« Hindus' Tolerance Causes Them to Attack Christians | Main | Moonbat Pinup »

OT - We thought Global Warming was a terrible, scary threat. A potential apocalyps in the making that, if we didn't take action RIGHT NOW, would end life as we know it within a century.

But...it turns out that was far too optimistic. Washington Post reports today that we've in fact already gone too far, the earth is ruined, but ... but ... if we can get really, really, really serious right now, then there's a sliver of a chance of bailing out our doomed planet.

This of course is great news for skeptics. As the hysteria morphs into delusional scare-mongering of Holloween silliness, we know it's getting close to the end. Back to rain forests in a couple years.

~mega

Remember This: 350 Parts Per Million
By Bill McKibben
Friday, December 28, 2007; Page A21

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/27/AR2007122701942.html?sub=new

Some rare anti-moonbattery: The South Koreans actually want to PAY people to have kids - why doesnt Australia just send them some of theirs? Some Aussies want to TAX parents who have too many kids. These South Koreans are risking the wrath of Lord Gore for increasing their carbon footprint. LOL!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071228/lf_afp/lifestyleskoreapopulationbirths

General Jack, why send kids from Australia to S. Korea? The solution is so much easier than that. Every time a child is born in Australia or S. Korea, Australia should send $5,000 to S. Korea. Then, when Hillary's elected and passes a bill giving each newborn $5,000, the South Koreans can send it over here. Or, to simplify things, the Australians can just send us $5,000 each time a child is born over there. But, the simplest formulation, of course, would be for Australia to estimate the # of babies to be born this year, multiply it by $5,000, send that to the US, and then for the US to combine that with new taxes to give a check to every new US born. Naturally, this is too complicated and multi-lateral for independent nation-states to conduct, so we'll want to turn it over to the UN a.s.a.p. In turn, they should appoint a High Commissioner For Multilateral Financial Transfers In Support Of Population, and then a Special Rapporteur to monitor progress and report back to the Commissioner within four years. This, in turn, will require around $50 million in new budget, which can be partially offset by the payments from Australia. However, that will create a budget shortfall at the UN, so we'll need to increase US dues payments to the UN. By raising taxes on US taxpayers.

Anyway, why can't Australian parents just buy kid-offsets instead of not having kids? If you can by offsets to ride a private jet to Bali guilt-free, you should be able to impregnate your Eurosupermodel girlfriend on the jet guilt-free too.

Yes, KID CREDITS !! Awesome idea.

I dont have any kids yet, so does anyone want my kid credits? The bidding starts at $100,000 each (what I figure it will cost to get them to age 18 when they arrive, at bare minimum). I figure Ive got enough ammunition in my 'gun' for 5 or 6.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, hardly a conservative outfit, receives almost all of it's funding from conservative groups. I'm satisfied that they'd enjoy seeing these contributions continuing to flow. Wouldn't you? Of course you knew this as it's pretty much abuzz throughout a majority of the "balanced" blogs. Oh, I get it. You distort, we decide.

Whoa, andy42302 is "satisfied." That's good enough for me! Who needs any actual data, arguments, or reasoning when we've got good ol' andy42302 reading minds, eh?

The data, as mentioned, is all over the Internet. The argument is that this study is a result of a group that's funded by conservatives so that "hardly a conservative outfit" is incorrect. People of any "reasonable" intellect would quickly deduce that such an organization would cater to its sponsors. When I say I'm "satisfied", that means that I've made a rational decision based on the data available to me. Now, I'm not reading minds but it appears to me that the appropriately named Assistant Village Idiot doesn't understand the concept of appearing more intelligent by saying nothing at all. Hopefully, he/she will not pass that opportunity up again.

Typical lib: "Don't confuse me with data. My feelings and prejudices tell me otherwise."

Not that anyone really needs a study to show that most MSM outlets lean hard-left. Fox tends to balance conservative viewpoints 50-50 with liberal ones... which is quite a shock to people who are used to a token moderate conservative like George Will being matched against 4 or 5 libs on a panel on one opinion show for one hour per week,

It always amazes me how some choose to abandon reason and debate with diatribe and arrogance while spinning their own shortcomings. My feelings and/or prejudices has nothing to do with the content of my post. My point wasn’t even based on a liberal or conservative opinion but rather that to say that the CMPA is “hardly a conservative outfit” is as asinine as saying that the New York Times or L.A. Times aren’t liberal newspapers. 86% of CMPA’s funding comes from 3 conservative donors; the John M. Olin, Scaife, and Smith Richardson foundations. The President of CMPA, S. Robert Lichter is a paid consultant to Fox News as well a former member of the American Enterprise Institute.

My question is simply this; how can the CMPA have any credibility with a claim that a questionably conservative news agency such as Fox is fair and balanced when it is ran by Fox paid leaders and acquires almost all of its funding from conservative foundations? Am I missing something that perhaps only a moonbat would see?

Andy,
Collect the data yourself and figure the precentages of Liberal, Conservative and neutral-leaning stories.

"My feelings and/or prejudices has nothing to do with the content of my post."

I beg your pardon? In the very same paragraph you accuse the researchers of being PAID OFF by Fox. That's not biased? Need I point out that you use the "attack" argument, rather than data or facts? Typical Liberal tactics: insult others while accuseing your opponant of suppressing any chance of a debate.

KHarn, perhaps you should brush up on your reading skills(I'd suggest start out by reading at least 1 non-picture book per week) before accusEing me of anything. I did not accuse researchers of being PAID OFF by Fox. I said that The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University is 86% funded by 3 conservative foundations and that their president IS A PAID CONSULTANT for Fox News.

" Need I point out that you use the "attack" argument, rather than data or facts?"

My argument is constructive, has merit, backed with facts, and based on a reasonable assumption that the statement in this blog of CMPA as "hardly a conservative outfit" doesn't hold water. I challenge you to dispute any of the facts I've presented. I do admit that I did just attack YOU and your ability(or lack of) to comprehend. Accordingly, I'm not laughing WITH you.

One Hundred and thirty six IQ, Andy. I learned more AFTER I left school than when I was in it.

Perhaps KHarn, there's relevance in your intellect as to how CMPA is a bias source for rating Fox News. You failed to make that connection and I certainly failed to see it. My posts contained names of folks and foundations you can check out for yourself for validation. You come up a bit shy on your credentials but I'll be a big boy and go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt. I suppose I could counter that my dad could beat up your dad but God forbid a liberal thread jacking.

Andy;
Thus far you have offered NO PROOF that the study was falsified, you only made ACCUSATIONS as Liberals tend to do. I will give you that your facts (Note that I said 'FACTS') MAY be clues, but in a court of law, "clues" are called "circumstantial evidence".
I suppose that you have forgotten that the United States is a FREE country where the ACCUSER must proove guilt and the accused need not say a damn thiing in his defence. I am just so sick of Liberals like yourself who think that casting accusations and spreading roumers is enough for a conviction, that only works in a TOTOLITARIAN society.
Think about that, and think about what sort of society you are trying to create.

Thank you KHarn for a response that has substance. I agree that in a court of law, what I've provided is not proof of anything. If I were trying to prove that the CMPA were wrong, you would have an argument. But, that was never my intentions nor was it in my statements. It's simply something that you et al. chose to spin against me as my ideology differs from yours. My post simply questioned this thread's rationale for stating that the CMPA was "hardly a conservative outfit" when circumstantial evidence strongly suggests otherwise. Is there something wrong with me stating "I'm satisfied that they'd(the CMPA) enjoy seeing these contributions continuing to flow. Wouldn't you?" Should you and/or the moderators or editors here be immune to scrutiny yet hold accountable anyone that points out flaws in yours? You failed to contradict a single point of mine. As usual, defenders of the empire ignore the arguments of those on the other side and instead choose to create their own argument out of thin air. Then, after supposedly “winning” the fabricated argument, they feel they can dismiss the opponent with contempt. It’s boring and counterproductive.

Perhaps KHarn, you're as intelligent as you say but if that wheel of intellect remains stuck in a proverbial rut and unable to free itself from the channel that it follows, you'll impede your abilities considerably. Andy