UN climate chief cautions against hysteria

[DKG]

In a rare burst of common sense, the new head of the United Nations body that assesses the science related to climate change, warns against over-the-top rhetoric that falsely suggests the world will end if global temperatures rise above the UN's target of 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Jim Skea, chair of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says fear-mongering about the target is counterproductive.

In weekend interviews with Der Spiegel and the German news agency DPA, he called for a more balanced approach to addressing climate change

"We should not despair and fall into a state of shock" if global temperatures rise above the UN target, said Skea, a leading climate scientist and professor of sustainable energy at London's Imperial College.

"If you constantly communicate the message that we are all doomed to extinction, then that paralyzes people and prevents them from taking the necessary steps to get a grip on climate change ... The world won't end if it warms by more than 1.5 degrees."

Skea also said it's unrealistic to think changes can be imposed on people's lifestyles in terms of how they live and what they eat.

"Individual abstinence is good, but it alone will not bring about the change to the extent ... necessary," Skea said.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/weather/topstories/editorial-un-climate-chief-cautions-against-hysteria/ar-AA1eBE6y#:~:text=In%20a%20rare%20burst%20of%20common%20sense%2C%20the,above%20the%20UN%E2%80%99s%20target%20of%201.5%20degrees%20Celsius.

Kids in developed countries can't sleep at night because of climate hysteria drilled into their impressionable minds. Calm down people.

[JOE]

I think we gotta problem with climate change, DKG.

But the real root of the problem is this planet has too many fucking people.

People should stop having kids for a while.

Try like 30 years to bring the  global population down to 4 bil.

Depletion of our resources, overuse of rivers, etc likely exacerbates the problem.

I dont tink that it's jes fossil fuels which are causing it if indeed climate change is mostly man made.

Just comes down to too many people

All the places in the wrold which are experiecing the most rapid climate change are often the most (over)populated.

[JOE]

The snow on the Himilayas is being depleted at a rapid rate.

But India has 1.4 bil and China 1.3 or 1.4 bil

So quite obviously the overpoupulation there  si contributing to this problem.

Te snow on these mountains is vital for both Chiona and India to maintain its agriculture

And thus feed its people.

[Adolf Oliver Bush]

I think we gotta problem with climate change, DKG.

But the real root of the problem is this planet has too many fucking people.

People should stop having kids for a while.

Oh do fuck off with that noise, most developed nations are already fucking at below replacement population rates and we are nowhere near the temperatures the planet was experiencing during Roman times. The climate alarmism is a load of old wank being perpetrated primarily by bullshit artists who have no intentions of curbing their own carbon footprint and see no issue with dropping a few thousand tons of carbon into the atmosphere under the auspices of "we is bringing the solution"... meanwhile they are hoovering up coastal properties up in places like Marthas Vineyard while fuckwits like you pick up the pompoms and rah-rah skirts to spruik the message that it's us that are the problem.

Go get your head read you mong. If you want a cause to champion, try dropping the crap that involves a carbon trading scheme (itself a currency aimed at even greater upward transference of wealth) and try working out the whole "clean air, clean water" shtick instead. Attempting to stooge people into a life of celibacy just so Leonardo Decapricock and Arnold Schwarzenigger can ball their way through the masses with impunity is the sort of Marxist bullcrap that opens the door to Trooneyism and class based eugenics. I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that in the absence of appreciable disposable income, people are going to either find their own "entertainment" or be miserable.

Your message is for us to be miserable. Mind telling us (assuming your message of dire consequences if we don't mend our wicked ways holds any legitimacy whatsoever) what the fuck is the point of saving the world if the only payoff is that we get to be miserable. Lead by example you clown - go fuck yourself.

[JOE]

Go get your head read you mong. If you want a cause to champion, try dropping the crap that involves a carbon trading scheme (itself a currency aimed at even greater upward transference of wealth) and try working out the whole "clean air, clean water" shtick instead. Attempting to stooge people into a life of celibacy just so Leonardo Decapricock and Arnold Schwarzenigger can ball their way through the masses with impunity is the sort of Marxist bullcrap that opens the door to Trooneyism and class based eugenics. I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that in the absence of appreciable disposable income, people are going to either find their own "entertainment" or be miserable.

...how about birth control, Ollie?
That seems ta work in many countries.
And the nations which managed to stabilize their populations appear to be doing better than those who have not.

I would tell these poorer countries to git their shit together and that AID/Debt foriveness will be provided only i they get serious about bringing their populations under control.

AID/Debt forgiveness in exchange for pumping out fewer babies.

[JOE]

Another thing too Ollie - there'll be a point at which the wealthy nations will no longer be able to afford subsidzing the 3rd world.

Your country is $30 tillion in debt. Britain is similarly indebte on a per capita basis too.
and yet they are expected and continue to send money to the 3rd world.
Nevermine the rest of the world, USA is having a hard time providing basic services to its own citizens.

So what's gonna happen to these pooer countries when the money runs out?!
and money printing no longer works and fiat currencies have no value?

[DKG]

Climate hysteria is a serious threat to mankind's survival. Wild claims will only serve to depress and alienate. The way forward has to be rational argument and human ingenuity. Now that they are attacking global food production it will seriously impact global stability.

[DKG]

Dr. John F. Clauser, recipient of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, was elected to serve on the board of directors of the CO2 Coalition earlier this year.

During a speech to the 2023 Quantum Korea conference, he stated categorically: "I can confidently say there is no real climate crisis."

[DKG]

Warming = Longer Growing Seasons = More Food

The chart above is sourced from the new book A Very Convenient Warming.

[Lokmar]

The snow on the Himilayas is being depleted at a rapid rate.

But India has 1.4 bil and China 1.3 or 1.4 bil

So quite obviously the overpoupulation there  si contributing to this problem.

Te snow on these mountains is vital for both Chiona and India to maintain its agriculture

And thus feed its people.

Kill yourself. Problem solved.

[Thiel]

Record warm temperatures were recorded in many places in North America in December. The crisis crowd had a field day with that.

January cold records are falling across North America. You would think the climate alarmists would be happy about that. They are not.

[Oerdin]

They are never happy about anything.

[Thiel]

They are never happy about anything.

Especially when cold records that prove their planet is boiling narrative is fiction.

[DKG]

Bjorn Lomborg has updated his chart on climate-related deaths. Since the 1920s, the number of deaths has fallen by more than 97 percent.\
https://x.com/bjornlomborg/status/1799425688404894171?s=43

Freedom from Climate-Related Death Risk
Every 1 percent increase in population corresponded to a 53 percent increase in climate-risk safety.

As the global population quadrupled over the century, the risk per million declined from 241 in the 1920s to 1.5 in the 2020s. This is a 99.38 percent decrease. Adjusted for population size differences, for every person who dies from climate today, there were over 160 who died in the 1920s.

If the rate had remained the same over the past 100 years, there would have been an average of 1,928,000 climate-related deaths from 2020–2023 instead of 12,270. Our ability to innovate around climate risks has been astonishing as long as government policy does not counterproductively interfere.

The reciprocal of death is life. If something falls by 99.38 percent, it means the opposite has increased by over 16,029 percent. ([1÷ (1-.9938) – 1]). Thus we can say that life safety from climate-related deaths over that past century has increased by 16,029 percent.

This dramatic increase in life safety increased at the same time global population increased by 300 percent. Every 1 percent increase in population corresponded to a 53 percent increase in climate-risk safety. When human beings are free to adapt and innovate, they dramatically reduce risks and make life much safer.
https://humanprogress.org/freedom-from-climate-related-death-risk/