More climate doom has emerged in the news. A group of 11,000 scientists has demanded urgent climate action and “shock horror” population control. World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency
This is of course propaganda and PR and we could dismiss it out of hand. That would be unfair because a number of valid points are made. Bloomberg refers to the article as Earth Needs Fewer People to Beat the Climate Crisis. The Hedge has an even more alarmist headline when it says; 11,000 Experts Propose Final Solution To Global Warming: Just Kill Billions Of People.
Some 11,000 scientists call for population control in mass climate alarm https://t.co/7L2cD3tK6e pic.twitter.com/Fv7br3iAU7
— Bloomberg Economics (@economics) November 5,
These headlines are an exaggeration although the article does summarize the following under the heading Population; “Still increasing by roughly 80 million people per year, or more than 200,000 per day, the world population must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrity”.
Many countries in the Western world including Japan and China face an aging population. Fertility rates have plateaued and are going down. The future will see more adult diapers (nappies) than baby diapers. The population of Africa is growing and this (surprisingly) is linked with poverty, poor health and lack of education. Wealthier nations have less children. To lift Africa out of poverty would require more fossil fuels not less. Africa needs to follow the development path of China. However, China attempted population control which has resulted in a shortage of females. It also resulted in “dying rooms” for female babies and forced abortions. Eugenics and proscribed population control does not have a good record.
Natural Climate Change
As we have stated before, the earth is undergoing natural climate change. The solar system travels through space and encounters different conditions in our “electric universe”. Our sun is experiencing a maunder minimum. Our earth is experiencing magnetic pole shift. These events are linked. They cause variation in cosmological rays which influences cloud formation. As the upper jet streams change the weather becomes unpredictable (weird) followed by global cooling. In that case we need more fossil fuel power stations. The growing zone will be reduced leading to famines. This is the opposite of what we are being told.
We use only relevant data sets that are clear, understandable, systematically collected for at least the last 5 years, and updated at least annually.
Let us translate the above. We use data sets that are clear: we cherry pick. Understandable: you are dumb we will not bother you with scaling. Systematically collected for at least the last 5 years: we chose 5 years out of 4.5 billion years to prove our point. Updated at least annually: if we get a heat wave reported this summer we will definitely include it.
At least five years of Data
I find that statement amusing. As a scientist (who is familiar with statistics) I would be ashamed to quote five years of data. You might as well produce a plot of last weeks weather. It has about the same predictive power as their graphs. This is like the hockey stick graph which was proven in court to be fraudulent. In light of this we have taken it upon ourselves to change the headings of the plots.
The “report” does make some good points but neglects many others. For example they want to reduce emissions of black carbon (soot), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). That can be done without shutting down fossil fuels. They also want to reduce methane which is basically “cow farts”.
The agenda is to become vegetarian. Once again this is too simplistic. Cattle often thrive on land that is barely arable. In the not too distant past herds of millions of buffaloes roamed the American plains. Millions of years ago Dinosaurs existed. They also farted – especially the “stinko-sore-ass”. The report also says that, “we must protect and restore Earth’s ecosystems”. On that we are all agreed.
Other important issues
More than 40 years ago when it was not “sexy” I studied environmental science alongside chemistry. As a junior researcher I was set the task of correlating tree ring data and temperature (the problem then was acid rain). What this report neglects to mention are plastic contamination of the oceans. The recycling problem. Endocrine mimickers. Antibiotic overuse. We could go on and mention pesticides and GMO foods and herbicides (roundup). No argument from me that we are damaging the environment and need to drastically change our ways. We need to be sustainable and we need to conserve energy. All those things must be done but we need not return to the stone age.
It was the use of fossil fuels coupled with the industrial revolution that brought about massive improvements in living standards, improvements in longevity and the population explosion. A couple of hundred years ago a global population of 7- 8 billion would have been thought impossible. It would have been considered as beyond the carrying capacity of the earth. That is quite an achievement but it has created other problems.
You cannot have exponential growth in a finite system. Therefore we need to completely change the way we do things in the future. We need to be sustainable. The sort of capitalism that we now have with constant “growth” and “off-book exigencies” (pollution etc) needs to end. The price must reflect all the costs including recycling etc.
Climate change is happening but it is not man made. Perhaps carbon dioxide results in a small “forcing” of the global temperature but it is not the root cause. That does not mean that we do not need to make major changes on how we do things. The world does not belong to an elite with the rest condemned to slavery and poverty. However, the change that is really needed will not happen because of human nature. As Christians we await the age of renewal which only God can inaugurate. But first comes the time of judgement.