Remember: Trust the scientists! They know best…
“If I am brutally honest, the only realistic way I see emissions falling as fast as they need to, to avoid catastrophic climate breakdown, is the culling of the human population by a pandemic with a very high fatality rate.”
—British vulcanologist and climate scientist William J. McGuire, “Bill” to his friends, cheering on human death in a tweet he quickly removed after colleagues advised him “Uh, Bill? We’re not supposed to say things like this out loud…”
Of course, the professor might have been saying that the economically disastrous measures being proposed and in some cases adopted by foolish governments like the Biden administration won’t affect the climate sufficiently to make a difference, so the whole movement is futile, irresponsible, based on speculation, and, to be blunt, stupid, but of course he wasn’t. No, this scientist, who is among those we are supposed to trust and obey—you know, like the health “experts” who crippled the economy, our society and the educational development of our children based on guesses about the Wuhan virus that were represented as fact?—believes that the only way to avoid a climate catastrophe (and we all want to do that, right?) is to have millions of people die as soon as possible, one way or another. A plague is a good way! Or we could just execute them, like Mao did. Of course, he shouldn’t be one of those sacrificed for the greater good, because his life is too valuable.
That tweet didn’t set off Bill’s ethics alarms while he was composing it, but it sure rattled climate change activists. “I’m dismayed to see you posting such a message Bill. The argument is baseless, but worse it’s a remark that bolsters eco-facism. I urge you to delete this post,” Dr. Aaron Thierry responded, for example. (Because if the tweet is deleted, the professor didn’t ever write it, or something.)
Bill shouldn’t have deleted it. The tweet is very useful. It shows us the kind of people that our elected leaders think we should blindly follow and obey, and what their values are.
Ethics Alarms 
On a brighter note, here’s a brief essay published in, of all places, Nature:
The importance of distinguishing climate science from climate activism
https://www.nature.com/articles/s44168-024-00126-0
Bill needs Skin_In_The_Game to show his…um…commitment to the cause; this could be accomplished by hooking up with VHEMT, the Voluntary Human Extinction MovemenT
PWS
Comment eaten…twice
PWS
AND WordPress says it was DELICIOUS!
Retrieved. Sorry.
Well, that explains the recent experimentation at WIV with making bird flu infectious to humans and putting the hazardous parts of the ebola genome into mammal-infectious viruses.
Good to see our tax dollars funding something that works?
Sheesh. These people are clinically depressed.
So what’s an “eco fascist?” Someone who is skeptical about human caused climate change? The same way anyone skeptical about the monolithic liberal way of government is called a fascist? More projection by the left?
“So what’s an ‘eco fascist?’ “
For one thing, a (IMO) great book by Elizabeth Nickson:
Eco-Fascists: How Radical Conservationists Are Destroying Our Natural Heritage
The Good Professor is going to delete his post:
https://twitter.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1789686400834498997
Just out of curiosity, what does human activity have to do with volcanoes and tsunamis?
jvb
incidentally, since Greta solved the global warming/climate change issue, she is now a leading voice for peace in the Middle East:
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/eurovision/greta-thunberg-eurovision-protest-palestine-sweden-police-b2543510.html
What can’t she do?
jvb
Rainbox Six by Tom Clancy wasn’t supposed to be an instruction manual.
This is one of those topics that keep me up at night, because I think that the professor might be right.
During my father’s lifetime, the population of the Earth tripled. Where one person was standing, there are now three. I’m not sure the most pressing problem is going to be emissions. I mean, we’ve got plans in place for how to feed that many people, and how to continue to support growth up until something like 2050, when the population will have quintupled over 150 years, but what does housing that many people look like? What does infrastructure look like? What are they going to do?
I feel like we are approaching a Calhoun experiment at breakneck pace, and we’ve already seen the first generations of the beautiful ones.
We could fit the world’s current population into the state of Texas and its population density would be that of New York City. The world can support, space-wise, a bunch more people.
Food-wise?…with the way we manipulate food supplies and the way we mess with row crops such that seeds can’t be replanted and the way we make meat “the destroyer of the climate”?…yeah, we’re painting ourselves into a corner from which there is no escape.
We are engineering our own destruction.
Good thing is we’ve got “saviors” like Mr. McGuire and Bill Gates around with their inventive ways of killing us off.
Well, we know where Humble Talent would be standing in Infinity War. 🙂
But wait! Why am I seeing all these articles where the cognoscenti are waving their arms around frantically about declining birth rates? Asia will soon be empty. Brooklyn will be a vacant wasteland.
Beautiful ones.