Thursday, July 19, 2007


It's no secret that the Left hates the west, but did you know they'd like us all out of the picture? Yes, the entire human race. The ultimate moonbat fantasy has emerged in the form of a new book, entitled 'The World Without Us' by Alan Weisman, of Arizona University. So what's the fantasy? You guessed it; the demise of the species they hate the most, humans.

In an article here, a fellow moonbat, practically quivering with delight goes through all the delightful things that would happen to the planet if humans were to disappear: how the cities would rot and crumble, the animals would flourish and how the rest of the planet would breathe a huge sigh of relief that we were gone (except of course for the cockroaches and other similar creatures that 'live off our coattails'). He concedes that perhaps the planet might be a little dull without us however.

If you've ever wondered exactly where liberal pipedreams are taking us, look no further. Human extinction is their dream come true.
Cross-posted here
HAT TIP: The Wide Awakes


Unknown said...

wow, that is real stretch. I read the article, it has nothing to do with "liberals" wanting the population to die off, it's a hypothesis of what would happen without to our infrastructure without humans. Really reaching on this one.

Biffbolt said...

This article has got to be one of the most un-astute things I've read all week! Congrats!

AndyS said...

Actually it seems to me that the scenario described would be exactly what the Christion Right would want. If they are sincere about evnagelizing everyone to truly accept Crist as their savior, this scenario would ideally play out since the entire population would be caught up in the Rapture.

I am so glad that the liberal philosophy can be so easily summed up by one person. It makes life so much easier. Because we wouldn't want any diversity of opinion or nuance.

ibfamous said...


Reliapundit said...

1 - he's a leftie:

see: http://journalism.arizona.edu/people/faculty/weisman.php

2 - this kind of anti-himn crap is ALL leftist, not right-wing. the left supports abortion on demand.
the right supports life.

the death penalty (which many on the right support) SAVES LIVES of innocent people.

3 - leftists rachel carson and peta are anti-people

4 - Leftist Greens Push Anti-Human Agenda

Human Events, Mar 5, 2007 by Coulter, Ann

Let Them Eat Tofu!

Even right-wingers who know that "global warming" is a crock do not seem to grasp what the tree-huggers are demanding. Liberals want mass starvation and human devastation.

Forget the lunacy of the people who claim to tell us the precise temperature of planet Earth in 1918 based on tree rings and the fact that in the '70s liberals were issuing similarly dire warnings about "global cooling."

Nutty Conjectures

Simply consider what noted climatologists Al Gore and Melissa Etheridge are demanding that we do to combat their nutty conjectures about global warming. They want us to starve the productive sector of fossil fuel and allow the world's factories to grind to a halt. This means an end to material growth and a cataclysmic reduction in wealth.

There are more reputable scientists defending astrology than defending global warming, but liberals simply announce that the debate has been resolved in their favor and demand that we shut down all production.

They think they can live in a world of only Malibu and East Hampton-with no Trentons or Détroits. It does not occur to them that someone has to manufacture the tiles and steel and glass and solar panels that go into those "eco-friendly" mansions, and someone has to truck it all to their beachfront properties, and someone else has to transport all the workers there to build it. (And then someone has to drive the fleets of trucks delivering the pachysandra and bottled water every day.)

5 - to be continued...

Reliapundit said...


JimBob said...

It's no secret that smearing liberal-thinking Americans with "they hate the west" rhetoric works in certain circles. Never mind that it is a rank and smelly lie.
I had a dog once, and I loved that dog. He had a couple of bad habits, like getting into people's trash and chasing off the mailman, but I loved him anyway. I did my best to appease my neighbors and moved my mailbox. I tried to lessen the negative impact my dog had on the neighborhood. Some jerk watching me tell the dog "No, dammit, don't do that anymore!" might say to his fat spouse, "That guy next door hates his dog." But that would be stupid, wouldn't it. Uh-huh.

Time Eagle said...

Do you HONESTLY believe that's what the "Lefties" really want? I mean, SERIOUSLY?

Brent said...

Thanks for pointing out the book. I just ordered it from Amazon - it looks fascinating. Don't see that it has anything to do with any political viewpoint, but I will enjoy the book.

Reliapundit said...

the left has been decrying so-called overpopulation since paul ehlrich in 1968

Reliapundit said...

Thursday, May 03, 2007

Inconvenient Science


"[Scientists should consider stretching the truth] to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."

-Green pioneer and Stanford Professor Stephen Schneider

The Simon-Ehrlich wager. John Simon bet fellow enviro-whacko pioneer of Stephen Schneider, Paul Ehrlich - author of now disproven books predicting population overload and massive famine by the 1980s - in a famous wager. Simon, being grounded in science, inevitably defeated the psuedo-science overpopulation witchdoctor. Ehrlich apologist ideologues try to defend this wager, by citing a second, unrelated loaded bet Ehrlich proposed based upon wage earning, AIDs, and the global temperature which Simon refused, but this is nothing more than a deflectionary tactic.

Simon won the bet because his science was more sound, Ehrlich's ideology drove his findings and 'predictions'. But Ehrlich's books are still assigned reading in American universities today, even though their conclusions have all been disproven by science. Despite this (or more likely, because of this), Ehrlich not only has the admiration of American academia, whose political positions they support, but is embraced by the mainstream media, having been hired by NBC to film a 9-hour series on population and environment in the 1990s.

That's liberalism, folks, being 100% wrong about everything earns you grant money, text book sales, and adulation from the media; no wonder they hate the private sector so much, where earnings and continued employment are so stringently tied to being correct and favorable performance amongst peers. Picking Paul Ehrlich to teach students and news viewers about population and environment is like picking Geraldo Rivera to teach about Al Capone's vault.

From Answer.com;
Simon had Ehrlich choose five of several commodity metals. Ehrlich chose 5 metals: copper, chrome, nickel, tin, and tungsten. Simon bet that their prices would go down. Ehrlich bet they would go up.

"The face-off occurred in the pages of Social Science Quarterly, where Simon challenged Ehrlich to put his money where his mouth was. In response to Ehrlich's published claim that "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000" - a proposition Simon regarded as too silly to bother with - Simon countered with "a public offer to stake US$10,000 ... on my belief that the cost of non-government-controlled raw materials (including grain and oil) will not rise in the long run.

You could name your own terms: select any raw material you wanted - copper, tin, whatever - and select any date in the future, "any date more than a year away," and Simon would bet that the commodity's price on that date would be lower than what it was at the time of the wager." ... Ehrlich and his colleagues picked five metals that they thought would undergo big price rises: chromium, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten. Then, on paper, they bought $200 worth of each, for a total bet of $1,000, using the prices on September 29, 1980, as an index. They designated September 29, 1990, 10 years hence, as the payoff date. If the inflation-adjusted prices of the various metals rose in the interim, Simon would pay Ehrlich the combined difference; if the prices fell, Ehrlich et al. would pay Simon. ... Between 1980 and 1990, the world's population grew by more than 800 million, the largest increase in one decade in all of history. But by September 1990, without a single exception, the price of each of Ehrlich's selected metals had fallen, and in some cases had dropped through the floor. Chrome, which had sold for $3.90 a pound in 1980, was down to $3.70 in 1990. Tin, which was $8.72 a pound in 1980, was down to $3.88 a decade later. [4]

As a result, in October 1990, Paul Ehrlich mailed Julian Simon a check for $576.07 to settle the wager in Simon's favor.

posted by Nick McNulty at 6:53 AM

Reliapundit said...

,ore proof libs hate people and want to depopulate the world:


Tuesday, March 27, 2007
That Moron Paul Ehrlich
The American Spectator reports on the usually wrong Paul Ehrlich:

Watching Gore and the reaction he receives from today's liberal crowd is reminiscent of another the-sky-is-falling and America-is-to-blame liberal. Four decades ago it was ecologist Paul Ehrlich who received the same rock star treatment and press adulation.

Instead of making an award-winning documentary film, Ehrlich wrote the smash best-seller The Population Bomb. Ehrlich's thesis was that the world was becoming overpopulated at too fast a rate and that the end was near for mankind. Those people who did not subscribe to Ehrlich's the-end-is-near view he described as the "uninformed Americans, 'experts' and nonexperts alike," "ignorant," and "irresponsible." Sound familiar?

The science was in, there was widespread consensus and the conclusion was no longer debatable, according to Ehrlich. "The battle to feed all of humanity is over," he wrote in the prologue of his book. Civilization was likely doomed.

Ehrlich argued that population sacrifices must first begin in the U.S. He dismissed the responsibility of the two most populous countries, China and India, from having to adopt the drastic steps he advocated the U.S. must first take. Would Americans "be willing to slaughter our dogs and cats in order to divert pet food protein to the starving masses in Asia?" Ehrlich wrote. One proposal often mentioned, according to Ehrlich, was "the addition of temporary sterilants [sic] to water supplies or staple food" in order to achieve a zero population growth.

In his book, Ehrlich forecasted one of three scenarios would likely occur. First, there would be global food riots owing to shortages and war could break out. He cast the U.S. as the worldwide villain because of this country's insistence in using agricultural chemicals that would have been banned by the U.N.

Second, more than one billion people would die in one year alone because of disease and plague precipitated by overpopulation. Third, people would simply perish due to mass starvations. "Hundreds of millions of people will starve to death" in the 1970s and '80s, he wrote.

Most of the grim results would occur by the 1980s and the calamitous outcome would be well-known before the year 2000. After the publication of The Population Bomb, Ehrlich made an updated pronouncement that the U.S. population would dwindle to less than 23 million people by 1999.

Ehrlich was so popular with the liberal crowd that they could not get enough of him. He made twenty appearances on NBC's Tonight Show to hype his claims, according to author Jack Cashill.

So people want a lot less people around.

# posted by Steve Bartin : 9:19 AM

MOB said...

Wow. Thanks for the link and the tip - I hadn't heard of this book, but it sounds like a fascinating piece of work. I just ordered it on Amazon. Keep up the good work, you Astute Blogger, you.

Liberal said...

Why is there such anger expressed by the right? I am a former conservative, who moved left because of growing concern for fellow humans and other animals sharing our beautiful planet. None of what you attribute to the left is true, so it mystifies me why you are so bent on trying to make others believe such truly awful things. What a sad legacy you will leave...

Derek said...

Yet more evidence of why I left the GOP. Right-wingers won't actually argue real policy points, they'd rather spend their time arguing with the increasingly bizarre caricatures of "the left" they dream up and tell each other (and throw in a 38-year-old reference to Chappaquiddick, just in case people forget). Trying to somehow tie this book to some fantasy "leftist agenda" to get rid of humans has got to be one of the more moronic attempts I've yet seen. Thanks again for confirming my decision.

Reliapundit said...

the left supports policies which would decrease population: ;less free trade; more regulation on industry and more taxes on energy.

the left also favors abortion on demand. and euthanasia.

and these policies hurt to poor the most.

the third world needs more industrialization. and more trade.

leftist policies bankrutped china and the ussr and cuba and zimbabwe and north korea etc etc etc.

poverty is the great killer: poor people die younger and have higher infant mortality rates.

and socialism/welfare increases/deepens and prolong poverty.

the world needs less family planning and more capitalism/free-markets and industry.

if organic food and sustainable economies were good for people than cavemen would live to be 100 and still be around. they died young and disappeared.

the left seeks to fetter the very things which create MORE abundance and decrease poverty.

Reliapundit said...

derek: if you really ant to help a billion people, then support the our side in WW4.

islamofascism is the biggest tyrant on the globe, and islamism the biggest source of misogyny.

"honor"-killings, polygamy, forced marriages, endogamy - we must outlaw these practices as we outlawed slavery.

are you with us, or against us?