I was basking in the warm sun of climate change the other day. It was warm enough for me to wear shorts. This climate-change induced attire is certainly enough to cause harm to others should they be unfortunate enough to witness this dangerous sartorial spectacle.
I had to rush inside, quaking in fear, when I caught up with the day’s news. Earth, apparently, has passed 7 out of 8 (or it could be nine - the reporting isn’t consistent) of the ‘boundaries’ for humans to live safely.
Pop in a search for “earth has passed safe limit for humanity say scientists” and you’ll get a whole bunch of links to various press articles. Here are direct links to just 3.
This one, this one and this one.
There are lots more. They are all talking about some paper that was recently published in Nature. I really can’t be bothered to look at it, to be honest. Search for yourself if you’re that interested. It’s perhaps unfair of me, without having read the article, to suggest it’s little more than an academically-dressed puff piece intended to stir up the media, but I’ll put money on that being the case.
In the 3 articles linked we have The Irish Times and Eurozone using the phrase “scientists say” and The Mail using the phrase “scientists warn”. Well, jolly good and tickety-boo with extra boo. Good for them. The “scientists” have spoken! Like they did for covid.
Oh wait.
The “scientists” got it horribly wrong with covid. We were coerced and manipulated to ‘follow’ some perverted mockery of science during covid which we now have to label The Science™ in order to distinguish it from the real stuff.
Here’s how The Irish Times kicks their article off.
The earth is just burning up, so it is, don’t you know, begorrah and bejayzus - by the end of the century the earth will have warmed by tree degrees (read this in an Irish accent).
Despite leading with this provocative image, The Irish Times doesn’t mention wildfires in their article. It’s just a stock image designed to manipulate you. The actual picture regarding wildfires in the US is somewhat less alarming.
The Mail does provide us with some helpful quotes from one of the authors of the Nature piece.
Co-author Professor Joyeeta Gupta of the University of Amsterdam said:
“Justice is a necessity for humanity to live within planetary limits.
This is a conclusion seen across the scientific community in multiple heavyweight environmental assessments.
It is not a political choice. Overwhelming evidence shows that a just and equitable approach is essential to planetary stability.
We cannot have a biophysically safe planet without justice.”
What in the everloving fuck is this delirium?
I was trying to think of an alternative name for “scientist”, but gibbering bilious turd monkey doesn’t slip off the tongue very easily1.
It’s a conclusion ‘seen’, across the scientific community, I tell you, in multiple heavyweight environmental assessments.
Please believe me. Really, please, please, please believe me.
Overwhelming evidence - all your limits of whelm have been well and truly shattered - “shows” that a just and equitable approach is essential to planetary stability.
I want some of what she’s smoking.
But pride of place has to go to Eurozone. Here’s the picture they led with.
The caption is, frankly, hilarious.
A Samburu man stands near a donkey carcass as he patrols to protect livestock from theft in Samburu County, Kenya
Yes - just some random image that has precisely nothing to do with the Nature paper.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand, just when you thought it couldn’t get any dafter, here’s what Eurozone had to say about the study
For the first time, the study includes measures of “justice,” which includes preventing harm to countries, ethnicities and genders.
Genders?
Oh, I see now, you’re one of those eejits.
To be scrupulously fair to the Nature article, at least based upon the reporting, it does seem it also addresses things like pollution and access to clean water and the like. I hope no one, even the most ardent climate “sceptic”, advocates for dumping toxic chemical sludge everywhere, for example.
But mixed in amongst the sensible stuff is the gibbering biliousness.
Gupta again;
“Potential future tipping points are not the only risks we consider, damage is already happening to millions of people at 1C of climate warming.
Our climate Earth System Boundary exposes the injustice in current targets and underscores the urgency of immediately phasing out fossil fuels and accelerating work from all directions to meet Paris Agreement goals.”
It’s the usual wild claims about how a modest warming (if it’s even happening at all?) has harmed millions, millions, we tell you, and we need to immediately stop using fossil fuels.
It’s about as believable as some experimental Pharma gunk having saved millions of lives isn’t it?
One interesting thing these climate weirdos never seem to address is that increasing CO2 will increase yields.
“Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, it can be calculated…that the 120-ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration [from 280 ppm to about 400 pm today] increased agricultural production per unit land area” for various crops averaging 57% and ranging from 28% to 70% as follows, listed in order of the largest increase:
70% for C3 cereals
67% for root and tuber crops
62% for legumes
51% for vegetables
33% for fruits and melons
28% for C4 cereals
This isn’t something you’ll see in the likes of The Irish Times - although one would have thought they’d be celebrating the increase in the production of potatoes.
The quote is drawn from here. Whether it’s correct or not (and it’s certainly true that increased CO2 can be very beneficial for plants) it’s not something you’ll ever see reported in the propagandistic shite we call our media.
I produced this ‘meme’ during the covid fiasco, but it seems we haven’t been able to resurrect science. We’re all still following the gibbering bilious turd monkeys and following The Science™
If you’re one of those disturbed individuals who see the word ‘monkey’ and automatically jump to the conclusion it’s some racial epithet, then perhaps you should examine your own racist tendencies here.
If they don’t scare us enough how will they be able to take our Rights and Freedoms away, and trade them for carbon credits?
About that footnote: or if the one adressed as monkey is an orangutan librarian.
Oook!
Speaking of the ever-warming planet, tonight was the first night with +10C nightly temperature this year. Then again, I do live in the sub-arctic, aka middle Sweden.
Today, between 60% and 75% of Sweden is forested or woodland (depending on definitions andcut-offs, hence the 15% "swing"). When my mother was born, it was way less than 50%. In the 17th century, it was less than 35%. The land was used for agriculture and livestock.
Surely Britain too has some kind of service that's been tasked with aerial photography, where one can look at how farms, fields and pastures has disappeared over the years? I mention it because a neighbour who grew up in this village (year of birth 1953) mentioned that there was no forest within at least 3km back then. It was all pastures and fields.
Now, if was to piss out the bedroom window I'd hit a birch. (Right before the wife would push me over the window-sill.)