Today on Blogcritics
Home » Population Control for Non-Thinkers

Population Control for Non-Thinkers

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

People who are afraid of overpopulation seem to be very short-term thinkers. Come 2050 (40 years from now) it will be too late. Population will top out, and will begin to fall. By then, we will be scratching our heads and wondering how it all came to this.

If one looks at population articles by Jonathan Last, one can see where population is headed. Fertility rates have dropped by over 50% worldwide in less than 40 years. Just to replace existing population, the average woman has to have 2.1 children.

One can view the current fertility rate from the CIA world factbook — Country Comparison :: Total fertility rate. As can be seen, already 59 nations (44% of the world population) are seeing less than 2.1, which is the needed replacement for any population. Historically, no culture has ever reversed a 1.9 replacement rate. Because it would theoretically take 80-100 years to reverse a rate of 1.3, it is considered impossible.

In 1970, the average woman had 6 children during her lifetime. Today that global average is only 2.9. Even the United Nations Population Division (UNPD) predicts a further decline to 2.05 by 2050, which is when the total world population would start to decline.

Walter Radermacher (VP of Germany’s Federal Statistical Office) has already admitted his country's inability to reverse its 1.41 replacement rate. This is documented in the above link.

The United Nations has revised its population forecast for 2050. The U.N., which has espoused the overpopulation theory for years, now seem to realize what will happen if nothing is done to stop the drop. But it will be far too late if we wait for the full realization in 2050. Practices such as abortion, sterilization, contraception, “abortifacient” devices, and China’s one child policy have all had a significant effect on the world’s actual fertility rate. Pregnancy is quickly becoming an advantage of the past.

Items such as AIDS, the elimination of DDT (millions get malaria because mosquitoes are not killed), and rescinding the right to bear children all directly affect procreation. And they’re all direct results of human decisions.

Once population decline begins, it will accelerate. Strong evidence shows the most successful and educated in society are reproducing at the slowest rate. The global fertility rate is only half that of 1972. The Empty Cradle (Phillip Longman) describes how population growth is necessary for economic growth. Herein lays the sobering part.

In actuality, seniors are living much longer now than they used to. Together with the recent fertility drops, the ratio of workers to retirees is changing.  In 1950 there were 16 American workers for every retiree. There were only three in 2005. The rest of the world is seeing the same increase in the percentage of seniors in each country’s population.

If the world continues to reduce its rate of having children, fewer young will be there to take care of the elderly. The entitlement programs in the U.S. (i.e., Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) are quickly approaching bankruptcy. What cost reductions and expendability procedures will take place? Who will care for the elderly as they age?

As people grow older their ability to procreate decreases. Hence a larger older population means fewer baby-making opportunities. As a result, there’s a more quickly declining population.

With the approaching record federal deficit, and the increased healthcare expenses needed for seniors in the last 25% of their lifespans, at what point are they deemed expendable? From these and other factors, it seems likely the accelerated population decrease may lapse into a population freefall. 

One of two scenarios would appear to result from the above picture. 1) The Muslim population, with a high 7.34 fertility rate, dominates and eventually takes over the world, or 2) the world as we know it ceases to exist in a few hundred years.

About Kevin Roeten

Orthodox Catholic, with scientific background.
  • Kevin

    Dread,

    ‘Faked’ is your word, not mine.

    Whether the Greenland photos were altered is still to be resolved. You still haven’t mentioned what year they were from.

    You forget that the Vikings lived during the Medieval Warm Period (900-1300 AD). A four hundred year epoch that ruins the global whiners’ claims that today’s climate is the warmest ever. And I showed how it was associated with a sunspot event.

    Even the CIA factbook says most Greenlanders are Inuit? Go figure…

    1) If those photos are real, is Greenland green for, what, 3 days a year?

    2) I’ve shown you how earth temperatures DO correlate to climate. Oh wait, you probably looked none of that up, did you?

    3) Sorry, the vast majority of scientists agree that AGW is FALSE. Your bad.

    4) Hey Einstein, the warm earth during the Cambrian was around the equator. I’ve told you before, the equator’s always warm. the CO2 concentration is essentially the same around the planet.

    The amount of CO2 on the earth is always the same. Just during earlier periods the amount in the atmosphere was higher (vs the sea). How is the burning of fossil fuels unnatural? When it makes its way to the surface, it gives off its CO2 by biodegradation.

    You err again. You can still work for the IPCC, and dissent with their AGW policy.

    When did I ever say the 3 guys you mentioned work for the IPCC? Do you know them?

    I never said that ‘you were afraid to look at dissenting sources’. I said you simply did not believe their data.

    The last paragraph was NOT off topic. It was something you just haven’t considered.

    And are you still going to say you were NOT responsible for deletions even though you ADMIT that you can delete some/all of a comment? The last comment I had was at first halfway deleted. Then the whole thing was deleted. Could your program have deleted something without your knowledge?

    You have obviously not looked up anything on Marc Morano, Solar Variability, sunspots effecting climate, or any of the other variables I mentioned effecting climate.

    As Comments Editor, you’ve already got my e-mail. Heck, you could get it from a number of other sources. Yet you refuse to give me yours, because you will not read dissenting information. How sad.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    You still haven’t mentioned what year they were from.

    Maybe they’re from 986 AD. Go look them up yourself. I’m done holding your hand.

    When did I ever say the 3 guys you mentioned work for the IPCC?

    In the penultimate paragraph of your #148, when you said, “All of them work and provide data for the IPCC.” Are you really that dumb, or do you think I am?

    I never said that ‘you were afraid to look at dissenting sources’. I said you simply did not believe their data.

    Liar. You’ve accused me of it multiple times, including just a few lines after writing the above, when you wrote: “…because you will not read dissenting information.”

    The rest of your drivel we’ve already been over more than once.

    Have a nice life.

  • Kevin

    Dread,

    Thanks for confirming that you had no idea when the photos were taken. That kind of sums up your entire dialogue.

    Sorry, dude. I never even heard of those guys before you mentioned them. What have they ever done?

    Tell me exactly when you’ve read dissenting information. When exactly did you believe it?

    Wow, you can’t even comment on drivel??? Can you ever even make a good comment?

    Have a nice day!

  • zingzing

    kevin, here is a map of greenland, clearly showing the areas where it is “green” and the areas that have ice on them. there’s an airport up there, so i’d guess it’s not from hundreds of years ago, but some time in the recent past.

    “3) Sorry, the vast majority of scientists agree that AGW is FALSE. Your bad.”

    that’s not true at all. care to back that up with a source? or is it just your list of 700 non-scientists and scientists who may or may not study climate and who may or may not work for the ipcc? do you really think 700 dissenters makes a dent in the amount of scientists who believe that agw is true?

    “As Comments Editor, you’ve already got my e-mail. Heck, you could get it from a number of other sources. Yet you refuse to give me yours, because you will not read dissenting information. How sad.”

    ever get the idea that he simply doesn’t trust you with his email address? you do come off as somewhat insane. also, you’ve been invited to put your information up here, yet you refuse. why? you should by now know how to create a hyperlink. do so, if you’re not just blowing hot air.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Doc and zing –

    You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. Kevin’s made up his mind that no matter what, he’s not going to agree with you about AGW. The seas could rise 100 feet, wipe out most of the port cities of the world, the ice caps could disappear, and all the scientists of the world – at least the non-kooks and the ones not working for Big Oil – could present him with all their peer-reviewed studies proving AGW…

    …and he still wouldn’t believe it. As long as there’s somebody who tells him otherwise – no matter how obviously false is the lie that’s fed him (see Fox News) – he’s going to argue that AGW is some kind of socialist plot.

    In other words, the two of you are wasting your time.

  • zingzing

    “In other words, the two of you are wasting your time.”

    that’s abundantly clear. and it’s obvious that kevin believes in mystical thinking and has little time for evidence or logic. but that’s what makes it fun. you ever played a game on easy level?

    i’ve been reading this thread because i liked both doc’s epic takedown and kevin’s utter refusal to stop making a fool of himself. props to both. i am entertained. but it looks like doc has grown tired of the game. which is sad. i think it reached an apex of sorts when kevin thought doc was censoring him. such an amazing, pathetic display.

  • Kevin

    Dread,

    Inhofe Debunks So-Called ‘Consensus’ On Global Warming (2009)

    Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, delivered a more than two-hour floor speech on October 26, debunking fears of man-made global warming. Below is an excerpt of his remarks debunking the notion of a “consensus” on man-made global warming fears. (For full speech – click here: )

    Senator Inhofe Speech Excerpt:

    Essential Point # 4: Debunking “consensus” The fourth and final essential point deals with how the media and climate doomsters insist that there is an overwhelming scientific “consensus” of man-made global warming. The notion of a “consensus” is carefully manufactured for political, financial and ideological purposes. Its proponents never explain fully what “consensus” they are referring to. Is it a “consensus” that future computer models will turn out correct? Is it a “consensus” that the Earth has warmed? Proving that parts of the Earth have warmed does not prove that humans are responsible.

    While it may appear to the casual observer that scientists promoting climate fears are in the majority, the evidence continues to reveal this is an illusion. Climate skeptics — the emerging silent majority of scientists — receive much smaller shares of university research funds, foundation funds and government grants and they are not plugged into the well-heeled environmental special interest lobby.

    On the other side of the climate debate, you have an comparatively well funded group of scientists and activists who participate in UN conferences, receiving foundation monies and international government support and also receive fawning media treatment.

    The number of skeptics at first glance may appear smaller, but the skeptics are increasingly becoming vocal and turning the tables on the Goliath that has become the global warming fear industry.

    Key components of the manufactured “consensus” fade under scrutiny. We often hear how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) issued statements endorsing the so-called “consensus” view that man is driving global warming. But what you don’t hear is that both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements.

    Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the “consensus” statements. It appears that the governing boards of these organizations caved in to pressure from those promoting the politically correct view of UN and Gore-inspired science. The Canadian Academy of Sciences reportedly endorsed a “consensus” global warming statement that was never even approved by its governing board.

    Rank-and-file scientists are now openly rebelling. James Spann, a certified meteorologist with the AMS, openly defied the organization when he said in January that he does “not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype.” In February a panel of meteorologists expressed unanimous climate skepticism, and one panelist estimated that 95% of his profession rejects global warming fears.

    In August 2007, a comprehensive survey of peer-reviewed scientific literature from 2004-2007 revealed “Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory.”

    “Of 539 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers ‘implicit’ endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no ‘consensus,’” according to an August 29, 2007 article in Daily Tech.

    In addition, a September 26, 2007 report from the international group Institute of Physics’ finds no “consensus” on global warming. Here is an excerpt: “As world leaders gathered in New York for a high-level UN meeting on climate change, a new report by some of the world’s most renowned scientists urges policymakers to keep their eyes on the “science grapevine”, arguing that their understanding of global warming is still far from complete.” The Institute of Physics is also urging world leaders “to remain alert to the latest scientific thought on climate change.”

    Debunking UN mirage of “consensus”

    In May, UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s alleged global warming “consensus,” according to a May 10, 2007 article.

    There are frequently claims that the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers is the voice of hundreds or even thousands of the world’s top scientists. But such claims do not hold up to even the lightest scrutiny.

    According to the Associated Press, during the IPCC Summary for Policymakers meeting in April 2007, only 52 scientists participated. The April 9, 2007 AP article by Seth Borenstein reported:

    “Diplomats from 115 countries and 52 scientists hashed out the most comprehensive and gloomiest warning yet about the possible effects of global warming, from increased flooding, hunger, drought and diseases to the extinction of species.”

    Many of the so-called “hundreds” of scientists who have been affiliated with the UN as “expert reviewers” are in fact climate skeptics. Skeptics like Virginia State Climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels, Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy, New Zealand climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray, former head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo, Tom V. Segalstad, and MIT’s Dr. Richard Lindzen have served as IPCC “expert reviewers” but were not involved in writing the alarmist Summary for Policymakers.

    New study finds IPCC “consensus” an “illusion”

    An analysis released in September 2007 on the IPCC scientific review process by climate data analyst John McLean, revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is “an illusion.”

    The new study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN’s peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that ‘it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.”

    The analysis by McLean states: “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.”

    Let me repeat the key point here: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.

    UN scientist says IPCC has ‘flawed review process’

    This analysis was echoed by UN scientist Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist.

    In an August 13, 2007 letter, Khandekar lashed out at those who “seem to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the [UN's] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents represents ‘scientific consensus.’”

    Khandekar continued: “Nothing could be further than the truth! As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed.”

    “Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth’s temperature trends and associated climate change,” Khandekar concluded.

    Paul Reiter, a malaria expert formerly of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, participated in a past UN IPCC process and now calls the concept of consensus on global warming a “sham.” Reiter, a professor of entomology and tropical disease with the Pasteur Institute in Paris, had to threaten legal action to have his name removed from the IPCC. “That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed,” he said on March 5, 2007. “It’s not true,” he added.

    Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science.

    Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005 public letter detailing his experience with the UN:

    “I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.”

    “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,” Landsea added.

    As if to further cement these allegations, the UN allowed a Greenpeace activist to co-author a key economic report in 2007. Left unreported by most of the media was the fact that Bill Hare, an advisor to Greenpeace, was a lead co- author of a key economic report in the IPCC’s 4th Assessment. Not surprisingly, the Greenpeace co-authored report predicted a gloomy future for our planet unless we follow the UN’s policy prescriptions.

    The UN IPCC’s own guidelines explicitly state that the scientific reports have to be “change[d]” to “ensure consistency with” the politically motivated Summary for Policymakers.

    In addition, the IPCC more closely resembles a political party’s convention platform battle – not a scientific process. During an IPCC Summary for Policymakers process, political delegates and international bureaucrats squabble over the specific wording of a phrase or assertion.

    Steve McIntyre, one of the individuals responsible for debunking the infamous “Hockey Stick” temperature graph, slammed the IPCC Summary for Policymaker’s process on January 24, 2007.

    McIntyre wrote: “So the purpose of the three-month delay between the publication of the (IPCC) Summary for Policy-Makers and the release of the actual WG1 (Working Group 1) is to enable them to make any ‘necessary’ adjustments to the technical report to match the policy summary. Unbelievable. Can you imagine what securities commissions would say if business promoters issued a big promotion and then the promoters made the ‘necessary’ adjustments to the qualifying reports and financial statements so that they matched the promotion. Words fail me.”

    UN activist scientists hype data

    As you continue to scratch beneath the surface of the alleged global warming “consensus” more discoveries await.

    Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.

    “I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007.

    Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. also detailed the corruption of the UN IPCC process on September 1, 2007:

    “The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the [IPCC] assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow,” Pielke explained.

    He added: “We need recognition among the scientific community, the media, and policymakers that the IPCC process is obviously a real conflict of interest, and this has resulted in a significantly flawed report.”

    Kyoto represents ‘authentic global governance’

    Politics appears to be the fuel that runs the UN IPCC process from the scientists to the bureaucrats to the delegates and all the way to many of the world leaders involved in it. And another key to the motivation of the UN was explained by former French President Jacques Chirac in 2000:

    Chirac said Kyoto represents “the first component of an authentic global governance.”

    These growing critiques of the politicized IPCC process have been echoed by the UK’s Lord Nigel Lawson – former Chancellor of the Exchequer and a Member of the House of Lords Committee that reviewed the IPCC process.

    Lawson called for the abolishment of the UN’s IPCC process.

    “I believe the IPCC process is so flawed, and the institution, it has to be said, so closed to reason, that it would be far better to thank it for the work it has done, close it down, and transfer all future international collaboration on the issue of climate change…” Lawson said in 2005.

    Extravagantly Funded Warming Crusade Follows Ice Age Fears

    The huge organizational and funding advantage that proponents of climate alarmism enjoy over scientific skeptics has led to a pretty elaborate and impressive façade of “consensus.” Many climate skeptics have been excluded from key roles in the politicized IPCC process and largely ignored by the media unless they are being demonized as “flat Earther’s” or accused of being part of a well funded industry campaign. But in reality, it is the climate fear peddlers that enjoy an overwhelming funding advantage over skeptics.

    Since the late 1980′s when global warming fears rose out of the scorched frost of the 1970′s coming ice age scare, an international organized effort and tens of billions of dollars have been spent promoting the warming fear gravy train.

    Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter estimates proponents of global warming fears worldwide have received over $50 billion from international sources and the U.S. over the last two decades.

    “In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one,” Carter wrote on June 18, 2007.

    The U.S. alone spends over $5 billion a year on research directly or indirectly related to global warming. Adding to these totals of funding man-made climate fears are large foundations like the Heinz Foundation, international governments, the United Nations, worldwide universities and individuals like billionaires like Richard Branson, and George Soros.

    In fact, if you want to get a study funded today on anything from suicides to butterflies, researchers are finding that they better somehow link the issue to global warming and it will increase your chances of securing funding dramatically.

    Meteorologist James Spann suggests scientific objectively is being compromised by the “big cash grab” of money flowing to proponents of man-made climate fears. I previously noted that NASA’s James Hansen received a $250,000 award from the Heinz Foundation.

    “Billions of dollars of grant money are flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story,” Spann wrote on January 18, 2007.

    The imbalance of money between the promoters of climate fears and skeptics is so large that one 2007 U.S. Department of Agriculture grant of $20 million to study how “farm odors” contribute to global warming exceeded ALL of the money the groups skeptical of climate fears allegedly received from ExxonMobil over the past two decades.

    CNN’s Anderson Cooper noted my campaign funding sources in a program just this week, but he failed to investigate the huge financial advantage proponents of man-made global warming have over skeptics.

    Hundreds of skeptical scientists to be heard in upcoming Senate report

    Later this fall, my staff on the EPW committee will also be releasing a report detailing the hundreds of scientists, many of them affiliated with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process, who have spoken out recently to oppose climate alarmism. The report will feature the scientists — many of them who have finally had it with claims that “all scientists agree” — in their own words. The report will be complete with the scientists’ biographies and web links for further reading.

    This new research and the hysteria created by the UN, Gore and the media have prompted frustrated scientists to finally fight back in the name of a rational approach to science.

    Climate rationalists or skeptics do not need to engage in smoke and mirrors to state their case and we will be offering the world a chance to read and decide for themselves, unfiltered from the increasingly activist and shrill lens of media outlets like NBC News, Newsweek, Time, CBS News, ABC News, CNN.

    I have stood on this floor for years detailing all the unfolding science that debunked climate alarm. These scientific developments of 2007 are the result of years or decades of hard work by scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears. Finally reaching the point where we can watch the alarm crumble is very satisfying.

    # # #

    End Speech Excerpt:

    To read Senator Inhofe’s Full Speech please click here:

    To Read Selected Speech Highlights click here:

    To Read Senator Inhofe’s views about Hollywood promoting fears to kids click here:

    To Read Senator Inhofe’s views on costly “solutions” to global warming click here:

    To Read Senator Inhofe’s speech section about activists who believe global warming has ‘co-opted’ the environmental movement click here:

    Related Links:

    Senator Inhofe September 25, 20076 Speech: HOT & COLD MEDIA SPIN CYCLE: A CHALLENGE TO JOURNALISTS WHO COVER GLOBAL WARMING

    New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

    Global Warming “Consensus” Continues To Melt Away (Op-Ed By Senator Inhofe, Power Magazine)

    Cutting Emissions May Cost U.S. Economy Up to $1.8 Trillion

    Senators Propose $4500 Climate Tax on American Families

    Newsweek Editor Calls Mag’s Global Warming ‘Deniers’ Article ‘Highly Contrived’

    Newsweek’s Climate Editorial Screed Violates Basic Standards of Journalism

    Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt

    EPA to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptic

    Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming – Now Skeptics

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful
  • Kevin

    Dread,

    My calculations say there’s an 87.8% chance that you read almost NONE of the above post, if any.

    No problem. Readers were probably not that stubborn to do the same thing.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    My calculations say there’s an 87.8% chance that you read almost NONE of the above post, if any.

    Mine say that there’s a 100% chance that your post was just a regurgitation of previous drivel, hence my response.

  • zingzing

    kevin, the point was that he’s read it before. you’d figure that out if you followed his link.

  • Kevin

    Dread,

    And did you ever say if you ever read ALL the post?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    I draw everyone’s attention to this fascinating article without comment.

  • Boeke

    I read comment #157 and found NO URL references, plus it referred heavily to Inhofe, a non scientist and partisan, so I judged it useless.

    By contrast, here’s a reference to a summary in SCIENCE magazine, Americas premier science periodical:

    Science summary

  • Kevin

    Dread,

    Ahhhh, unbelievers! A couple of articles come out by non-scientists, and the left jumps onto the bandwagon of ‘it must be true, because someone here on the ‘left coast’ thinks it is!’ Nevermind that he is no scientist, or that he’s never read correct articles about climate change.

    Ohhhh, the agony!

    Amazing that blogcritics.org has left no place for me to place a column refuting everything the ‘left’ believes.

    Wait. Evidently everyone is scared to give their e-mail out, in fear that it might be attacked!

    But, all one has to do is go to Redstate, ChristianCoalition, TownHall, Publius…you name it to get good info. Will they be man enough to do it??

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Kev, you couldn’t have demonstrated the truth of Mr Mooney’s article more exquisitely or promptly if you’d tried…

    I wouldn’t worry about not having a voice. Having perused a couple of your articles and comment threads at NolanChart, in which you demonstrate the same intellectual dishonesty and lack of critical thinking ability that you’ve shown here, it’s clear that Blogcritics isn’t the only place you’re prepared to make a fool of yourself.

  • Kevin

    Dread,

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

    You didn’t believe that those two guys were non-scientists and non-technical people. I guess we know what classification you’re in as well.

    Oh, why would I be worried about having a voice in Blogcritics? It’s likely you know something you’re not telling me. No problem–you’re loss. Especially when you can find my latest with ease.

    What do they call those type of people anyway, Dread??

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    maybe no one has told you guys but you don’t win an argument by speaking last. The Pap Smear ladies think you should give it a rest

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Whereas your own brand of drive-by snarkiness is nothing but constructive and helpful, eh, El B?

    Kevin, James Inhofe isn’t a scientist either (his BA is in economics according to this), yet you set great store by his pronouncements.

    Couldn’t be because his views just so happen to align with yours, could it?

  • Kevin

    Dread & Bicho,

    It was dropped earlier, but Dread started up again. I wonder what he’s so worried about?

    Inhofe’s no scientist, but he’s an active US senator who prints exactly what other IPCC scientists have said concerning AGW.

    I’m afraid Dread’s posts don’t even come close.

    Let’s see, I’ve been deleted from writing posts twice, have been ignored by VP Asher about how I can submit a column twice, and you’ve refused to read my recent post in another web forum several times.

    What exactly would one call that? Even though there’s no hard and fast rule prohibiting Dread from giving his e-mail, he refuses to do it.

    Anyone care to comment on what they think is going on??