Contrasting Views on Climate Change [semi-satire]

Semi-News/Semi-Satire ^ | 19 May 2024 | John Semmens

[John Semmens]

On the one hand, William McGuire, an Emeritus Professor of Geophysical & Climate Hazards at University College London, says "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. It looked like the coronavirus pandemic might do the trick, but its lethality was way over hyped by the World Health Organization. Maybe a breakthrough in ongoing gain-of-function bioweapons research can boost the death toll from the next pandemic to the 90% fatality rate that is needed to save the planet."

On the other hand, Dr. James Enstrom, an Emeritus Research Professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Public Health and Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, says "there is no Climate Crisis." He along with 1600 other scientists signed an open letter to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) saying that "the modest warming California has experienced has been beneficial. Higher concentrations of CO2 increase plant growth, food production, and drought-resistance of the Earth."

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) pointed out that "Pope Francis agrees with me and almost every other government leader in the world that the climate crisis is real and must be addressed by strong counterbalancing measures to eliminate the CO2 threat. In fact, I will be jetting over to the Vatican to confer directly with the Pontiff face-to-face. I'm proud to be able to say that I've played a key role in outlawing the sale of internal combustion powered vehicles in my state within the next decade, replacing fossil fuel power generation with wind and solar generated electricity, and convincing our citizens to accept the sacrifices in lifestyle that will be needed to revert to a more natural mode of living."

Enstrom predicted that "the sacrifices the Governor is trying to impose on the population are not only unnecessary, they are counterproductive. The public funds "invested" in so-called green energy have been largely wasted. Solar and wind are unreliable sources of power generation for a modern lifestyle. A consensus between politicians and a religious leader is not a persuasive reason for ignoring the real science on the subject. The amazing progress in human survival, prosperity, and comfort over the past few centuries has been due to the expanding scope of individual freedom of enterprise. Suppressing this freedom with mandates issued by politicians like the Governor is a formula for disaster."

If you missed any of the other Semi-News/Semi-Satire posts you can find them at...

https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,532097.0.html

[Carry_Okie]

They claim to reduce population to protect the environment. Yet my research demonstrates they don't have the labor available just to keep native plants alive and reproducing.

Environmental "preservation" is catastrophic for post disturbance native annual plants, not to mention their specific symbiotes and dependents. Reversing the problems arising from introduced exotics and vegetative succession is an enormous amount of work, even on a sample space basis.

[Lazamataz]

You've heard of the Flying Nun?

I give you the HeliPope-ter.

[Carry_Okie]

The tail rotor needs to go up his nether region.

The vibration would make him happy.