Earth Needs Fewer People to Beat the Climate Crisis, Scientists Say. By Eric Roston.
More than 11,000 experts from around the world are calling for a critical addition to the main strategy of dumping fossil fuels for renewable energy: there needs to be far fewer humans on the planet. …
While warnings about the consequences of unchecked climate change have become so commonplace as to inure the average news consumer, this latest communique is exceptionally significant given the data that accompanies it. …
The scientists make specific calls for policymakers to quickly implement systemic change to energy, food, and economic policies. But they go one step further, into the politically fraught territory of population control. It “must be stabilized — and, ideally, gradually reduced — within a framework that ensures social integrity,” they write.
The population must be reduced “while ensuring social integrity”. It’s like defining “hate speech”. So, they get decide who to kill. Great. Yet another incentive not to disagree with the left.
Scientists link ‘climate crisis’ to wealthy populations, by Graham Lloyd.
Global surface temperatures are not sufficient to measure climate change, which should instead be tracked by a scorecard of population growth, meat consumption, forest loss and the use of air transport, a new declaration by scientists says. …
The scientists said profoundly troubling signs from human activities included sustained increases in human and ruminant livestock populations, per-capita meat production, world gross domestic product, global tree-cover loss, fossil fuel consumption, the number of air passengers, and carbon dioxide emissions.
The scientists welcomed government bodies making climate emergency declarations, schoolchildren going on strike, “ecocide lawsuits” and grassroots citizen movements demanding change.
“Scientists”? Some scientists, who just happen to be in receipt of money and their jobs from big government and the bureaucracy. Other scientists disagree.
As for measurements, they cheat uproariously on surface temperatures. Imagine the nonsense if they measure “global warming” via meat consumption? About the same really, so go for it.
[“Uproariously”? Yes, if you know what is going on and get into the details.]