‘Fewer People’: Scientists Say Earth Needs ‘Population Control’ to Combat Climate Change

Hannity.com ^ | November 5, 2019

[karpov]

A recent study published in scientific journal BioScience says the planet needs fewer people to effectively combat climate change; arguing “population control” is necessary to limit the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.

“A larger group of scientists is sounding another, much more urgent alarm. 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,” reports Bloomberg.

“We declare, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency,” the scientists write.

“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,” adds Bloomberg.

Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders made similar comments on the campaign trailer earlier this year; suggesting population control and “reproductive rights” were essential tools in the fight against global warming.

[karpov]

Scientists can use their knowledge of climate to make forecasts of climate conditional on CO2 levels. It is not their place to dictate what if anything should be done about climate change.

Reducing welfare payments based on the number of children in a household would discourage some births. Do the scientists support that? Almost all future population growth is expected to come from Africa, since that is where fertility is still much higher than replacement level. Do the scientists think population control efforts should be focused on Africa?

[duckman]

“It is not their place to dictate...”
But how will they get their govt grant money for research. /sarc

[Texas Eagle]

Yo, climate scientists, what is the current makeup of CO2 in our atmosphere and what would you like to reduce it to?

[a fool in paradise]

Dictators gotta dictate.

[oldasrocks]

So get rid of the environmentalists in Californicate that are causing all the forest fires for a start.

[CodeToad]

This liberal Luddite stupidity was played out ion the 1967 book ‘The Population Bomb’ by Paul Ehrlich, another liberal Luddite that claimed we would all be dead by now from starvation.

[Trump.Deplorable]

Any leftists “intellectual” who believes this nonsense needs to jump off the GWB, for climate change of course.

[SolidRedState]

We could start by having fewer climate scientists.

[chris37]

Let’s start with the “scientists” then.

[Alas Babylon!]

11,000 experts from around the world can go kill themselves, and thus actually directly participate in the solution they’re promoting.

[Texas Eagle]

Thanks to wars, Socialism, abortion and the homosexual agenda, I think it’s safe to estimate that there are at least a billion fewer people on this planet than there otherwise would be. And when you factor in that many of those who were killed or never conceived would’ve had children, and grandchildren by now, I think it would be safe to estimate that the planet has about 2 billion fewer people on it than it otherwise would have. What would you like to reduce the population to, climate scientists?

[Sacajaweau]

it always amuses me that they want to set the true temp to some very particular point in time.....like pre-industrial times rather than in the age of the dinosaurs.Which only proves that they have no idea as to what the co2 should be at this point in time....or 100 years hence.

[struggle]

I think you scientists should set the example for us all.

Here is your cyanide.

[Texas Eagle]

A good start. No acknowledgement from climate scientists that CO2 is plant food. I doubt if they even know that.

[MV=PY]

What, exactly, is the emergency?

What is the proper amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to address this “emergency?”

What, exactly, is the goal of “fighting climate change?”

What is a “climate change denier?” Is that a person who believes climate is constant on Earth?

This is nonsense.

[Lurker]

“there needs to be far fewer humans on the planet,” reports Bloomberg.”

I’ve got a short list of folks we can start with.

L

[ThunderSleeps]

Nah, they'll idiotically try to force population control on the most productive segments of the population first.

They'll claim that western/industrial lifestyle is too much and try to reduce us while promoting a more eco-friendly basic lifestyle. In reality, a cold hard scientific look at the species and our situation would suggest we do just the opposite. If we need to reduce numbers, it should be the vast numbers of people just getting by in Africa and Asia.

Here's why: we have to get off this rock. As a species, if we want humanity to survive eventually we have to get off Earth and ultimately out of the solar system. We won't do that living in thatched huts on the Savannah.

Statistically we are likely to get wiped out by an asteroid or comet impact if we cannot defend ourselves - that takes technology. The Earth's resources are finite, we can reduce our use of them and improve our efficiency but ultimately they will run out. We need access to the resources of the other planets, moons, and the asteroid belt - that takes technology. Ultimately the Sun will expand to a red giant and consume the inner planet. Sure, that might take 4 or 5 billion years. We'll probably have long exhausted the resources of the entire solar system before that. An even shorter timeline though is that as the sun begins to expand in the next phase, Earth will become uninhabitable in as little as 600 to 700 million years, no matter how much we reduce our carbon footprint. We've got to be in the outer planets by then, and on our way to younger neighbors before then - that takes technology.

So before we start making plans to lay yet another guilt trip on western industrial civilization let's have a reality check. We are the only ones that are actually going to save our species.

[RinaseaofDs]

I say we begin with the scientists. Then the lawyers, legislatures, and their families. Then the bankers.

Everybody’s got to put something in the kittie, after all.

When they are all gone, then we can start to really discuss depopulation.

All of this has been pretense. They want a good reason to depopulate, because their plan is to depopulate.

[Chainmail]

You first, “scientists”.

[Texas Eagle]

Exactly. Or where they want that temperature to prevail. Here in the summertime in Calizuela, it will be 100 degrees in our little NorCal (aka The State of Jefferson) hamlet during the daytime and overnight lows will be 60 to 65 degrees so we’ll take a little drive to Fort Bragg or Monterey for a few days to escape the heat and enjoy 60 to 65 degree weather whether it’s day or night. How ya gonna regulate that climate scientists?