parents legally named her Candie Cain which I told her is a stripper/pornstar name if there ever was one!)

  • ||

    Got to disagree. As people become more affluent, they want cars...and cars are bad for the environment. They'll also want conveniences like ATM's, which cause unemployment. So really, economic growth is bad. Bad, I say.
    @ I paid $32.67 for a XBOX 360 and my mom got a 17 inch Toshiba laptop for $94.83 being delivered to
    our house tomorrow by FedEX. I will never again pay expensive retail prices at stores. I even sold a
    46 inch HDTV to my boss for $650 and it only cost me $52.78 to get. Here is the website we using to get
    all this stuff, BetaSell.com

  • Old Salt||

    And the point of your rambling about capitalism was?

    I didn't say fuck all about capitalism, I just said that there has only been a 1000 or KNOWN extinctions since humanity started writing shit down!

    My point was, if 8000+ species are suddenly dying off each year, then who are they exactly? SOMEBODY must have noticed them and wrote it down?

    If the Ancient Romans were bitching about a particular herb that went extinct, then I'm sure us modern day cavepeople surely have composed an exhausting database of this mass extinction!

    Wikipedia (not the best source I admit) only had about 400 or so animals extinctions listed, which is a far cry from 8000+ annually!

  • ||

    SPAM

  • ||

    the a pity me of hyper bowl

  • Warty||

    Al Gore always reminds me of that one SNL skit where whats-his-fucking-name goes, "I DRIVE A DODGE STRATUS!"Nobody cares about your stupid Dodge Stratus, Al.

  • Almanian||

    SO fucking funny. Good analogy. Yeah, Al, nobody gives a SHIT about your Dodge Stratus.

  • ||

    "I can do 200 push ups!"

  • Chris Farley||

    Al Gore is going to be living down by the river in a VAN!

  • ||

    Al Gore is an aging narcissist. And I can't beleive that some of my comments have been flagged as spam, but this dipshit can copy and paste a paragraph from the article to sell NFL ripoff jerseys and not get flagged.

  • ||

    Brandon, meet the Reason Servers Squirrels. Squirrels, meet Brandon. Now then, only fuck with his posts when he types a long post or is in a hurry.

  • ||

    It's funny 'cause it's true.

    I had the solution to all the world's problems, pithily encapsulated in a 4 paragraph HnR post. Only the squirrels ate it. And like the groundhog and his shadow, the squirrels have forced us to wait for the answer to life, the universe and everything to come back around on the wheel of karma.

  • Almanian||

    It's true because it's funny...

  • The Derider||

    It's pretty ludicrous to accuse Al Gore of relying on "pseudoscience" and then spend 9 paragraphs discussing absolutely no science whatsoever.

    You truly are Glenn Beck's wunderkind.

  • Warty||

    PWND

  • Trespassers W||

    FACT PWND

  • Warty||

    BECKPWND

  • ||

    super-duper-FACTPWND

  • The Derider||

    Wow look at all that content just spewing out of Reason commenters.
    Kudos!

  • ||

    PWNED

  • The Derider||

    Wow I must really have hit a nerve to make you post the same stupid shit twice in 10 minutes.

  • ||

    PWNED

  • The Derider||

    Well played, sir.

  • The Derider||

    I guess that means that everyone agrees this article is a total crock of shit?

  • Trespassers W||

    OWNED

  • Hobie Hanson||

    Yeah, you guys really PWNED me. I'm practically shaking in my boots.

  • The Derider||

    I get it. You won't engage me in a debate because you know you will lose, like last time, the time before that, the time before that...

    Fear is the mindkiller. Fear is the little death...

  • fish||

    I'll debate...but only if I get to stab you with a Crysknife and reclaim your water when you lose.

  • The Derider||

    It's the tribe's water. Fucking socialist Fremen.

  • fish||

    Not in individual combat illiterate dipshit!

  • Gibby||

    I thought orgasms were Le Petit Mort.

  • Trespassers W||

    Are we down to one super-PWNing hydra-troll at this point or what?

  • The Derider||

    Still waiting for someone to defend the assertion that Al Gore is promoting "pseudoscience"

  • sarcasmic||

    The obvious need not be defended.

  • The Derider||

    Lol, that's the weakest one yet. Umm... the pseudoscience is so obvious that the article doesn't even need to discuss it.

  • sarcasmic||

    Umm... the pseudoscience is so obvious that the article doesn't even need to discuss it.

    That would be an affirmative.

  • The Derider||

    Lol. That's really the best argument I'm going to get from this motley crew?

  • sarcasmic||

    Would you also like me to defend the assertion that water is wet?

    If you like I could give a detailed explanation as to why the sky is blue.

    Perhaps you need someone to explain to you why trees are made out of wood.

  • The Derider||

    Ok, so I've got thousands of scientists telling me that Al Gore is right, and I've got Glenn Beck's buttboy telling me he's wrong.

    I think the onus of proof is on you here.

  • sarcasmic||

    Blue light is scattered by air molecules more readily than other frequencies of light, giving an appearance of it being blue. If that light was not reflected back then the sky would be dark.

  • Jim||

    The predictions of Malthus and those made in The Population Bomb not only failed to come to pass, but failed spectacularly. It's in the written page. Look it up.

  • ||

    Why won't Jim debate me? Because he'd just get PWN'D!

  • Jim||

    I love how you put an apostrophe before the "D".

    I'd go gay for you, SF. No homo.

  • ||

    I understand, Jim.

  • The Derider||

    Where does Al Gore cite Malthus?

    You're an idiot.

  • Jim||

    The entire theory that population will outstrip resources and result in catastrophe is called "Malthusian". Belief in this outcome is a belief in Malthus, as opposed to the belief that mankind can and will innovate when the time comes to avoid such outcomes.

    You're an icecream cone.

  • The Derider||

    So because the specific predictions of Malthus did not occur, anyone who suggests that the human population has (or someday may) outstrip the carrying capacity of the earth must be wrong?

    You're a hot mess sundae.

  • ||

    JIM GOT PWN'D!

  • Jim||

    Well, I suppose one could continue to shout the same prediction from the rooftops for hundreds of years until it actually happens, then scream "see, we were right the whole time!"

    Someday the earth is going to end. That doesn't mean I pay attention to end-times preachers. They aren't wrong, per se, in that yes, someday, sometime, the earth will cease to carry life. But if the specifics can't be accurately predicted, then it's an utterly useless exercise.

  • AlmightyJB||

    So is Jesus coming back or not?

  • Skr||

    Well there are the failed predictions of the Malthus' second coming Erlich. God what an idiot he is.

  • Vaccine||

    The real question is one of costs and benefits. The costs that Al Gore et al would impose are enormous, in both economic terms and in human life. The benefits are at the most generous, unknown.

  • Gibby||

    Appeal to authority!

    What's your next tac?

  • The Derider||

    Appeal to authority isn't a logical fallacy. That's appeal to FALSE authority.

  • sarcasmic||

    AFAIAC Big Al is a false authority.

  • The Derider||

    And so are thousands of scientists?

    Stop being a moron.

  • ||

    "Ok, so I've got thousands of scientists telling me that Al Gore is right"

    That's some deep science, you telling us thousands of scientists you can't name told you something.

  • The Derider||

    http://www.ipcc.ch/
    Names named.

  • sarcasmic||

    The day you trust scientists who depend on Big Oil to give a report on climate change that does not benefit the source of their funding is the day I will trust scientists who depend on politicians to give a report on climate change that does not benefit the source of their funding.

    Is that fair?

  • The Derider||

    No, it's a retarded conspiracy theory.
    It fits in well at Reason, however.

  • sarcasmic||

    Why is it not fair?
    Would you trust a study on climate change that says fossil fuels are not to blame that was commissioned by the producers of fossil fuels?
    I don't think you would.
    Why then must I trust a study on climate change that says taxation and regulation is needed that was commissioned by people who tax and regulate?
    It's the exact same logic, just different players.

  • The Dickrider||

    LOGIC PWN'D!

  • The Derider||

    If a study was conducted with appropriate scientific methodology and transparency, I would trust it no matter who wrote it.

    That's how science works.

  • sarcasmic||

    That's how science works.

    And that is not how the ipcc works.

    PWN'D!

    c-ya

  • The Derider||

    well if internet posting sensation sarcasmic says that they don't follow the scientific method, it must be true

  • mgd||

    @The Derider|6.29.11 @ 9:54PM|

    Can you point me to a single study concluding that AGW is real which used the scientific method? You know, constructing a hypothesis, testing it with an experiment, drawing a conclusion? Or can you only point to models that make predictions and to data that is fit (sometimes forcibly) to pre-existing hypotheses?

  • The Derider||

    So now the burden of proof is on me to prove that Al Gore is right?

    That's not how journalism is supposed to work.

  • ||

    the ipcc?
    you're kidding, right? please don't try to railroad me with your "engineer" from India.
    consensus never will take the place of scientific method but, if you want believe in the East Anglia bunny don't let me stop you...

  • The Derider||

    Do any scientists agree with you?

    No.

  • ||

    if you had a scientist...
    but, you like the ipcc so, come back when have someone of relevance.
    p.s. make sure they still have their data and tell them to not to "hide the decline"...

  • mgd||

    @The Derider|6.30.11 @ 3:11PM

    First, I'm not a journalist. Secondly, you made the implication that the IPCC work is based on studies that employed the scientific method, and I asked for proof; that's hardly unrealistic of me. Should I have simply done this instead:

    "well if internet posting sensation The Derider says that they follow the scientific method, it must be true"

  • mgd||

    @The Derider|6.30.11 @ 3:11PM

    Yes. Here:

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=List+of+s.....g+with+AGW

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I'd like to know why trees are made of wood. Won't anyone take my feelings into consideration?

  • Trident||

    Motley crew?
    What are you, from the 50s?

  • sarcasmic||

    Motley crew?
    What are you, from the 50s?

    I mean, like totally, you know?

    Everyone knows it's spelled like Mötley Crüe, dude!

  • The Derider||

    Seriously, did the Koch brothers endow a position at Reason just to write moronic bylines? Who edits this shit?

  • ||

    MEGA-PWN'D!

  • The Derider||

    Yawn.

  • The Derider||

    Reason used to have intelligent, informed commenters. Now you're all just tea party morons.

  • ||

    Drink!

  • The Derider||

    I've been drinking every time someone replies to me without actually debating. I'm not sure I can keep up if there are more rules.

  • sevo||

    Debating what? If you learned to read, there might be some reason to 'debate' with you.
    As it stands, you make laughable comments not worthy of more than
    Ha.

    Ha.

  • The Derider||

    For the 4th time. The article makes the unsupported assertion that Al Gore relies on "pseudoscience". In the 19 replies I've gotten in this thread, 0 attempt to defend that assertion.

    Learn to read indeed.

  • ||

    sevo got PWN'D!

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Drink!-pwn'd!

  • ||

    Your pwn got pwn'd, CN... META-PWN'D!

  • Citizen Nothing||

    That's gonna sting in the morning.

  • Warty||

    So that's two Glenn Beck mentions so far. PWNPWND

  • ||

    Warty is afraid to debate me.

  • The Derider||

    That's 3 replies with 0 content for you.

  • Warty||

    Why are you afraid to debate me? You know you'll lose because I have already pwnd you. PWND

  • ||

    Nope. Because I PRE-PWN'D you, Warty! And you are still afraid to debate me.

    Everyone is afraid to debate me for I have PRE-PWN'D you all!

  • The Derider||

    4 replies, 0 content.
    Nice work!

  • The Derider||

    Has reason really devolved into this echo chamber of ignorance?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Echo-PWND...PWnd...pwnd...

  • sarcasmic||

    Echo-PWND...PWnd...pwnd...

    lmao!

  • Warty||

    Echo chamber! PWND

  • Warty||

    “The kitties are the first to go,” Janet said, calmly. “You’re next if you don’t eat some of Precious. PWND!”

  • The Derider||

    The fact that you idiots will take this much time obfuscating the issue is the most telling.

    If you can't win with the truth, win by drowning it out.

  • ||

    PWN'D!

    Pwn'd
    pwn'd
    pwnd
    pwn
    p
  • Warty||

    That's 10 replies and 0 content, SugarFree. PWNDPWNDPWNDPWNDPWNDPWNDPWNDPWNDPWNDPWND

  • ||

    DEBATE ME!

  • The Derider||

    Shorter reason commenters:

    The truth is so obvious I can't be bothered to explain it. LOLCATS11!!!

  • ||

    "No one wants to play my rigged game. I'm gonna pout!"

  • sarcasmic||

    The truth is so obvious I can't be bothered to explain it.

    As we say in Maine, ayuh.

  • Warty||

    Making fun of me for being a bad-faith shitstain is obfuscation! WORDPWND

  • The Derider||

    "bad-faith"

    Holy shit you almost made an argument! Keep pushing!

  • ||

    WARTY = PWN'D!

  • ||

    do you get the hint yet that they don't like you. I guess you could call it cyber bulling

  • ||

    I guess you could call it cyber bulling

    I call it blog beautification.

  • Warty||

    I call it blog beautification.

    When life gives you trolls, make trollade.

  • The Derider||

    I wouldn't like somebody who kept pushing my face in my own bullshit, either.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I wouldn't like somebody who kept pushing my face in my own bullshit, either.

    No wonder you don't have any friends.

  • ||

    No wonder you don't have any friends.

    I thought he was talking about his own self-loathing.

  • ||

    So, you're of the bovine persuasion, eh?

    Bullshit-PWNED!!!

  • Professional Critic||

    No one cares about you dude, get it yet?

  • The Derider||

    Well, no one that's part of that cluster fuck. I think the lurkers have a very clear conception of who's right and who can't even make a simple argument.
    (For tea party morons, I'm the former and you're the latter).

  • Warty||

    PATHOSPWN

  • ||

    Warty, you are a moron! I guess you are afraid to debate me!

  • ||

    Yeah Man! What color is the kool-aid that they drink on planet LOSERDOPIANECHOCHAMBER?!?

    -Lurkers 4 troof 2011

  • ||

    As a lurker:
    Please fuck off and die, Derider.

  • The Derider||

    Lurk more.

  • NeonCat||

    As a lurker, I must say that I don't think you are right. As for anyone here arguing with you, why bother? You will not convince anyone that Al Gore isn't full of BS and no one here will convince you Al Gore is full of BS.

  • -_-||

    "As a lurker"

    You have revealed that your self-characterization is false. Why should we believe anything else you have to say?

  • ||

    "I think the lurkers have a very clear conception of who's right and who can't even make a simple argument."

    Source, please.

    Turn-about's-fair-play-PWNED!!!!

  • ||

    this is kind of like what MSNBC does to all republicans, how does it feel.

  • The Derider||

    I didn't realize that Reason was the place where Republicans came to live out their dreams of acting like Democrats.

    Thanks for the heads up.

  • ||

    Ron,

    This utter dipshit has been trolling this blog with his bad faith bullshit for a couple of weeks. He ruined his reputation in the community with his malicious antics, and now everyone recognizes him a partisan asshole who is not here to debate, but just to cause grief.

    I would prefer everyone ignore him, but failing that, mocking works too.

  • Warty||

    SERIOUSREPLYD

  • Warty||

    He's been here much longer than a couple of weeks if you count his other handles.

  • ||

    Well, yeah. It's obviously an aspect of the HydraTroll. Who is obvious someone with a severe personality disorder.

  • Warty||

    He's got the pox!!!!

  • Trespassers W||

    By the way, I realized that hydras and trolls BOTH regenerate and are vulnerable to fire. WEIRD.

  • The Derider||

    This is the only one I've ever had.

    Paranoia runs deep with you guys.

  • The Derider||

    Boo hoo I can't debate him so I'll take my ball and go home. If you guys don't want to go home we can just stand there and call him names. But don't play with him because we'll lose.

  • ||

    HISTORICAL-LESSON PWNAGE!

  • Gibby||

    Wow! How did you know I was going to yawn? That's so freaky!

  • The Dickrider||

    You idiots are all making fun of my stupidity because you are afraid of my fearsome PWNING!!11!!

  • ||

    "Stop! Stop! If you interrupt the trolling dance, the dipshit will become enraged and maul us with his fearsome PWNAGE!"

  • The Derider||

    Still waiting for someone to defend the assertion that Al Gore relies on "pseudoscience". 30 replies and counting.

  • The Derider||

    Apparently libertarianism is only true if you can discuss it in a tightly controlled group of like-minded morons.

  • ||

    PWNED! Like major!

  • ||

    PWN'D LIKE A BOSS!

  • The Dickrider||

    Fear me! Fear my awesome powers of PWNAGE!!!11!!!

  • Teenage Girl||

    ewwww

  • The Derider||

    Like a skipping record.

  • Warty||

  • The Dickrider||

    Like a skipping retard! PWNED!!!111!!

  • Warty||

    SKIPPING! PWND

  • ||

    You know who else skipped?

  • Warty||

    You're just afraid to skip, LH. PWND

  • The Derider||

    The intellectual juggernaut that is libertarianism is on parade today.

  • The Dickrider||

    You know who else everyone was afraid to debate? PWNED!

  • ||

    By the way...

    The Derider|6.29.11 @ 1:38PM|#|show direct|ignore
    This is the only one I've ever had.

    Notice here how Dipshit The Multi-Troll slipped up changing its handle back to The Derider in this very thread:

    Hobie Hanson|6.29.11 @ 12:36PM|#|show direct|ignore
    Yeah, you guys really PWNED me. I'm practically shaking in my boots.

    Either some sociopath with a Robin Hood complex, or someone trolling for lulz. Either way... BORING!

  • The Derider||

    I'm not Hobie Hanson. You're not Sherlock Holmes.

  • ||

    SugarFree got PwNeD again!

  • ||

    Arthur Conan Doyle PWN'D! at that.

  • The Dickrider||

    None of you morons are Sherlock Holmes! PWNED!!!111!!!

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm not Hobie Hanson.

    Then which one are you?
    Clarke, Jordan, or Zachary?

  • The Derider||

    I don't know who those people are. I read a lot of comments about Tony but I'm not him either.

    Compare the writing styles and diction, I'm sure they're dissimilar.

  • sarcasmic||

    I don't know who those people are.

    MMMBop, ba duba dop ba do bop,
    Ba duba dop ba do bop,
    Ba duba dop ba do. Oh yeah,
    MMMBop ba duba dop ba do bop,
    Ba duba dop ba do bop,
    Ba duba dop ba do

  • The Derider||

    You know the first names of the members of the band Hanson? I'm glad we're talking about that instead of the bullshit article from THE BLAZE.

  • sarcasmic||

    No, I had to look it up. You see, there's this amazing website called "google.com" where you type something in and it comes back with all kinds of links and stuff.

  • The Derider||

    Holy shit!

    Please use it to support the assertion that Al Gore relies on "pseudoscience".

    Because I'm still waiting.

  • sarcasmic||

  • Warty||

    I noticed that too. FACTPWND

  • The Derider||

    Me too it was confusing.

  • Juice||

    Will you people get your heads out of your asses.

    It's pwn3d. Get it straight.

  • The Dickrider||

    META PWN'D!

  • The Derider||

    What percentage of the population do you think would describe Robin Hood as a sociopath? 5%? 10%? Maybe the sociopath here is you.

  • ||

    Citation, please.

  • The Derider||

    I'll start warranting my assertions when David Harsanyi does.

  • ||

    KA-FUCKING-BOOM! PWNSLPLOSION

    Why won't you debate me?!!!

  • The Derider||

    That's what's happening right now. You asked me to warrant my assertion. I said "since when are we concerned about warranting assertions at Reason?" You got distracted by the PWNSPLOSION.

  • ||

    I'MTHESAMEASYOU-WN'D

  • The Derider||

    Ok, so you don't want to debate any more?

  • sarcasmic||

    The day you trust scientists who depend on Big Oil to give a report on climate change that does not benefit the source of their funding is the day I will trust scientists who depend on politicians to give a report on climate change that does not benefit the source of their funding.

    Is that fair?

  • The Derider||

    No, that's a retarded conspiracy theory. You will never believe any science because each human being has some level of bias.

    I'm happy to let peer review and the scientific method sort out the potential biases of scientists.

  • The Derider||

    Also, stop debating me, you're fucking up the PWND strategy!

  • sarcasmic||

    Also, stop debating me, you're fucking up the PWND strategy making me look like even more of an idiot that usual!

    ftfy

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm happy to let peer review and the scientific method sort out the potential biases of scientists.

    Well, when a condition of being a "peer" is supporting the conclusion they are being paid to arrive at, and anyone who does not support the conclusion is laughed at and excluded from the process, it's no surprise that such studies pass peer review.

  • The Derider||

    No. That's just idiotic blathering. You have no idea what you're talking about.

    Please prove me wrong with evidence.

  • Captain Obvious||

    Hey dumb fuck, you are being treated like a AGW skeptic by your peers here at Reason.

  • The Derider||

    You morons are not my peers by a long fucking shot.

  • The Dickrider||

    SHERWOOD PWN'D!!111!!!

  • ||

    YAWN-pwned!!!!

    BTW, derider, try this: Google "scientists petition against al gore."

    Oh, snap! INFO-pwned!!!!

  • ||

    My take is Haliburton is super jealous of Koch these days.

  • ||

    Would you say that Koch PWNED Haliburton?

  • ||

    Koch-is-it-PWNED!!!!

  • ||

    Still waiting for someone to defend the assertion that Al Gore is promoting "pseudoscience"

    Al Gore claimed that sea levels would rise 20 meters from Climate change.

    He also claimed hurricanes would worsen because of climate change.

    Both claims are pseudoscience.

    There is more but those are two of the big ones.

  • The Derider||

    No, both claims might be wrong, but not "pseudoscience". If every scientist who ever supported a hypothesis that turned out to be wrong was a "pseudoscientist", there wouldn't be any actual scientists.

    I don't think you know what a "pseudoscience" is.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....udoscience

    Examples are:
    Astrology
    Phrenology
    Homeopathy

    In short: You're a moron.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    No, both claims might be wrong, but not "pseudoscience".

    If someone's using the scientific methods of the times to promote incorrect conclusions, that actually does qualify as pseudoscience.

  • The Derider||

    Can you translate that nonsense into English?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Can you translate that nonsense into English?

    You might want to expand your vocabulary before complaining about something not making sense.

  • ||

    Nope. Pseudoscience could be construed thus: "science" as practiced by a pseudoscientist. You may have noticed, Al Gore is not a scientist, so he is not a "scientist who supported a hypothesis that turned out to be wrong."

    You give ManBearPig far too much authority... Then again, that's something you've made a habit of in your life isn't it- giving people too much authority? It's a recurring problem with collectivists.

    Bankrupt-phylosophy-PWNED!!!!

  • ||

    Erm... Meant philosophy, not phylosophy.

    Self-spellcheck-nazi-PWNED!!!!111eleventy!!!

  • The Derider||

    Ok, nobody commenting on this comment board is a climatologist. So every poster here making a scientific argument is by definition a pseudoscientist.

    You're a fucking moron.

  • Ben Wolf||

    This is exactly the problem. The article doesn't attack any form of pseudoscience by Al Gore. The sad thing is that so many Hit-and-Run readers won't even notice it.

  • The Derider||

    PWNT!!!
    Did I do that right?

  • Almanian||

    PWND!

  • The Derider||

    Oh shit, Typo.

  • The Derider||

    No, the Hit-and-Run readers are well aware that this article is a crock of shit with no warrants. They just don't care.

  • Skr||

    That's because we know the warrants already. Sounds like you may have been in c-x. You should know better than to argue Malthus.

  • The Derider||

    Nobody's arguing Malthus you moron!

  • The Derider||

    And if you know the warrants already, what's taking everybody so long to post them in this thread? Is it some sort of super-secret club?

    You fucking imbecile.

  • Trespassers W||

    particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of.

    You know who else...

    Damn it, I could have Godwin'd the thread right off if the jersey-bot hadn't rudely pre-empted me.

  • ||

    Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, openly advocated for population control to weed out undesirables.

    But I can't stop myself from observing that these people are the ones who have the nerve to call others "Nazis".

  • Ben Wolf||

    Has Al Gore suggested forcible population control?

  • ||

    Nah, it ain't forcible population control/reduction. That would be just terrible, and ManBearPig would NEVER advocate something like that! It would be completely voluntary.

    You know, like paying taxes.

    See how that works?

    Ugly-truth-PWNED!!!

  • Ted S.||

  • Balser||

    I believe that they want to educate girls and women in 3rd world countries where populations are growing faster than 1st world countries. There is reliable evidence that educated woman having few children than uneducated women. I bet we might even find a reference to that on this website.

  • jester||

    Economically-empowered women is what you mean. All the 'education' in the world is meaningless if they don't achieve some level of financial security.

  • Ben Wolf||

    People don't become economically empowered without education. Knowledge and science are the basis of economic growth.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    You mean that degree in "women in art history" isn't going to help?

  • Skr||

    By the time the can realistically get a degree in that, the empowerment and subsequent decline in birth rate has already been achieved.

  • DJF||

    Al Gore is against people doing things that Al Gore does such as having 4 kids and living a very high energy consumption lifestyle.

  • sarcasmic||

    Rules don't apply to rulers.

  • jester||

    Gore buys 'indulgences' also known as carbon-offsets from his eco-priest. Actually, Al Gore is an eco-priest that sells indulgences to people like Bono.

  • Trespassers W||

    'indulgences' also known as carbon-offsets

    That's hilarious and never occurred to me.

  • ||

    It was one of the first things I thought about when I heard about the offsets. Bless me father, for I have polluted.

  • ||

    And what does it accomplish? It's not like writing a check un-burns the 7e12 tons of coal needed to heat Lord Gore's estate.

  • ||

  • AlmightyJB||

    I always appreciate a picture of Salma Hayek's cleavage so thanks for that. Yeah, this stuff is more about image than anything else.

  • Gibby||

    ^^^^THIS

  • ||

    That, of course, provides evidence that "green" is merely a style issue (and a signal of affluence), not an ethical one.

  • Problem solver||

    Clearly the solution for these third world women is to plant a tree for every baby they give birth to.

    Problem solved.

  • sarcasmic||

    Some dude in Europe applied Margaret Sanger's theories on an industrial scale.

    WTF was his name? I can't remember.

  • ||

    Napoleon?

  • sarcasmic||

    Nope. That's not it.

    Man, it's on the tip of my fingers...

  • ||

    James Watt?

  • Nostradamus||

    Hisler?

  • sarcasmic||

    I don't remember. I think it was Godwin or something.

  • tarran||

  • sarcasmic||

    Shit! That's it!

  • sarcasmic||

    Shit! That's it!

  • ||

    Of North Minehead? I've heard that rumor. Utterly false.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Don't blame me. I voted National Bocialist.

  • Jose||

    Stalin? Wait, that was mostly Asia.

  • creech||

    Just think how many species have been saved in Europe and Asia by the extinction of so many men, women and children by 20th century dictators!
    Imagine the hundreds of millions of boomers they would have spawned.

  • The Delider||

    I thought Sanger made sewing machines.

  • ||

    I don't understand the purpose of this article. Who the fuck takes Al cereal any more?

  • ||

    Cheerios is better than Al cereal.

  • Masseuse||

    Al tried to give me his "cereal" once, but I declined.

  • Al Gore||

    ManBearPig!

  • Apostate Jew||

    It took over an hour to get to ManBearPig. I am disappointed.

  • ||

    "It took over an hour to get to ManBearPig. I am disappointed."

    Nope- go back and read again.

    Time-warp-PWNAGE!!!!eleventy!!111

  • Resto Druid FTW||

    PWND!

  • Hooha||

    That's ElfBearCat. (Or CowBearCat for you hordies)

  • PIRS||

    Unfortunately many on the far left do. Hell, there are even people still take Karl Marx seriously. Even better, there are even a few wackos who take Barack Obama seriously.

  • The Dickrider||

    I take Al Cereal because he doen't use pseudoscience! PWNED!!11!!!

  • Chad||

    Whatever happened to me? I used to be all over these types of climate change threads, pwning you ignorant bitches.

  • Trespassers W||

    VIRTUALLY PWNED

  • ||

    Wouldn't that be PWND FROM THE DEAD!

  • Trespassers W||

    OK, that makes up for yesterday.

  • ||

    Hey! Must all my sins be remembered?

  • FIFY||

    Wouldn't that be PWND FROM PWN OF THE DEAD!

  • ||

    Sounds like we need more NUCLEAR power plants. Then, when there is a problem, and we get radiation leaks, then animal and plant species can mutate more frequently, creating more diversity. Problem solved.

    CB

  • ||

    Or we can leach mutagenic chemicals into the environment.

  • Lib Chick||

    You can't hug your children with nuclear arms!

  • ||

    Yeah, there are two trends that I see new edition population growth worry-warts ignoring...

    1. Women continue to choose fewer children as economic opportunities for them proliferate.

    The primary driver of that choice isn't the availability of various birth control options--it's the opportunity for an alternative means to achieve status and economic betterment through a vibrant economy.

    Economic growth is the most empowering force for women imaginable, and giving women access to birth control is nowhere near important than giving them a reason to choose to use it.

    Generally speaking, the poorer the country, the higher the birthrate.

    http://www.indexmundi.com/map/?v=25

    2. People become more concerned about the environment as they become more wealthy.

    That shouldn't be a surprising observation, but for a lot of people it is. The reason Al Gore is willing to make more sacrifices for the environment (more than those of us who struggle to pay our bills) is because he has a lot more to sacrifice before it starts seriously impacting his quality of life.

    I think that's generally true in other countries as well. I think it's true in places like China, where as the middle class emerges in China and becomes increasingly wealthy, they find themselves increasingly concerned about environmental issues.

    So, anyway, if overpopulation is a problem, than the solution is economic growth. And if we want people to be more concerned about the environment, then the solution to that is economic growth too.

  • ||

    Good points, Ken. Poor people are too busy surviving to worry about the environment.

  • Mainer||

    Got to disagree. As people become more affluent, they want cars...and cars are bad for the environment. They'll also want conveniences like ATM's, which cause unemployment. So really, economic growth is bad. Bad, I say.

  • ||

    I think that car adoption observation is true, but I can't help but notice that the adoption of hybrid cars and electric cars is driven here in the U.S. by early adopters, who are mostly wealthy.

    I think hybrid versions of cars are still selling for more than the difference in savings buyers get from using less gas...

    When such technology initially becomes available, it's the wealthy who are the early adopters and finance the scaling, but as those technologies become increasingly affordable...more people will buy Nissan leafs and Chevy volts.

    I mean, which economy do you think has less total environmental pollution--the U.S. or China? I think the U.S. throws up more greenhouse gases per capita, but that's just where we are right now. I'm not sure that's where we'll be 10 years from now.

    ...if electric cars really take off, it won't be the poor countries that adopt them first; it'll be the rich ones.

    You were probably half kidding, but I think the analogy is like when it was the wealthy who were paying through the nose for produce at Whole Foods, et. al. (for produce that wasn't taking such a big toll on the environment) that really made organic foods available in your local discount supermarket.

    In other words, the reason why so much of the rhetoric we see directed at liberals sounds like class envy?

    Is because it is class envy.

    The wealthy liberal looking down his or her nose at the relatively poor and uneducated may be a feature rather than a bug. The fact is that as people become wealthier, they're willing to spend more on environmental products--and where we are now may not be indicative of where we're going.

  • The Derider||

    Make a couple more reasoned arguments like that, and you'll just get 50 "PWND" replies.

    Tone down your intelligence if you want to fit in.

  • The Dickrider||

    BUTT HURT PWNED!!111!!

  • The Derider||

    Thank you for proving my point?

  • ||

    Are you asking or telling, dipshit?

  • The Derider||

    You've really resorted to criticisms of my punctuation? Why not try to argue about the merits of the article?

    (because you'd lose)

  • The Dickrider||

    PWN'D?

  • ||

    Spot-on-Psychoanalysis-PWNED!!!!!!

  • Tony||

    Agreed--let's just not conflate "1% of the population getting away with all the loot" with "national wealth." Populations must become more wealthy to drive down birth rates and increase energy efficiency, but the wealth must be spread around. That means keeping laissez-faire capitalists away.

  • sevo||

    "Agreed--let's just not conflate "1% of the population getting away with all the loot" with "national wealth."

    We can all agree to ignore your brain-dead strawmen.

  • ||

    Actually, all that really matters is GDP per capita.

    Redistribution schemes simply make the economic pie smaller.

    If redistribution schemes made countries richer on a GDP per capita basis, then Venezuela and Cuba would be towards the top of this GDP per capita list--rather than towards the bottom behind Mexico...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....es_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

  • ||

    Show me a country that has a higher GDP per capita than the good ol' capitalist United States?

    And I'll show you a tiny little country that's pumping out a ton of oil.

    Show me a country that's pumping out a ton of oil--and still has a relatively low GDP per capita anyway?

    And I'll show you a country heavy on the wealth redistribution schemes.

  • Trespassers W||

    Hey everyone, it's Tony!

  • The Dickrider||

    PWNED!!111!

  • Ben Wolf||

    The problem with the growth model is three hundred million people already use 25% of available global resources to sustain their lifestyle. There is no way to replicate that for the current seven billion, let alone the 10.1 billion expected by 2100.

  • Skr||

    Where do you get this 10.1b number from? The last estimates I saw have global pop topping out at 9b in 2050

  • Ben Wolf||

    You can read a little about it here:
    http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Oth.....PP2010.pdf

    In short, fertility appears to be trending upward again.

  • Skr||

    Yeah just saw the UN report. Ugh that sucks. Fucking Africa.

  • ||

    Here I thought it was all about me.

  • Mainer||

    Is PWND just slange for pawned, or does it stand for something, you know, the way AIDS is an acronym ?

  • Trespassers W||

    It stands for Pwnd With No Doubt.

  • ||

    Yes, PWND = pawned. Mainer meet Google, and Google, this is Mainer.

  • Mainer||

    you know what ESAD means ?

  • Bad Guesser||

    Every Spanglers a Dick?

  • Mainer||

    Eat Shit and Die (motherfucker optional)

  • AlmightyJB||

    I feel strongly that motherfucker is manditory.

  • Ska||

    Pwnd is a typo of owned. It's not short for pawned. N00bs.

  • gay homosexual||

    Another
    Infected
    Dick
    Sucker

    Anal
    Inserted
    Death
    Sentence

  • PIRS||

    The 1980's called. They are missing their childish bigot.

  • ||

    pwn'd or pwnd is a memetic mis-spelling of "owned" or "I have defeated you in a particularly humiliating manner on your part."

    Also can be used as "pwnage" or "ownage."

  • Untermensch||

    It's leet speak for "owned".

  • ||

    If you haven't read the William Russell Mead Al Gore beatdown, you should.

    http://blogs.the-american-inte.....-part-one/

  • Mainer||

    best take away:

    he shares an illusion common amongst the narcissistic glitterati of our time: that politically fashionable virtue cancels private vice.

  • Tony||

    Political virtue affects me, private vice does not.

  • ||

    If carbon affects the climate and those vices emit carbon, they most certainly do affect you dimwit.

  • Tony||

    Only global policy can do anything to fix the problem. Because Al Gore flies on a jet is not an excuse to ignore science and act like an idiot.

  • Tony||

    Only global policy can do anything to fix the problem. Because Al Gore flies on a jet is not an excuse to ignore science and act like an idiot.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Don't forget part deux.

    Even if the science is exactly as Mr. Gore claims, his policies are still useless. His advocacy is still a distraction. The movement he heads is still a ship of fools.

  • Ben Wolf||

    Again, not a single rational argument. Just name-calling from Mead.

  • Ben Wolf||

    Read the Mead? Why? Mead calls Gore a loser. That's it. Not a single quote by Gore demonstrating how horrible he is, not a single scientific argument.

  • ||

    I am sorry you are not intelligent enough to understand the article. It is filled with facts and argument. Gore's proposed sollutions are rediculous. And since his sollutions are rediculous and will never be implimented, it doesn't matter if his science is right.

    And no, you can't claim that the world is in danger from carbon and then emit more carbon than a small African country. That makes it look like you don't believe what you say. You have to wear the hairshirt if you are to be credible.

    I am sorry Ben. Your parents did everything they could. But you still turned out stupid.

  • Ben Wolf||

    Neither Mead nor you have constructed an argument. You simply call names.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Mead constructed a very good argument -- that whatever the merits of Gore's science, his "solutions" simply will not hold up to the rigors of realpolitik. So either you didn't read the article, are arguing in bad faith, or are an idiot. (I'm voting for all three.)

  • Ben Wolf||

    He has no argument beyond "Al Gore is a fat loser". If he does, please point it out to me. That you've only indulged in name-calling is suggestive.

  • ||

    We have pointed the arguments out to you multiple times. You just keep repeating the request because you are stupid and dishonest.

    No more food for the trolls today. Go back to KOS where you came from.

  • Ben Wolf||

    No, you haven't. I'm waiting.

  • jester||

    I think Al Gore like some of the respected scientists that he cites such as Paul Ehrlich can be 'blinded' by science. Ehrlich, as Gore does, in the opinion of many readers and commenters at H&R, make the mistake of conflating scientific findings into hyperbolistic outcomes that in the case of Ehrlich haven't borne out.

    Let's grant you that Ehrlich is an expert scientist in biological populations. For example, let's say in a study, he proves that cowbird populations increase with the fragmentation of forest habitat at the expense of songbirds due to the subsequent increased brood parasitism afforded to it. That is scientific fact.

    Now comes the non-science of human desires and aesthetics and the non-science of computer modeling. Which is better: cowbirds or forest songbirds? Modelling: will cowbirds ultimately cause the demise of forest songbirds? Will cowbirds eventually left unchecked destroy the earth? Now science has raised political questions, and certain proposed political solutions are incorrectly confused by those who champion them as sound science. They are not. These solutions are certainly biased by modelling techniques, aesthetics and world views.

    I would venture that most of the readership at H&R does not share the same world view as the consensus of humanity. That does not make their world view wrong. Perhaps they have more acuity into the motives of most humans than the consensus. Maybe they can spot experts conflating their results better than the consensus. That is not a conspiracy theory, it is a view of human nature.

    Aesthetic preferences and policy goals are not science. Accusing those who don't agree with the consensus view of policy and aesthetic goals as being anti-science is dishonest.

    Al Gore's 'pseudo-science' is his application of scientific observation into what many of us view as counter-productive policy and then wrapping it all up as Science.

  • The Derider||

    You blathering for a few paragraphs is not an argument. There's not a single warrant or citation there. Why should we believe you rather than the thousands of scientists who think you're wrong?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Why should we believe you rather than the thousands of scientists who think you're wrong?

    Wake us up when the oceans drown Manhattan, you faggot striver poor.

  • The Derider||

    Lol let the hate FLOW. Why not just call me a nigger?

  • jester||

    Nigger would be a compliment. No one hates you. But you annoy a lot of people because you have nothing to offer. Do your homework.

  • jester||

    You don't have to believe anything I have to offer and the more you ignore I guess that is the more unchallenged you feel in your own, in my opinion, pathetic beliefs. Good luck with that.

  • jester||

    You don't have to believe anything I say. I did make an argument though. If that was blathering to you, then it's your bad. You can't recognize an argument when it is presented to you. Go back to school or start being honest in your commentary additions. Just advice. Do as you like.

  • The Derider||

    Can you summarize the argument for me because I've read it three times now and it still seems like bullshit.

  • Vaccine||

    Maybe you should sleep on it, you indefatigable troll.

  • ||

    IN the developed world, who will pay the entitlements bill if we stop having taxable entities, er, babies?

  • fish||

    No problem.....the Bernank is buying ink by the truckload as we speak.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Interestingly enough these same people are the ones who insist the government "do something" everytime a new perceived threat to public safety pops up. If the goal is a reduced population then by their own logic we should do away with the FDA, DEA, ATF, etc. etc.

  • ||

    And begin by stoning two of Al Gore's spawn.

  • ||

    I'll jump on the Gorehate any day, but this seems a bit overblown. Talking about expanding women's health care options isn't exactly mustache-twirlingly evil (SLD: done with private funds in voluntary, non-coercive ways). And a reasonable person would hardly assume he's referring to the US (although the ubiquity here might even be debatable). If women in Africa really want 8 children, good on them, but clearly when the option to have fewer children is available, many women take it. Not all that nefarious, really.

  • Richard Head||

    Dammit Dagny, you should know that hyperbole is okay when it's motives are pure.

  • Warty||

    You have missed the point of the thread. Go make fun of Dan T.

  • The Derider||

    Yes the point of this thread is to demonstrate your ignorance, not sober reasoning.

  • The Dickrider||

    Awww, someone sounds butt hurt.

  • Warty||

    PWND

    Also, you forgot to deny that you're Dan T, idiot.

  • The Derider||

    Who the fuck is Dan T?

  • Trespassers W||

    Warty, why don't you "pwn up" to the fact that you just got PWNED?

  • Warty||

    FEIGNEDIGNORWND

  • The Derider||

    Can you at least link to something he wrote so I can know who you're talking about?

    Your conspiracy theories come fast and furious.

  • juris imprudent||

    A sock your dryer ate.

  • ||

    Sock-puppet-PWNED!!!!

  • ||

    I hate healthcare for women. It only takes doctors away from focusing on healthcare for men.

  • Yet another Dave||

    The hypocrisy of politicians is mind-blowing.

    Republicans complain that whenever one of theirs is caught up in some sort of scandal, the expectation is that they resign immediately, but when someone on the Left gets caught in one, it's like pulling teeth to get anyone to force them to step down. But the GOP does it to themselves - they're the ones who parade religion, morality and good ol' family values as their hallmarks, the Left doesn't have that stench of hypocrisy attached to their scandals.

    But nobody ever seems to want to call out Lefties like Al Gore who want all of us to live energy efficient lifestyles with expensive-ass CFL lightbulbs and driving hybrids (if we're allowed to drive at all), and yet he lives in one of the most energy inefficient houses in the country, flies to all his speaking engagements in an out-of-date private jet that spews more toxins than a toxin factory, and has twice the children he thinks the rest of us should be raising. Oh, but he uses his wealth to buy "energy credits", so he doesn't have to live by the same rules he wants to shove on the rest of us. It's do as I say, not as I do, and everyone seems perfectly okay with that. I honestly don't get it.

    Hey, I'm all for taking care of the planet, hugging trees, whatever. And I tip my hat to Ed Begley Jr., who some may see as an environmentalist nut but at least he seems to be walking the talk, which is way more than Al Gore can claim. And yet Gore got a Nobel Prize? I guess the only real requirement to get one of those anymore is to be a prominent liberal.

  • Ben Wolf||

    So, what part of Al Gore's argument in the above article do you disagree with?

  • Yet another Dave||

    It's his hypocrisy and scare tactics I don't like. He runs around telling everyone that global warming is an inconvenient "truth", but he's not exactly being inconvenienced by it, is he.

    Like I said, I'm all for taking care of the environment. This is the only planet we've got, and efforts do need to be taken to ensure it's here for our kids and grandkids. But I don't agree with people like Gore pushing to have the rest of us legislated so that we have to buy light bulbs that cost four times as much and maybe save us half the electricity while he just shells out a few dollars for "credits" and continues to live extravagantly. If the environment were really in danger the way Gore makes it out to be, he'd be spending the dollars he puts toward "credits" toward solar panels, etc.

    As someone else noted, I stopped listening when the 300 lb man told me I've been consuming too much.

  • Ben Wolf||

    Yes, but what is Gore quoted as saying in the above article thath you might disagree with? That's the real question.

    Harsanyi didn't write intending to provide information about Gore; he wrote a shibboleth designed to push buttons. That's why there isn't a single "ugly" quotation from Gore. Harsanyi can't find any.

    The most appalling aspect is that so many people allow themselves to be manipulated by Harsanyi's dishonesty. I don't really give a damn whether he likes Al Gore. I do care that he writes junk attacking Gore for things other people said. It's unfair, lazy and unethical.

  • Ben Wolf||

    Surely others can see a problem with an article subtitled "The latest pseudoscience from the former vice president" which doesn't address a SINGLE scientific or pseudoscientific point.

  • jester||

    "One of the things that we could do about it is to change the technologies, to put out less of this pollution, to stabilize the population, and one of the principal ways of doing that is to empower and educate girls and women," the former vice president explained at the Games for Change Festival. "You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children (they) have, the spacing of the children."

    There: pseudoscience. Gore is extrapolating that women are more concerned about pollution (than men) and that they only have too many children (judgement call) because of lack of fertility management.

    I'll pose you this example. A poor peasant woman has a child with a peasant presumably because it is quite a natural urge to hook up with the opposite sex and presumably in her male dominated culture a kid is expected (probably a hard-wired feature in most reproduction-by-sex organisms). She has that kid with him. He fails to provide, becomes a drunk and she leaves him. Burdened with a kid she seeks man no. 2. Cycle repeats. What keeps a woman unempowered is economic inability to sustain herself and her child. She can be completely uneducated (in our sense) but she knows where babies come from and she knows how to prevent a pregnancy. Her problem is how she is going to make it alone. That is my own 'Psedoscience'. It is not science, but it is part of my world view formulated by observation of a fairly wide view of humanity in more than 50 nations most of them lesser developed. I don't confuse my observations with science. I cannot control for the myriad variables involved. But it explains my world view. Al Gore arrived at his as well and has made it his mission to warn the world of impending doom. Fair enough. My world view is as based on science as his is. I don't see impending doom per se and I see different policy as more effective. I don't claim science to be a basis of my policy advice but rather my take on human nature.

  • Ben Wolf||

    Thank you for a cogent, civil post. I find your opinion to be reasonable, even though I don't entirely share it.

    I do agree that women are not somehow more moral, or ethical than men, and if that is Gores's position then he's not making a scientific case for it. My own experience is that women tend to be a bit more community oriented, though whether that is an innate tendency or the result of socialization I don't pretend to know.

    I do agreE with Gore that providing basic education to women (not just on how to use birth control) is economically and politically empowering. It certainly has a strong correlation.

  • jester||

    Ben,

    Women's education is great but first they must know their economic destiny. It's a chicken/egg thing fair enough.

  • The Derider||

    You don't know what the word "pseudoscience" means.

    It doesn't mean the same thing as "wrong". It means that something claiming to use the scientific method does not actually use the scientific method and thus is a crock of shit.

    See:
    Phrenology
    Astrology
    Homeopathy
    Intelligent Design

    Al Gore making policy prescriptions can't be pseudoscience because it didn't claim to be science in the first place! It's not like his speech got published as a reputable study in Nature or anything.

    Get a grip.

  • jester||

    Thanks for that. Al Gore makes the fucking most stupid policy prescriptions ever! David Harsanyi is a stupid cunt for calling it any other way. Fuck you Harsanyi!

  • The Derider||

    David harsanyi, you, and the rest of the morons here DONT KNOW WHAT THE WORD PSEUDOSCIENCE MEANS.

  • jester||

    Derider,

    Sorry, but I'm just saying that you are deranged. How can anyone be expected to engage in discussion with anyone that doesn't agree with you totally? If that is so, fine. Curl up in a ball and ignore the world. I think it is your mission to be an ascetic. Your reasoning skills are too weak to be otherwise.

  • The Derider||

    Boo Hoo, you don't like me, blah blah blah.

    You're still wrong.

  • Big fat hypocrite||

    About Gore, his solution for AGW (CCX) is akin to Michale Moore stating "Capitalism is evil! Buy my book and my latest DvD to find out why."

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    "This is the only planet we've got"

    The nonthinking hurts.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Venus

    These aren't the only worlds that could be terraformed.

    I'm the first to say it would be a hell of a task, and even colonization will involve a lot of (hopefully private) capital expenditures, but it can be done.

    This isn't our "only" planet. It's the only one immediately habitable.

  • The Derider||

    Your solution to overpopulation on Earth is successfully terraforming Mars and then transporting people there? How many billions of dollars would it cost to transport people to fucking Mars? If your solution to overpopulation is Sci-Fi nonsense, we might as well build cities under the sea rather than transporting people to a NEW FUCKING PLANET.

    The nonthinking hurts.

  • Mother Earth||

    Not to worry you moron, I am self sustaining. If the world gets over populated I will throw a plague your way. You cannot destroy me you stupid puny arrogant little man.

  • The Derider||

    Here come 10000 nukes bitch.

  • Mother Earth||

    I survived a comet that knocked the moon out of me. So fucking bring it.

  • Tony||

    What a pissy, mean-spirited column. So it's never possible that humans can be responsible for environmental disasters? You guys do realize that people who care about the environment do so because it's our environment, don't you? The fact is animal life on earth is in the midst of a mass extinction event--because of humans. It may be OK to hardcore capitalists to use up everything you can find as fast as possible, but to a rational person that tendency is a glaring flaw in capitalism. Maybe if you guys cared about human well-being instead of making that subservient to the demands of the unfettered market, we'd get somewhere.

  • sevo||

    "The fact is animal life on earth is in the midst of a mass extinction event--because of humans."

    Fucking lie, asshole.

  • ||

    Don't bother, dude. That's not really Tony. The "Real" Tony's been gone a long time. Probably murdered by a trick.

  • Colin||

    +1

  • The Derider||

    It's a well known fact that the Dodo was made extinct by Gaia herself.

  • The Dickrider||

    DODO PWN'D!

  • Ben Wolf||

    Perhaps you could make a counterargument.

  • The Derider||

    Lol not likely with these morons.

  • ||

    I believe that giving yourself handjob is called masturbation.

    Please do it in private.

  • The Derider||

    Pwnd
    Pwnd
    Pwnd

    Pot Kettle Blah Blah

  • The State||

    I clearly don't give a shit about human well-being, AND I have all the guns. Yet you still love me, Tony.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    So it's never possible that humans can be responsible for environmental disasters?


    Of course not - just look at what humans did on such environmental "paradises" as the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe...

    You guys do realize that people who care about the environment do so because it's our environment, don't you?


    That's not true, we're mere parasites here: The environmentalists told me so.

  • Trespassers W||

    Hey everybody, it's OM!

    Where the hell have you been? I'm going to guess "working".

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Trespassers W,

    Where the hell have you been? I'm going to guess "working".


    Working... having my visa renewed... back working... barely enough time to waste my time with Tony...

  • Warty||

    Holy shit, you're alive!

  • MWG||

    Oh OM,

    How we've missed your wise latin wisdom.

  • Trident||

    Everybody who feels there are too many people needs to kill themselves.

    Overpopulation problem solved for environmentalists.
    Whining problem solved for non-environmentalists.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHEMT

    There's already an organized movement for that.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Euthanasia

    I was thinking of that, actually, but VHEMT is still relevant.

  • mgd||

    I don't think VHEMT has much of a future.

  • Dickensian snark||

    Aww, is oo afwaid it will hurt ol' ManBearPig's feelings? If pointing out glaring hypocrisy is "mean-spirited", too bad.

    Fortunately for you, you hold the same views as "rational" people, so you can rest easy at night knowing that anyone who disagrees with you is, by definition, irrational.

    So, in sentence order: Irrelevant emotional appeal, strawman, irrelevant emotional appeal AND false dichotomy, total BS, strawman AND begging the question (can you beg a question of a strawman? wow!), irrelevant emotional appeal AND strawman.

    Neat.

  • Septugenarian Libertarian||

    Maybe if you cared about the environment, you wouldn't waste energy posting such unpersuasive tripe.

  • George Carlin||

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

    90% of species that ever lived are gone and not because of man, you moron!

    Also, you fucking moron, man is part of nature or don't you believe in evolution. I'm tired of these fucking assholes complaining about man killing off nature when man is part of nature.

  • X||

    I'm sorry, I stopped listening when the 300lb. man said I was consuming too much.

  • AlmightyJB||

    He pays other people to not eat as an offset.

  • PIRS||

    +555555

  • WTF||

    Nice

  • ||

    If one is going to argue about the science of overpopulation, it helps the argument if one actually uses scientific information. Please address concerns regarding feeding 9 billion people. Please address how to supply fresh drinking water to people and crops throughout the world when farm land is being lost to urbanization.

    This is simply a "I don't like what Al Gore thinks" write-up.

  • Tman||

    Here ya go Limbo...

    PROGRESS AND ITS SUSTAINABILITY
    This Web page and its satellites are aimed at showing that human material progress is desirable and sustainable. People have worried about many problems. These pages discuss energy in general, nuclear energy, solar energy, food supply, population, fresh water supply, forests and wood supply, global engineering, pollution, biodiversity, various menaces to human survival, the role of ideology in discussing these matters, useful references.

    http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/

  • Ben Wolf||

    The author links to single non-peer reviewed papers to sustain his arguments. He also advocates etreme measures such as dumping iron filings in the oceans, apparently unaware this would only speed up the process of acidification. He repeatedly makes arguments based on "[his] opinion", rather than scienific methodology.

    This is not a good source for information.

  • Tman||

    Ben,

    You clearly didn't do anything other than skim the page. He links to dozens if not hundreds of peer reviewed articles along with statistical information provided by various government organizations and regulatory bodies.

    The "Iron Fertilization of the Ocean" section was referring to an Australian study, a Science Magazine article and a paper from Nature Magazine. He doesn't advocate anything in that section but merely mentions it.

    You should probably read a little more of it before you make your judgment.

  • Ben Wolf||

    The paper "How much land can ten billion people spare for nature?" was not peer reviewed.

    The paper "Health and Amenity Effects of Global Warming" was not peer reviewed.

    The paper "Why Global Warming Would be Good for You" was not peer reviewed.

    His claim wheat yields have increased in Australia due to global warming is unsubatantiated.

    His claim regulations are not cost-effective is not substantiated.

    His link to "studies which might give additional assurance and comfort" does not reference any study.

    Also, I count a total of 57 unique links (almost all of which lead to his own website) not "hundreds.

    I appear to be the only one who, in fact, did read.

    P.S. Iron filings in the oceans would increase the rate of acidification. He never addresses this.

  • Tman||

    Ben,

    The links you speak of are to other sections of the entire satellite page. Instead of cherry picking a few magazine pieces he quoted from, why don't you look at the reference page?

    It will answer your questions.

  • The Derider||

    LOL
    If the scientific argument is based on magazine pieces, in part or in total, it's not rigorous enough to pass muster.

    Try again.

  • ||

    Ah, but if it's based on increasing ManBearPig's income and worshiping at the altar of Gore, it suddenly passes muster for you?

    Sychophant-PWNED!!!!

  • The Derider||

    Jesus Christ you're a moron. The scientists are on my side here, doofus.

  • Hollywood||

    These issues have already been worked out in the 70's. Did you not see Logan's Run and Soylent Green?

  • Not an Economist||

    Scientist have been researching ways to grow food more efficiently for years. And I'm not talking about factory farming although that is part of it. If you seen advertisements on TV about growing plants upside down that is part of that research.

    Personally, I would put the onus on the Maltusians to prove the Earth can't support a certain amount of people. After all, their past predictions have all been wrong. Why should I believe them this time?

  • The Derider||

    Do you believe it can support infinity human beings?

    Clearly there's an upper limit on its capacity.

    There, Onus met.

  • ||

    Do you believe it can support infinity human beings?

    No, but I also believe it cannot support infinite wolves or infinite ants or infinite trees.

    This is the heart of your stupidity because no one fears an overpopulation of wolves or ants or trees and only the stupid believe human beings are so very different.

  • The Derider||

    Nobody fears an overpopulation of wolves or ants?

    You're a fucking moron.

  • Not an Economist||

    Yeah but what is it? You don't answer that. You just blindly accept the answer of people who have never been right before. I'm not sure what that says about your intelligence but it is not good.

  • The Derider||

    How exact does my answer need to be? Billions? Millions? Do I need to know exactly how many human beings can live on the earth in order for you to believe there is an upper limit?

    Die in a fire.

  • Idiot Savant||

    if you don't like being human, kill yourself.

    http://www.vhemt.org

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Some one beat me to it. Curses.

  • Robert||

    Seems like we could really cut down on birth rates if we simply paid every women in the world to give Al a massage.

  • ||

    I find it interesting that Al Gore believes that technology can save the planet and at the same time also believe that eliminating the creators of technology will save the planet. If we eliminate the later we won't get the other. I guess this might be his admission that technology will not produce the energy required to save the planet.

  • Matrix||

    All we need to do to save the planet is give Al more money.

  • Ben Wolf||

    How has Gore argued "creators" of technology should be eliminated?

  • ||

    did you not read the article. Creators are people and Al wants to cut back on the number of people hence creators. For example have you ever wondered the things that could have been done by the millions of people killed in WWII, many of those people may have been the next Einstein or Mozart or etc get the picture, creators.

  • Ben Wolf||

    By your definition it would be unethical for anyone to limit the number of children they have. Doing so would be eliminating creators.

  • The Derider||

    And since "parasites" are people too doesn't your brilliant philosophy necessitate an infinite amount of "parasites"?

  • jester||

    Just how do you determine who is parasite or not, genius? You are a crazed fuck.

  • The Derider||

    How do you identify someone as a "creator"?

    Your vitriol is ill-directed.

  • jester||

    Correct. Limiting family size should never be decided by any other than a family. You'd be surprised by the results yourself. The counter, state fiat, would be scarier on the civil rights front. Fair enough. Civil rights are over-rated. Go with your pre-formed instincts. Many ruthless fucks have followed that path before you. Do they count as your heroes?

  • Matrix||

    People won't listen when I say it. But it's so true, and the environazis say it plainly.

    The inevitable conclusion of the environmental movement is a massive population reduction--forced sterilization, forced abortions, denying medical care, and extermination.

  • ||

    Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, openly advocated for population control to weed out undesirables.

    So what? She died in 1966, but the height of her power was in the 1930's when pretty much all of western civilization was toying with eugenics and statism. Harsanyi, your argument would be much cleaner if you focused on people who are alive today, like Holdren and the actual eugenics (involuntary sterilization) programs that persisted in many southern US states up through the 1970's.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    "You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children (they) have, the spacing of the children."

    Progressive SWPL faggotry in a nutshell right there. "ALL HUMAN BIOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS AND INSTINCTS CAN BE PROPERLY MANAGED!!!"

    Yeah, right--as if the inhabitants of a third-world shithole are going to give a rat's ass when some Whiteopia-bred prog douchebag comes to their village with condoms and charts showing the most ideal breeding cycles.

    I wish we could toss Al Gore and his followers into sub-Saharan Africa for about 5 years, just so they could find out how utterly full of crap their theories on social engineering are.

  • Ben Wolf||

    Been there. Turns out people in Africa are humans, and the women want a better life.

  • ||

    I am sure they were wildly impressed with you. And I am also sure they do want a better life. Sadly, you showed up to help them.

  • Ben Wolf||

    3/3 on insults John, and not a single attempt at rational, civil discussion. Don't worry, I'm patient.

  • The Derider||

    Haha yeah fuck private charity!

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Yeah, and if they're going to accomplish that, it won't be due to coffee-house revolutionaries introducing them to the wonders of prophylactics.

    It takes a hell of a lot more than good intentions and academic theories to correct an inherently dysfunctional society.

  • Ben Wolf||

    You give them as much education as you can and hope for the best. That's all anyone can do, but you'd be amazed at how societies change for the better when women are simply made literate.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    You give them as much education as you can and hope for the best.

    "ALL THEY NEED IS SCHOOLING A BLOO BLOO BLOO!"

    If you're going to social engineer, at least try not to do it half-assed. All those efforts aren't going to make a difference anyway, but you'd be able to say you did everything you could--and that's really what matters to SWPLs above all else.

  • Ben Wolf||

    What?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    What?

    Quit crying about this milquetoast "we give them education and hope for the best" bullshit. If you really spent time in Africa, then it should be painfully clear that in no way is it going to serve as an example to the world in innovation, education, and functional stability anytime soon.

    You took up the white man's burden, but apparently you were too self-absorbed in your own sense of righteousness to actually take a realistic look at the environment around you. Hence, your shoulder-shrugging "you give them as much education as you can and hope for the best" remark. It's pretty fucking easy to be so blithe about it when you don't have to stay there year after year after year, generation after generation, to actually do the hard work of establishing a society in which education is allowed to flourish.

    And that's why you SWPL faggots are so repulsive. You want all the credit for accomplishing something without doing the hard work it would take to get there.

  • The Derider||

    All you need at Reason is an emotion and a keyboard.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    And all Derider needs is a gas chamber.

  • The Derider||

    He's here all week folks! Remember to tip your waitress.

  • Colin||

    Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, openly advocated for population control to weed out undesirables.

    It should be pointed out that "undesirables" to her were anyone with a darker skin color.

    Terrific column.

  • A Serious Man||

    I don't think he has any friends.

  • Ben Wolf||

    So, Harsanyi writes a column about Al Gore's "pseudoscience", yet doesn't liist a single factual error by Gore. In fact, only one statement by Gore is even commented on; his advocacy for educating women.

    Any more fraud you'd like to perpetuate, Mr. Harsanyi?

  • ||

    Harsanyi PWN'D!!

  • Trespassers W||

    Harsanyi writes a column about Al Gore's "pseudoscience", but it's not even about global warming! He spends the whole column talking about a completely different topic!

  • The Derider||

    And completely fails to address a single claim made by Al Gore!

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    "THE PLANET HAS A FEVER" is not a claim--it's cheeseboard nuttery.

  • The Derider||

    See, that's what Harsanyi failed to do.
    You could write for THE BLAZE!

  • Almanian||

    I'd like to welcome back The Derider™, and state, for the record, that the first thread of PWNAGE was one of the most awesome things I've seen this week. Simply wonderful. Thanks to everyone for participating.

    Espectially The Derider™ for blithely stoking the fires - you insoucient little minx!

  • The Derider||

    I'm glad I could help you build your tower of pathetic ignorance.

  • The Dickrider||

    HAH! ALMANIAN=PWN'D!!!111!!

  • Trespassers W||

    Aw dude, he got you too!

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I'd like to thank Hobie Derider for being Exhibit A today in the case of Leftists vs. Sense of Humor.

  • The Derider||

    Enjoy those Dennis Miller reruns tonight

  • ||

    I have never seen so much PWNAGE! It's almost like a beautiful sunset.

  • ||

    It pisses me off when people say that the world is overpopulated now. Did you know that we could fit the entire world population into Texas and it still wouldn't be as densely populated as NYC? Not very appealing, but still something to think about.

  • WTF||

    Did you know that we could fit the entire world population into Texas and it still wouldn't be as densely populated as NYC?

    And we could call it Mega City One.

  • Ben Wolf||

    Unfortunately that leaves out things like, roads, farms, grocery stores, mines, factories, oil wells, houses, places of worship, parking lots, car dealerships, etcetera. Your impact on land usage extends vastly beyond the bit you happen to be standing on at the moment.

  • ||

    NYC doesn't have roads or grocery stores or houses or churches or parking lots? Could have fooled me.

    As for the other things, that's what the rest of the Earth could be for in Thomas' scenario.

  • Ben Wolf||

    He stated seven billion people could live in one city; New York has ten million.

    And no, New York City does not have all the farms, mines, oil wells, fisheries and roads it needs to survive. Tremendous resources are transferred into the city from across the entire planet.

    New York has a far greater impact on land use than the bit within tue city limits

  • ||

    One city that is the size of Texas. Texas. Not the whole world only being the size of Texas.

  • Ben Wolf||

    Take any geographical area of the United States you like. The land use impact of the residents within it extends far beyond its borders. The only way to make this untrue is to virtually eliminate any standard of living.

    For the assertion that all people can live one city to be true that city would have to contain everything it needs. Every farm, water source, mine, well, retail establishment, church, temple etc. would have to be local. There is no place which can supply resources of that magnitude for seven to ten billion people. We can't even provide that level of resources for the three hundred million in the U.S., which is why we import vast quantities of those resources from the rest of the planet.

    There just isn't enough space. Texas has roughly 69 million hectares of land. Whear production in the U.S. alone is around 22 million hectares. The U.S. alone has roughly 17 million hectares of pavement. It is not possible to fit enough farming or infrastructure for cars into Texas to serve seven billion people.

  • Clue In||

    You fucking moron, the point was you could fit all the people in the world in the state of Texas and it wouldn't be as densely populated as NYC. You'd have the rest of the world to farm etc... The point being the world is NOT over populated.

  • Tony||

    And what an airtight argument it is. Say, where would we get the requisite water?

  • ||

    Fuck off, moron.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Note that Tony doesn't even get the courtesy of a "PWN'D" joke!
    That made me laugh!

  • Edwin||

    well from the REST OF THE ENTIRE EARTH

    but anyway the point was it's an allegory

  • Tony||

    We're already having fresh water crises, and people aren't all in one place.

  • Edwin||

    wow you're really havig trouble understanding this

    it's an example, an allegory

    try to keep up

  • Tony||

    No it isn't. It's a simple-minded distraction. So everyone can fit into Texas. Okay. Can all of those people find adequate food, water, and modern necessities? Land space isn't the only issue, but that example wants to pretend that it is.

  • X||

    don't worry about it dude. we execute the retarded in Texas, so you really don't need to worry about sustainability going forward. we'll be OK in Mega City 1.

  • Edwin||

    wow, alright

    the point of the allegory is that the world is NOT so overpopulated such that everyone could fit into one small fraction of it and still not exceed the population density of an already-existing city AND still have the entirety of the rest of the earth for resources

    Obviously such a city couldn't function if taken literally, half those resources would be on the other side of the world,, BUT THE POINT IS A LAND/PERSON COMPARISON
    as in THERE IS STILL PLENTY OF LAND/RESOURCES PER PERSON (or at least compared to the doom and gloom the environmentalists espouse)

    really I can't make this any simpler for you. If you can't understand a simple allegory, you're not of the mental qulity to participate in the discussion

  • Not an Economist||

    That has far more to do with local politics and economics than lack of water. Their are ways of getting water. They just have to have the money and be allowed to do so.

  • Engineering & Science||

    Then figure out a way to build giant solar powered dehumidifiers and you kill two birds with one stone since water vapor is the majority greenhouse gas.

  • The Derider||

    Have them produce gold nuggets as well. Debt problem solved!

    Technology is awesome.

  • The Derider||

    It's more about arable land and clean water than physical space to put people.

    Something to think about.

  • ||

    PWN'D! THOMAS GOT PWN'D!

  • The Dickrider||

    YOU'RE STILL AFRAID TO DEBATE ME! PWN'D!!

  • Skr||

    That's an awfully good reason to genetically modify crops for increased yield and drought tolerance. That's how the us has increased the amount of forested land in the past couple of decades.

  • juris imprudent||

    Fucking 300 posts of trollbait I have to endure just to mention that my next band will surely be called Malthusian Chicken Littles.

  • ||

    "We are Chemtrail Conspiratard and we are here to make you sad and think about mass-extinctions and stuff"

  • ||

    Show David Harsanyi to Mister Creosote's table , he's wanted for dessert.

  • ||

    You made a leap from "ubiquitous education and birth control for women" to "in this country". This country is a drop in the bucket of population. Assuming you mean the US, we have 300million out of what, 6 billion people on earth, or about 150million out of 3 billion? How many are of chilbearing (physical, not legal) age? That's a lot of women (95% of the world) that you're ignoring in your argument. How many OF them aren't allowed to make decisions about reproduction, or aren't educated enough to do so? Don't be so nearsighted. Or, were you just being deceptive?

  • Mike M.||

    All you really need to know about Crazy Al is that even Tipper couldn't stand to be around his dumb ass any longer.

  • Tony||

    Ah Al Gore... On the one hand, he's turned into a giant caricature and object of 2-min. hate by the right-wing anti-science fools, so it might be best for the environmental movement for him to go away. On the other hand, Al Gore could be anyone and they'd do the same thing.

    What's precious is watching people throw stones for his alleged hypocrisy who are nothing but unwitting, unpaid shills for big oil. NOT A SINGLE bullshit hand-waving argument you guys posit against current environmental science originated anywhere other than industry whoring think tanks and propaganda outfits. You are all morons, and they made you that way, and it's sad.

  • NotSure||

    Morons like you and Al Gore have been predicting the end of the world for a very long time. Surprisingly you were ALWAYS wrong. If you want to join some dumb doomsday cult, that is fine, just don't force your crazed cult on the rest of the world, you crazed buffoon.

  • Tony||

    What the hell are you talking about. That's your excuse for dismissing current science? That should be your excuse for dismissing the Maya calendar cultists maybe, but not current science, which is perfectly capable of determining that humans are doing harm to their environment. We've done it at every single scale we've lived. Now we live on a global scale, you shouldn't be shocked by the possibility.

  • ||

    Tony even if the current science were true, you and other halfwits like you offer no sollution. The world is not cutting its carbon output or adopting world regulation of economic activity anymore than it is going to give up war.

    Since you have no sollutions, global warming will happen no matter what, assuming the science is correct. Since it will happen regardless and you have no sollution, shut the fuck up. You might as well be commenting on the sun rising tommorow.

  • Edwin||

    current science does not understand weather well enough to make such predictions WITH THE KIND OF CERTAINTY THAT WOULD JUSTIFY BILLION DOLLAR POLICY CHANGES. It just doesn't exist, we ultimately understand very little about the natural world.
    If we understand weather that well, why can't we predict it longer than a month?
    Hell, they just found out that the ice cores data is junk - turns out that glaciers refreeze and melt at the bottom due to seasonal changes in pressure - so the strata can't tell you jack.

    Hell, one of the best theories about weather is that it's just a chaotic system. There are plenty of systems that though they may run on simple physical laws, are ultimately unpredictable because of the scale of complexity and interaction. For example, You may recall from high school physics that there it's been proven that there is no way to mathematically model the position of three grvaity bodies attracted to each other as a function of time - you can only perform a recursive function with small steps, and then make a mathematical mock-up of that, but it'll never be completely accurate.

    If we actually knew enough about the world to say with certainty that we knew we were causing global warming and we know exactly what's going to happen, the world would actually be a much better place, because we'd know so much about the natural world. Alas, WE DON'T KNOW THAT MUCH ABOUT THE NATURAL WORLD.

    Can you imagine the kinds of "problems" people would have predicted 100 years ago?
    Liberals need to get this through their skulls, NOBODY KNOWS WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE.

  • Tony||

    Science is better at figuring out climate, which entails long-term trends, than weather, which is short-term and more unpredictable. We're talking about climate. Yours is an argument from ignorance. We don't know everything, therefore we must know nothing. Well, we don't know nothing. If that were so, every single scientific body on planet earth wouldn't have endorsed the findings surrounding climate change.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Science is better at figuring out climate, which entails long-term trends, than weather, which is short-term and more unpredictable.


    Which means you do not understand chaotic systems, at all. Or science, for that matter. Or statistics. Or probability. Or...

    We're talking about climate. Yours is an argument from ignorance. We don't know everything, therefore we must know nothing. Well, we don't know nothing. If that were so, every single scientific body on planet earth wouldn't have endorsed the findings surrounding climate change.

  • Ben Wolf||

    I can't guarantee whether it will be warmer or colder in six days. I can guarantee you it will be colder in six months.

    Trends are much easier to project because the noise can be smoothed out with a long enough data set. We can't do that with weather because it is short term and suffers from much greater variability.

  • ||

    Holy shit Old Mex is back!!!

    Welcome back Old Mex.

  • Edwin||

    "Yours is an argument from ignorance. We don't know everything, therefore we must know nothing"

    I never said that

    "every single scientific body on planet earth wouldn't have endorsed the findings surrounding climate change."

    They didn't

    and since when was consensus so great anyway? Scientific consensus has repeatedly been dead wrong.
    But again, you're overplaying the actual consensus.

    You really have to listen to yourself.
    "I know for a fact that the world is going to end because of humans changing the climate"
    Really? Don't you think you sound like a nut? How many times have people said the world is going to end or almost end in some huge disaster?

    Also, if we do take expensive measures and global warmiong turns out not to be true, will the Democrats and the government pay everyone else back for the costs?

  • Tony||

    I hardly think I'm overplaying the consensus. 97% of American scientists endorse the standard climate change story. Maybe the 3% are right. But their consensus is certainly no more convincing than that of the 97%.

    If the 97% happen to be wrong, we can all be very very relieved. I wouldn't bank on it.

  • Edwin||

    bullshit

    they deliberately use bullshit definitions of "scientist" and "scientific body"

    I mean just up thread you said that we're experiencing the biggest die-off of species ever, about like 8,000 / year. That isn't even a consensus thing, only a few scientists have said that. Not to mention that it would be next to impossible to know such a thing.

    Seriously, do you just pick your positions out of partisanship? Out of spite for your enemy?

  • NotSure||

    The Mayan calendar is more accurate than your climate astrologists who call themselves scientists.

    In 100 years time buffoons like will keep on predicting doom - shockingly things will be better than ever.

  • Tonybaloney||

    One man's science is another man's computer simulation. Gotta love how these fools treat computer modelling as if it were a hard science. It kind of reminds me of Keynesian economic modelling not relating to reality which makes a person wonder if its the so called 'science' they worship or the power it gives them. I think the former is just a means to the latter in both Keynesian theory and AGW.

  • Edwin||

    then maybe al gore should stop acting like a caricature

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    What's precious is watching people throw stones for his alleged hypocrisy who are nothing but unwitting, unpaid shills for big oil.


    Oh, sure, and don't forget racists: for criticizing Obama.

  • Oh c'mon Old Mex||

    Al gore becoming a billionaire as a result of carbon trading is just unintended consequence of him saving the planet.

    And, you can't ignore the fact that history teaches us that governments don't really want to tax and regulate their citizens to accumulate power. Unintended consequence there too.

    And of course there is no conflict of interest between climate scientist and governments that only want to save the planet. The only conflict of interest is with skeptics who are not funded by noble governments.

    Don't you know anything about human nature or history?

  • PP-l||

    NOT A SINGLE bullshit hand-waving argument you guys posit against for current environmental science hysteria originated anywhere other than industry state whoring think tanks and propaganda outfits. You are all morons, and they made you that way, and it's sad.

    Project much?

  • The Derider||

    This is way too complex for these rubes.

  • Edwin||

    there are reasonable forms of environmentalism, and necessary proscriptions to be learned therefrom,

    but the fact of the matter is all this talk about there being too many people is just fucking creepy

    you don't need to be a libertarian or republican or whatever to see that

  • Tony||

    Isn't overpopulation a possibility? Do you think resources are infinite?

  • NotSure||

    Hey moron, the world is facing a population implosion, that is fact, the population explosion is not happening. Those countries that are that follow the green faith the most devoutly are ironically the ones with the biggest population shrinkages, so why exactly are they the ones screaming the most about population growth ???

  • ||

    Isn't overpopulation a possibility?

    No.

    Do you think resources are infinite?

    In the scales of time and space of the the now and future of humankind the answer is "It may as well be".

  • Tony||

    Of course we're not allowed to take any direct action whatsoever to achieve the future technologies required to exploit this boundless energy. We have to suck up all the oil we possibly can first, because that's the smartest thing to do.

  • ||

    Tony if you can invent an energy technology that is more environmentally superior and cheaper then oil you will become a very very very rich man.

    In fact if you simply figure out how to do the same amount of work using less oil you will become fairly well off.

    I fail to see how this is a market failure and how government is needed to intervene....and I fail to see how the government intervening will improve upon this.

    The incentives are all there to encourage people to use less oil and it is working. In fact for the past 2 or 3 years the US has been using less oil.

    So please do not give me your holy then thou bullshit. The world is not dying, we are not running out of anything. the only thing that is happening is that people are getting better and better at using less and less resources to produce more and more wealth.

  • Tony||

    Of course believing that the market by itself will automatically fix every resource or environmental problem is to believe in magic. That aside, presumably then you don't favor all of the vast advantages given to fossil fuels by government, including cash subsidies and their right to extract our resources from the ground and spit them into the atmosphere for a profit.

    The market will do the things you say, but not at the very least without heavily favoring one technology over another. And since the goals are so obvious and necessary, maybe it will take a little government subsidy. Who gives a fuck. It will never amount to the leg up given clean tech's competitors, and it would only be because the market was too ignorant and short-sighted to provide what we need at a fast enough pace.

  • Ancapistan||

    But believing government is the solution is the only rational thought one can have?

    Last time I checked no one here argues for more subsidies for oil production. Green technologies receive/received plenty of subsidies and have failed miserably to replace oil.

  • Tony||

    Of course we're not allowed to take any direct action whatsoever to achieve the future technologies required to exploit this boundless energy. We have to suck up all the oil we possibly can first, because that's the smartest thing to do.

  • Edwin||

    of course overpopulation is a possibility, and I don't think resources are infinite, but half of what environmentalists talk about is global warming, which isn't a resource-lack problem

    and it doesn't change the fact that it's still really creepy talk. Common sense would dictate that prices would go up over time and people would have trouble raising kids, slowing population growth. And maybe NGO's could encourage few-children-families and family planning, and maybe governments could subsidize family planning.

    But the way the environmentalists talk implies that people are a "problem" that needs to be "solved". It isn't a huge leap to get the implication from that that someone who talks like that might ultimately want to start rounding up and dispolacing or killing people. I mean hey, this "problem" needs to be "solved".

  • زفات||

    I can't believe that the possibility of Koch being "gay" could even be an issue and even be worthy of discussion. What the hell? He was a mayor of New York, for some a good one, for some not so good - agree to disagree, but get off the "gay" thing - who cares!!!!

  • زفات||

    thank you

  • ||

    What time is

    زفاتPM

    And how the fuck did you do that?

  • asdfsad||

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....80156.html this story popped up all over the place a few days ago, about North Carolina's sterilization program that lasted until 1974. apparently a whole shitload of women - almost exclusively poor, black ones - were sterilized at very young ages, many before they could even legally have sex, and consent was often obtained under coercive and legally shady conditions. they're now considering offering 'compensation'.

  • Canman||

    "President Barack Obama's "science czar," John Holdren, co-authored (with Paul Ehrlich of Population Bomb notoriety) a book in the 1970s that toyed with the idea of compulsory sterilization and coerced abortions"

    Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment -- $165 to $570.57 used on Amazon. Want to read what they said -- it'll cost ya!

  • No||

    I could have sworn that Al Gore exaggerated the numbers on his documentary, but I am not sure where to find this information or even if it is 100% true. Anyone mind being my laborboy and doing the looking for me?

  • Edwin||

    Tony

    you just have to accept it, environmentalists are never going to be taken seriously if all they are going to do is be shrill and all doom and gloom about every little thing. Seriously it's ridiculous.

    And you're fucking yourselves over with this global warming thing. When nothing actually happens (which is probably how it'll end up), people will abandon environmentalism in huge numbers. I mean you might be OK if you all would explain it as a possibility, BUT YOU'RE INSISTING THAT YOU KNOW FOR A FACT THAT IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

    I mean seriously, my lkittle brother went to camp or something once, one of his counselors would, with seriousness, say things like "every time you drop a piece of garbage in the woods, a polar bear dies".
    How do you think reasonable people are going to take that?

    ENVIRONMENTALISTS ACTUALLY MANAGE TO BE MORE HISTRIONIC, SHIRLL, AND CLOSE-MINDEDLY STUBBORN THAN LIBERTARIANS.
    And that's really saying something Tony

  • Edwin||

    and speaking of being so sure about global warming, you guys repeatedly act like you absolutely know it's going to happen for a fact and there's no argument whatsoever

    NOBODY SHOULD BE THAT SURE ABOUT ANYTHING.
    Seriously, is that really in line with liberalism? I know it's in line with what you "liberals" have become, but is it really in line with classical, JFK-era liberalism? Should you really be that sure? Should you really be such an absolutist? There that's the word - absolutist. You rag on the libertarians for being absolutist but you're being just as much if not more so.

    And then what's funny is you turn around and insult religion. Yeah, you believe this shit just as religiously, but at least with religion it's just a made up guy in the sky. Belief in that is kind of set up not to have any real consequences vis a vis policy perscriptions. At least it relegates itself to obscure/moral philosdophical issues by its very nature.
    Frankly, religion's explicitly un-provable nature makes it not nearly as crazy as shit like absolute faith in glo0bal warming. It's like they said on South Park "Is it more crazy than believeing that Jesus rose from the grave? Or that Buddha sat under a tree for 40 years" and Stan responds "Yes, it's WAY more retarded"

  • PWNER!||

    Notice you can't spell "environmentalist" without "mentalist".

    From the Oxford dictionary:

    Pronunciation:/ˈmɛnt(ə)lɪst/
    noun

    British informal an eccentric or mad person.

    AlGore and many of the hysterical warmist doomsayers are crazy people with odd personalities.

    PWNED!!

  • John Rohan||

    I'm going to chime in here; I recently wrote a graduate level paper on this subject.

    Yes, Thomas Malthus and Paul Ehrlich (author of "The Population Bomb") were wrong. But they may have been wrong only on their estimated dates. Neither of them envisioned the impact of the "green revolution" of the 1960s that exponentially increased food production on the planet.

    But that green revolution is winding down. More importantly, it came at a price. Greater crop yields means much more thirsty farms. The SW USA region is in the middle of a major water crisis. It simply can't support exponential growth any longer. The Soviet Union already lost the Aral Sea to cotton production, and that's not even an edible crop).

    I guess what I'm saying is that while there have been a lot of alarmists in the past, there's no denying that population impacts EVERYTHING. Generally, every time you double the population, you double consumption and waste, and make resources twice as scarce (I am speaking about models here, in real life there is some variation in both directions). That's the reality. You can't avoid it just because it's inconvenient.

  • The Derider||

    Technology solves everything man! Except the deficit. Err... I'll get back to you.

  • ||

    I paid $32.67 for a XBOX 360 and my mom got a 17 inch Toshiba laptop for
    $94.83 being delivered to our house tomorrow by fed3x. I will never again pay expensive r3tailprices at stores.I even sold a 46 inch HDTV to
    my boss for $650 and it only cost me $52.78 to get. Here is the website
    we using to get all thisstuff,búzzsave. c0m..

  • wulfy||

    All of you blaspheme! The Gore-acle has spoken and you must accept the Truth or be SMITED by Mother Gaia!!!!!!!

  • ||

    Its hard to have a rational discussion with someone whose basic premise is that all of mankind are committing global matricide through willful ignorance and neglect. What is the difference between misanthropism and modern environmentalism? I can't see any at all.

  • Kris||

    If there's one thing history has shown us - people solve problems and create resources. The more people, the more innovation and the more resources, and the better everyone is off on average. This is as true at 7 billion as it was 3 billion, and it will still be true at 15 billion, 30 billion, 60 billion and so on. There is no limit to the number of people the earth can comfortably support.

  • ivy||

    I can't believe that the possibility of Koch being "gay" could even be an issue and even be worthy of discussion. What the hell? He was a mayor of New York, for some a good one, for some not so good - agree to disagree, but get off the "gay" thing - who cares!!!!Here are some tips shared by http://www.goodluckbuy.com/ one of the worldwide B2C top sellers in selling the coolest gadgets with light-speed service and wholesale prices to all geeks/non-geeks around the planet. Appears to be coming directly from the Hong Kong suppliers with FREE SHIPPING!
    Goodluckbuy: Perfect Shop For Electronic Gadgets

  • nike air max||

    is good

  • قبلة الوداع||

    thank u

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement