Roughly a thousand years before the Sahara became incompatible with humans, an area the size of England sank beneath the waves. Humans lived there. We have evidence of that (as we do of pre-desert Sahara). Another big chunk of fertile human habitat that was there in the past and gone in the present. It sure as hell ‘aint a sunk just few millimeters in depth.
…I think of this sometime when people are publicly emoting over changes in a glacier…
How much CO2 was humanity responsible for then?
Source: Sahara Desert, Wobbly Basketballs, And Annoying Politics
Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today. None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true.
Source: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions
A member of the audience, Martha Readyoff of New Milford, Conn., said to Sanders, “Human population growth has more than doubled in the past 50 years. The planet cannot sustain this growth.…”
That last statement invalidates the question. It is an unproven assumption. The question should have been met with derision.
If you’re wondering why so many young people are mired in despair, futility, and occasionally violent nihilism, try listening to the Democrat presidential field babbling for 7 hours about how humanity is a virus that must be culled to save the Earth.
Source: Democrats 2020: ‘Ban All the Things!’
You may have noticed that nearly all of the doomsday theories seem to begin with the phrase, “if current trends continue.” But, as I have just reviewed, current trends don’t continue. Global temperatures go down, then up, then stay flat. Population growth tapers off, new oil reserves are discovered, agricultural yields increase at even higher rates. Doomsday forecasters always overestimate gloomy trends and underestimate human ingenuity in problem solving.
Source: Fifty Years of Apocalyptic Global Warming Predictions and Why People Believe Them
Booker told the vegan magazine VegNews earlier this month that he became vegan after coming to the realization that eating eggs “didn’t align with my spirit.”
So it’s a religious thing with ‘Fartacus‘…
While claiming he does not want to lecture Americans on their diets, Booker says Americans need to be nudged into fake cheese because the planet cannot sustain the “environmental impact” of the food industry.
Nudged? Now he wants to impose his religion on others.
Source: Cory Booker: Planet Cannot Sustain People Eating Meat – Moonbattery
NPR is a hotbed of liberal idiocy. The fact that my taxes fund this tripe highly offends me.
I recently graduated with my Bachelor’s in environmental science, and I’m very interested in protecting the environment and teaching others about climate change. I want to know ways in which I can better explain myself to others, just regular people who might not have the education that I have about climate change, because from where I’m standing, it’s blatantly obvious what’s going on, and it just seems like we really need to come together and actually make a change, or there’s going to be a really bad end.
In this paragraph ‘education’ is synonymous with ‘indoctrination’. I would agree with his statement that ‘we need to come together and actually make a change’. The change that needs to be made is for NPR to quit promoting known falsehoods. Here’s another example of the falsehoods promoted by NPR:
Nothing the environmentalists are suggesting would cause harm.
Then why are you waiting for the government to adopt your policies? Just start living your life the way you want the government to force the rest of us to live. Be an example. Go live in a cave.
Source: NPR: How Do We Talk to the Dangerous Idiots Who Disagree With Us? – Washington Free Beacon
The belief in human-caused warming exceeding a level that what would be relatively benign, and maybe even beneficial, is just that — a belief. It is not based upon known, established, and quantified scientific principles. It is based upon the assumption that natural climate change does not exist.
Got that. Let’s repeat:
It is based upon the assumption that natural climate change does not exist.
Source: Chuck Todd Devotes an Hour to Attacking a Strawman
The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific body. It was formed by the United Nations in 1988 for the purpose of establishing the need for a global solution to the alleged problem of anthropogenic climate change. Note that the mission of the IPCC was never to study the causes of climate change; were that the case, it might have devoted some of its billions of dollars in revenues over the years to examining solar cycles, changes in ocean currents, the sensitivity of climate to greenhouse gases, or the planet’s carbon cycle. The IPCC has spent trivial sums on these issues, and the authors of and contributors to its voluminous reports have few or no credentials in these fields.
Source: The IPCC is still wrong on climate change. Scientists prove it.
Mooney relies on a staple of alarmists, what Andrew Revkin calls the “single study syndrome” (e.g., see his NYT articles here and here). The mainstream media broadcast scary papers but never mention those that contradict the doomster climate story. For example, a new paper by Nicholas Lewis and Judith Curry in the Journal of Climate: “The impact of recent forcing and ocean heat uptake data on estimates of climate sensitivity.” This is one of several paper suggesting that the climate is much less sensitive to CO2 than the major climate models assume. Letting people learn about this science would ruin the science is science is settled narrative.
Source: A look at the workings of ‘Climate Propaganda Inc.’