Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, June 12, 2019

No one, except lying ideologues, deny causal links exist between these three trends: P1: Increases in oil production can increase the human population and global warming. P2: Increases in population can increase oil production and global warming. P3: Increases in global warming can cause increases in population and more oil production. Because the biosphere is not heating up independently of human activity, we can dismiss P3. Only lying hypocritical ideologues will claim otherwise. We are left then with oil production (P1) and population growth (P2) as fundamental drivers of global warming. We might suspect that they amplify each other. The best strategy to slow, and possibly reverse global population growth, is to provide a global system of socialized prosperity which nearly guarantees individual health, education and welfare.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

A single human being without any other support has little chance of survival. The purpose of socialism, is to provide individuals with sufficient quantities of water, food, shelter and energy to carry on fulfilling lives, by reducing the precarious nature of survival. Mortality rates are lowest in highly socialized prosperous societies, and individuals living in them have lower fertility rates.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Here:

"As an internet economist, I know the best system is where precisely 12 people have all of the money and they let it sit idle in off shore accounts."

Now, none of you rrrrriiiigggggghhhhhhttttttties even have to post anything.

You're welcome.

#1 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2019-06-12 12:54 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 4

#1 is definitely no Einstein.

#2 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-06-12 01:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Goatblob didn't ---- all over site as much as ------------------ does.

#3 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2019-06-12 01:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

#3 Shi+s all over site.

#4 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-06-12 01:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2


... No one, except lying ideologues, deny causal links exist between these three trends: ...

So, if you don't agree with the author, you are a lying ideologue.

Once I read that, I just stopped reading the article.

Really, is that website really that bad?

#5 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-06-12 01:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

--Really, is that website really that bad?

It's a marxist website that avoids using archaic 1930s marxist rhetoric like "dictatorship of the proletariat" and "bourgeoisie," etc.

#6 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-06-12 01:52 PM | Reply

Once [my anti-science stance was deservedly ridiculed], I just stopped reading the article.

#5 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

DR Conservatism in a nutshell.

#7 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-06-12 02:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1


@#7 ... [my anti-science stance was deservedly ridiculed] ...

I don't have an anti-science stance. Far from it.

What I do have is an aversion to wasting my time reading an article where the author tells you that if you disagree with him, then you are a lying ideologue. That, in and of itself, is quite contrary to the scientific process.

#8 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-06-12 02:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#8 Tell yourself whatver you have to to feel better, but you're either a lying ideologue or gullible idiot; either way, you're anti-science if you disagree with the premise laid out in the article.

#9 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-06-12 03:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1


@#9 ... you're either a lying ideologue or gullible idiot ...

I've been called worse.

But back to my point...

I may or may not agree with his hypothetical analysis of trends and causality. I never got that far because of his "No one, except lying ideologues" would dare disagree with him approach. If you think that is a scientific approach to analysis of his hypotheses, well, perhaps I am not the one with the anti-science stance.


#10 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-06-12 03:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

If you think that is a scientific approach to analysis of his hypotheses, well, perhaps I am not the one with the anti-science stance.

#10 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

BOOM!

#11 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-12 03:38 PM | Reply

#10 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

Double down all you want, fact of the matter is that willful ignorance is a common trait among DR righties. You exemplify it with your response to this thread, congrats.

#12 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-06-12 04:28 PM | Reply

12

You're the willfully ignorant in this case. Lamplighter is not a DR righty.

and Lamp is right...if you dare question anything posed....calling the person questioning a "lying ideologue" or the 'ole favorite..."denier" is just juvenile.

I've seen articles presented here that might present 10 "facts" and if someone challenges even 1 of those facts, -------- like you hurl "DENIER" at them as fast as you can.

I've never denied global warming.....been called one here a 1,000 times though.

#13 | Posted by eberly at 2019-06-12 04:35 PM | Reply

"I never got that far because of his "No one, except lying ideologues" would dare disagree with him approach."

Okay, but that's your choice.
It's just a rhetorical device, and a pretty obvious one to get over, in my opinion.
Your complaint would carry a lot more weight if there was actual room for disagreement in what he stipulates. There isn't.

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-12 04:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#13 Regardless of his political leanings, he still exemplified a trait of DR righties.

You and Jeffj responding shows it clearly struck a nerve.

It's comical that rightwingers can't read passed hyperbole if it offends them, so they proudly choose to peacock their ignorance instead of critically reading the article. To be prideful when denying objective reality, you have to either be lying or idiotic. Anyone that can't see that is likely the latter.

#15 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-06-12 04:45 PM | Reply

"I've seen articles presented here that might present 10 "facts" and if someone challenges even 1 of those facts, -------- like you hurl "DENIER" at them as fast as you can."

Sure.
But LampLighter didn't get as far as challenging the facts.
Merely the way in which they were presented.
You can see the difference, right?

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-12 04:49 PM | Reply

-You and Jeffj responding shows it clearly struck a nerve.

No, you accusing him of being a DR righty shows it it clearly struck a nerve. I just pointed it out to you.

I'm fine with being called a denier or a "lying ideologue"...although I don't know if I've ever been called the later.

Jeff has...so he can address that.

And if you noticed.....Lamp hasn't disagreed with what the author claimed...but merely challenged the harsh and hard line drawn by the author.

Anybody who claims they are so above the reader they are not to be challenged is just begging for a response like that.....which is probably why they wrote it that way...to provoke such responses.

#17 | Posted by eberly at 2019-06-12 04:51 PM | Reply

This is not to call LampLighter a denier.
Merely that his taking umbrage at the rhetoric is the same tactic we'd expect from a denier.
If he starts walking like a duck too, then it's a different story.

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-12 04:51 PM | Reply

"Anybody who claims they are so above the reader they are not to be challenged is just begging for a response like that"

I get it.

Do "We hold these truth to be self-evident" for us, Eberly!
JeffJ especially might benefit from that one.

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-12 04:52 PM | Reply

16

agreed.

#20 | Posted by eberly at 2019-06-12 04:52 PM | Reply

-But LampLighter didn't get as far as challenging the facts.

and yet Indianajismlicker still called him anti-science and a DR rightie.

#21 | Posted by eberly at 2019-06-12 04:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"No, you accusing him of being a DR righty..."

Oh boy, now I get to take a page right out of your book, Eberly, and ask; "Where did I specifically call him a right winger?"

I commend the attempt to shift the discussion away from conservatives' habit of shielding themselves from the reality they hate, however. Very right wing of you.

#22 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-06-12 05:02 PM | Reply

I didn't meant to come down so hard on Indiana with my #21

I just want to figure out if "---- swallower" is different than ------- to the moderator.

#23 | Posted by eberly at 2019-06-12 05:02 PM | Reply

Self-evident.

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-12 05:05 PM | Reply

"No one, except lying ideologues, deny that the square root of 2 is irrational."

I'm just so devastated by this statement. How can I take serious anyone that would be so darn mean to someone that might believe √2 is rational? So, if you don't agree that √2 is irrational, you are a lying ideologue?
Once I read that, I just stopped reading the article.

#25 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-06-12 05:07 PM | Reply

-Oh boy, now I get to take a page right out of your book,

I didn't write it in crayon...not sure if you'll follow it.

#26 | Posted by eberly at 2019-06-12 05:07 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

To give LampLighter the benefit of the doubt, his complaint is, if you want to catch him in your fly trap, arm it with honey, not vinegar.

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-12 05:09 PM | Reply

I can live with the drama of an author who antagonizes the critical reader and read on.

That is a skill I've picked up from being on this place for so many years. It's also a skill I picked up from listening to Rush Limbaugh over the years because I've traveled in rural areas and talk radio is very limited...I've learned to look past the drama and the personality and stick to the topic.

#28 | Posted by eberly at 2019-06-12 05:14 PM | Reply

"-But LampLighter didn't get as far as challenging the facts.
and yet Indianajismlicker still called him anti-science and a DR rightie.
#21 | POSTED BY EBERLY"

For reasons that are obvious, because the facts themselves aren't particularly problematic, except to deniers.

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-12 05:15 PM | Reply

29

or because Indiana is a dramaqueen and couldn't help himself.

#30 | Posted by eberly at 2019-06-12 05:16 PM | Reply

Probably a little from column A and a little from column B.

YOU DAMN DIRTY DENIER!!!

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-12 05:17 PM | Reply

"I didn't read the article because I actually am an Einstein."
--LampLighter
;)

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-12 05:21 PM | Reply

#30 And with that, Eberly demonstrates another RW tactic; the art of projection.

#33 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-06-12 05:50 PM | Reply

"or because Indiana is a dramaqueen and couldn't help himself."

Takes one to know one?

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-12 05:52 PM | Reply

It's not a RW tactic. It's a tactic but not one that's utilized by everybody of all stripes.

Including me...

#35 | Posted by eberly at 2019-06-12 06:07 PM | Reply

I'm far left and support lamps view. The author has no communication skills.

No different then stupid t.v. commercials ( geico, progressive..ect).. if your ad is aimed at ------- I pay no attention

Global warming IMO is a combination of humans and natural patterns and not planning ahead is just dumb.. but we might be past the point of no return

#36 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2019-06-12 06:55 PM | Reply

"The author has no communication skills."

More like, he knows his audience, as he has articles on CounterPunch going back to 2005.

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-12 07:00 PM | Reply

The more oil you pump the more people can be supported on the planet. The more people on the planet, the more oil you need to pump. Oil consumption for 7 billion people is a significant contributor to global warming. Exxon Mobile knew this back in the seventies.

Anybody notice yet that Lamp, Nulli, Sheep ... and the rest of the right wrecking crew have no counter argument to P1 an P2. So when you have no argument to present, let the personal insults flow, its an oft
demonstrated technique of the orange sloth.

Einstein wrote a thoughtful piece called, "why socialism?", which never touched on these two important simple points or to solving the global warming problem by reducing population growth, which is a more important root cause of the problem than burning oil. Put another way burning oil would not contribute to global warming in any measurable way, if the population of the planet were 100 million instead of 7 billion people.

monthlyreview.org

#38 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-06-12 07:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Put another way burning oil would not contribute to global warming in any measurable way, if the population of the planet were 100 million instead of 7 billion people."

Sounds logical. Who gets to choose who those hundred million are? And what do we do when two people want to make a third?

#39 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2019-06-12 08:13 PM | Reply

No one, that would be coercive. The population of the planet would gradually diminish, as it was doing in Socialist Europe, until the US turned the Middle East upside down. Socialist policies always have this effect, without coercion. It is a natural consequence of having your basic needs for food, water health care, housing, and education guaranteed for everyone. There is no longer any need to reproduce like rabbits, like the third world does.

Of course, at this point, more radical solutions to curb global warming are needed. To even broach that subject the orange sloth and McConnell have to go. At least we are already rid of Ryan.

#40 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-06-12 08:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Sounds logical. Who gets to choose who those hundred million are? And what do we do when two people want to make a third?"

Or, we could simply limit the oil that's being used to 1% of what's being used today, and it would achieve the same result.

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-12 08:28 PM | Reply

"There is no longer any need to reproduce like rabbits, like the third world does."

Tell it to the Duggars.

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-12 08:29 PM | Reply

- limit the oil that's being used to 1% of what's being used today

I'm all for it. What energy resource makes up for the 99% decrease in oil consumption?

#43 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-06-12 08:48 PM | Reply

Tell it to the Duggars.

#42 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Tax the hell out having 3+ kids.

#44 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-06-12 09:12 PM | Reply

"What energy resource makes up for the 99% decrease in oil consumption?
#43 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM"

No need to make up for all of it, when energy is used more efficiently.

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-13 12:48 AM | Reply


@#38 ... Anybody notice yet that Lamp, Nulli, Sheep ... and the rest of the right wrecking crew have no counter argument to P1 an P2 ...

Why would I have a counter argument to a hypothesis I think is correct?

My critique was the presentation, not the content, i.e., someone claiming to be making a scientific presentation does not do so in a political manner.

Or didn't you even read what I wrote?

#46 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-06-13 10:42 AM | Reply

Tax the hell out having 3+ kids.

#44 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

How about the China 1-child policy?

#47 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-13 03:42 PM | Reply

because sharing is good.

#48 | Posted by ichiro at 2019-06-14 04:07 AM | Reply

Note that Bernie has recently referred to the USA as the richest country in the world -- that did not happen by way of socialism.

#49 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-06-14 12:05 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#49 | POSTED BY MSGT

Of course it happened because of socialism. Everything that makes us a superpower today is derived from publicly-funded projects.

#50 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-06-14 12:27 PM | Reply

Of course it happened because of socialism. Everything that makes us a superpower today is derived from publicly-funded projects.

#50 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

You obviously don't know what Socialism is. You seem to be saying all government is Socialism. It's not.

#51 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-14 02:12 PM | Reply

Socialism is any application of Government resources to "the common good". So only the differences of opinion over what our common interests are creates the disagreements over socialism and its meanings. Some would say the CIA and US military are socialist institutions, most would agree the VA, roadbuilding, water projects, public education and NASA make all out lives better.

#52 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-06-14 02:56 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort