I love these "scientific consensus" signed by government or UN-funded scientists whose livelihoods depend on continued grants from governments or the UN. Wonder what conclusions they're going to draw. Imagine, if you will, our future when enough control has been ceded or seized and it's determined that us producing more humans will harm the planet and something must be done. Only one solution to that. We might call if the "Final Solution," to use a catchy phrase. We can start with one child per family, forced abortions if you mess up, and if that doesn't work then the old folks are only useless eaters anyway. Zyklon B is cheap to produce.
AGW or climate change or climate disruption or the term du jour is a hoax. They've been manipulating what data they didn't purge or ignore for decades. A nice-size volcanic eruption does more pollution than all of Europe for a comparable period: “The sulfur dioxide (SO2) emitted from the Holuhraun eruption has reached up to 60,000 tons per day and averaged close to 20,000 tons since it began,” notes Pall Stefanson, in a September 25 report for Iceland Review Online. “For comparison, all the SO2 pollution in Europe, from industries, energy production, traffic and house heating, etc., amounts to 14,000 tons per day.” (
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech...llution-dwarfs-all-of-europes-human-emissions). So we have to impoverish ourselves because we're the cause of all the problems. (Our masters, of course, will not join us in poverty.)
I say all of this as a former scientist myself (I'm not on government grants, so don't have to fit in with the political "consensus" to keep getting them), so I get why they think they can get away with it because most people today have been mis-educated and end up clueless and easy to sway with emotional appeals (think polar bears on ice floes). Predicting the temperature of the planet - what is the correct temperature, anyway? no one ever says - within a few degrees 100 years from now is total BS. The earth makes a poor laboratory, because you can't control any of the variables. That's why weather forecasts are never very accurate more than about 10 days out. If you can't make a computer model that's completely accurate a year from now, why would you think you could make one that's accurate 100 years from now? I mean, come on. What's truly mind-boggling is that anyone would say you could - especially all the "scientists" who sign those declarations and theoretically should know better. But of course we understand what drives the consensus.
