11,000 Experts Propose Final Solution to Global Warming: Just Kill Billions of People
Posted by Pecuniology 5 years ago to Culture
Scroll down to the fifteen graphs labeled a-o.
Look at Graph b.
If there were a problem, then it already is sorting itself out. No need for genocide.
[We need a Category for Junk Science.]
Look at Graph b.
If there were a problem, then it already is sorting itself out. No need for genocide.
[We need a Category for Junk Science.]
One of my favorite quotes of all time.
We need a category for corruption.
This is the Malthus prediction dug up!
Population always increases faster than food supply.
A disaster that did not happen due to the industrial revolution.
That came from scientific thinking (not The Science), property rights (private not community), free speech (not suppression of whatever they call hate-speech)
Some are real dodgy, eg
fossil fuel subsidies, a fallacy from funny accounting,
Brazil's rain forest, yes a decline this year from fire but no significant long term change,
tree cover loss increasing, dubious, no mention of proportion of earth's surface under vegetation -it is growing, satellite imagery evidence,
more CO2, but from USA declining from increased energy efficiency, from China already the largest contributor and growing with a free hand under the Paris Agreement,
some graphs show more CO2, so what? there is no CO2 temperature link from theory or observation,
meat eating is growing but so is human health, height, and life expectancy,
etc.
I figure the signatures resulted from something like this: "If you want another research grant, sign here."
Leftists' preferred strategy is to perform 2/3rds of abortions on the 6% of the population who are—predominantly poor—Black women, and to promote chemical sterilization and genital mutilation of gender-confused children.
It might not be as efficient as the policies that their ancestors supported a century ago, but that was all ruined by that nasty little socialist with the funny mustache, who gave eugenics and 'final solutions' to 'Problems' a bad name. Now, they have to be a bit more circumspect when liquidating 'undesirables' (their word, not mine).
Now they are deplorables?
Remember that for leftists, words are just words. They feel that words do not have objective meanings, that reason is a myth, that emotions supersede facts, and that reality is a 'social construct'.
They claim to hate Deplorables, but their blood-lust is always aimed at the alleged beneficiaries of their activism.
They support mass abortion and sterilization of the world's black and brown people, the gender mutilation of the children of the kind of person who takes his toddler to Drag Queen Reading Hour, and AntiFA riots in the leftest cities with the strictest gun controls.
They are all but nonexistent in Trump Country.
/sarc off/ but as with the Germans, intelligent humans will find a reason to do that.
Therer seems to be a major lack of knowledge about science in the population as a whole. Even the UN missed the Sun cycles when figuring climate models, and over included CO2 info. It is nto that hard, Grand Solar Minimum, until next Soloar maximum. Factor in the e00,000year cycle for the switching of the earch magnetic poles, also now in play, and you have climate.No wonder the head of the science dept asked me to switch majors to science, saying her students had lower grades than mine, but could not even put the learing into words. And this is the crap we get from those of the same ilk.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...
Today, the world population is approximately 7 billion humans. The population densities of Hong Kong and Singapore are approximately 6,500 individuals per square kilometer. These are wealthy, modern cities, proving that a lot of people can live well in a tight space. If all of the individual humans in the world were contained within an area that were a bit larger than 1 million square kilometers, that would result in a population density comparable to those of Hong Kong and Singapore, and it would leave the entire rest of the surface of the earth available for energy and food production, manufacturing, and waste processing.
There is no 'overpopulation'. There is only mismanagement.
The fertility rate is declining only in developed countries.
Asia, Africa and South America populations are growing leaps and bounds:
https://www.bing.com/search?q=populat...
What is happening is "population replacement" as people from overcrowded continents are filling the void in underpopulated countries such as Africans flowing to Europe.
It is much more efficient to post some wild thing or other and wait for someone else to do the research, figure it all out, and explain to you why you are wrong.
Whoever put the charts together was not a scientist but a crook. Even if he/she averaged the numbers, the trend is downward but up.
I guess that is what these erstwhile "scientists" are worried about when they are calling for mass murder to cull the population.
Was Voltaire a pre-Objectivist?
The position paper, jointly signed by 11,000 scientists from across a broad range of different fields, claims "The climate crisis is closely linked to excessive consumption of the wealthy lifestyle", and advocates reducing or reversing population growth as one factor. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/a...
The paper advocates the usual activist policies for a "climate emergency" and includes the role of population, urging "family-planning services available to all people, remove barriers to their access and achieve full gender equity, including primary and secondary education as a global norm for all, especially girls and young women". The 11,000 scientists are on the usual climate hysteria bandwagon, but did not call for a sensationalist "genocide" claimed in this thread.
Their population recommendation cited a 2018 paper in Science magazine, "Global warming policy: Is population left out in the cold? Population policies offer options to lessen climate risks", which referred to voluntary birth control and education as effective measures. http://demographic-challenge.com/file...
A more credible report on the paper and the reaction to fertility rate reduction is in the MITTechnology Review: "Critics blast a proposal to curb climate change by halting population growth:
More than 11,000 scientists signed a paper arguing the world needs to stabilize or gradually reduce the global population". https://www.technologyreview.com/s/61...
"More than 11,000 scientists from a broad range of disciplines signed a new editorial declaring a 'climate emergency,' but other researchers immediately criticized one of the proposed remedies: halting population growth..."
Much of the criticism is from the left, invoking the usual false race and eugenics accusations, and a fear that the population recommendation "feeds directly into the perception among conservatives that 'climate science and its conclusions are the product of an ideological movement,' one that prioritizes nature over humans."