The Extinction Rebellion’s hysteria vs. climate science

By Larry Kummer at the Fabius Maximus website, 3 May 2019.

Summary: The Extinction Rebellion and the Green New Deal arouse fears of extinction for other species, and humanity. Only the complicit silence of climate scientists makes this possible. Compare the alarmists’ claims with what scientists said in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). Too bad that journalists don’t.

ID 25163217 © Ben Goode | Dreamstime.
ID 25163217 © Ben Goode | Dreamstime.

Climate hysteria goes mainstream. Climate scientists are silent.

The Extinction Rebellion – “Life on Earth is in crisis: scientists agree we have entered a period of abrupt climate breakdown, and we are in the midst of a mass extinction of our own making. …see how we are heading for extinction.” See their evidence here.

If Politicians Can’t Face Climate Change, Extinction Rebellion Will” by David Graeber (prof anthropology at the LSE) in a NYT op-ed – “A new movement is demanding solutions. They may just be in time to save the planet.” Also see “Extinction Rebellion and Momentum join forces on climate crisis” by Martha Busby at The Guardian.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) is interviewed by Ta-Nehisi Coates at an “MLK Now” event in New York. Video here.

“Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us are looking up and we’re like: ‘The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?’”

Planet Earth Is Doomed. How Do I Go On?” by Liza Featherstone at The Nation.

Andrew Samuels, a Jungian psychoanalyst and a professor at the University of Essex, tells me that therapists are increasingly hearing from patients who are deeply disturbed by climate change and are struggling to cope.”

We Need Radical Thinking on Climate Change” by Kevin Drum at Mother Jones – “{The Green New Deal} would only change the dates for planetary suicide by a decade or so.”

The Uninhabitable Earth” by David Wallace-Wells in New York Magazine – “Famine, economic collapse, a sun that cooks us: what climate change could wreak – sooner than you think.” Expanded into a book: The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warmingclip_image003.

The five ways the human race could be WIPED OUT because of global warming.” By Rod Ardehali at the Daily Mail. H/t to the daily links at Naked Capitalism. Promo for Falter: Has the Human Game Begun to Play Itself Out?clip_image003[1], a book by Bill McKibben.

The media overflows with credulous stories about this hysteria. It must be having a bad effect on America. Activist Naomi Klein wants journalists to deliver even more alarmism and less science. There is almost no basis for these fears.

First fruits of the Extinction Rebellion: the UK parliament declares a “Climate Emergency.” This puts the UK on a “war footing”, a useful way to increase a government’s power over its people.

How much more warming can we expect?

The IPCC is the “gold standard” source showing the consensus of climate science. Here is the scariest graph from the Working Group I of the IPCC’s AR5: figure 12.5, projections of global temperatures to 2300 under four scenarios (showing the increase from the 1986–2005 average).


This is good science, although speculative. It is a weak basis for public policy. First, the worst case scenario, RCP8.5, gets most of the attention – and dominates this picture. But it is either unlikely or impossible (also see this), as a good worst-case scenario should be. A table shows the result more clearly, without the worst case scenario dominating the picture. See Table SPM.2 of the Summary for Policymakers from Working Group I. The increase is from the average of 1986–2005.


This shows the second weakness of that graph: hiding the most likely results. The projections through 2065 for the center two scenarios show a 0.9 to 1.8°C increase. The world and humanity have experienced such swings during the past 3,000 years, and will again no matter what we do (even the carefully curated proxy reconstructions show a swings of ~1°C from 1000 to 1600 AD).

Third, climate models’ ability to make multi-decade predictions has not been validated, let alone proven by experience. Forecasts past 2065 rely on assumptions about factors that range from difficult to predict (e.g., global fertility) to unknowable (e.g., economic growth and technological progress). Forecasts past 2100 are imaginative exercises in modeling.

About the coming extinctions!

What does the Working Group II of AR5 say about extinctions? Its Summary for Policymakers gives a bold warning.

“Extinction risk is increased under all RCP scenarios, with risk increasing with both magnitude and rate of climate change.”

That is politics, meaningless rhetoric, not science. It tells us nothing about timing and magnitudes of changes compared to temperature increases. Turn to the full report for answers. First, the good news – they give a rebuttal to the hysteria about the mass extinctions supposedly occurring now due to climate change (more details here).

“{O}nly a few recent species extinctions have been attributed as yet to climate change (high confidence) …” {p4.}

“While recent climate change contributed to the extinction of some species of Central American amphibians (medium confidence), most recent observed terrestrial species extinctions have not been attributed to climate change (high confidence).” {p44.}

“Overall, there is very low confidence that observed species extinctions can be attributed to recent climate warming, owing to the very low fraction of global extinctions that have been ascribed to climate change and tenuous nature of most attributions. (p300.)

Looking to the future.

Much of the report discusses possible results of 4°C warming above preindustrial levels – as of 2018, we are now ~1°C above preindustrial (likely 0.8 – 1.2°C). Supposedly a raise of over 0.5°C will prove disastrous (i.e., over the 1.5°C red line). A further increase of 3°C is wildly improbable by 2065 (the visibility limit of reliable forecasting), and unlikely even by 2100 (i.e., that is in the middle of the range for the improbable RCP8.5 scenario).

WGI used a recent baseline for temperature comparisons: the average of 1986–2005. WGII measured from preindustrial temperatures, defined as before 1750 (WGI occasionally uses preindustrial, such as for historical analysis). Comparing with preindustrial has advantages for climate alarmists.

1. It measures warming from close to the trough of the coolest period for thousands of years.

2. There is no instrumental record for global temperatures in 1750.

3. Most valuable, it allows conflating the natural warming from 1750 to WWII with the mostly anthropogenic warming (AGW) since WWII. So, to the public, all ill effects of this warming become effects of AGW. The Extinction Rebellion explicitly gives a similar lie: “Human activities have caused the planet’s average surface temperature to rise about 1.1°C since the late 19th century.”

What does WGII say about extinctions resulting from AGW? They give many scary findings. But, like the headline conclusion given above, most either lack meaningful details, or are given low confidence, or both.

“Models project that the risk of species extinctions will increase in the future due to climate change, but there is low agreement concerning the fraction of species at increased risk, the regional and taxonomic distribution of such extinctions, and the timeframe over which extinctions could occur.” {p67.}

“Within this century, magnitudes and rates of climate change associated with medium- to high-emission scenarios (RCP4.5, 6.0, and 8.5) pose high risk of abrupt and irreversible regional-scale change in the composition, structure, and function of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems, including wetlands (medium confidence).” (p15.)

“From a global perspective, open ocean NPP {net primary productivity} will decrease moderately by 2100 under both low- (SRES B1 or RCP4.5) and high-emission scenarios (medium confidence; SRES A2 or RCPs 6.0, 8.5) …. However, there is limited evidence and low agreement on the direction, magnitude and differences of a change of NPP in various ocean regions and coastal waters projected by 2100 (low confidence).” (p135.)

“There is a high risk that the large magnitudes and high rates of climate change associated with low-mitigation climate scenarios (RCP4.5 and higher) will result within this century in abrupt and irreversible regional-scale change in the composition, structure, and function of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems, for example in the Amazon (low confidence) and Arctic (medium confidence), leading to substantial additional climate change.” (p276.)

WGII discusses bad impacts on some specific kinds of creatures, such as corals. Nothing about extinction of humans. The 1,150 pages of WGII have a remarkable lack of specificity about what we can expect from the various scenarios. There is one exception, a paper that WGII cites 22 times. It was published ten years ago, with no mention of its replication or follow-up research. This is an example of what Andrew Revkin condemns as the “single study syndrome” (e.g., here and here).

“Fischlin et al. (2007) found that 20 to 30% of the plant and animal species that had been assessed to that time were considered to be at increased risk of extinction if the global average temperature increase exceeds 2°C to 3°C above the preindustrial level with medium confidence, and that substantial changes in structure and functioning of terrestrial, marine, and other aquatic ecosystems are very likely under that degree of warming and associated atmospheric CO2 concentration. No time scale was associated with these findings.” (p278.)

“All model-based analyses since AR4 broadly confirm this concern, leading to high confidence that climate change will contribute to increased extinction risk for terrestrial and freshwater species over the coming century. Most studies indicate that extinction risk rises rapidly with increasing levels of climate change, but some do not. …There is, however, low agreement concerning the overall fraction of species at risk, the taxa and places most at risk, and the time scale for climate change-driven extinctions to occur.” (p300.)

AR5 describes the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result: “virtually certain 99–100% probability, very likely 90–100%, likely 66–100%, about as likely as not 33–66%, unlikely 0–33%, very unlikely 0–10%, exceptionally unlikely 0–1%.”

ID 76204718 © Panya Kuanun | Dreamstime.
ID 76204718 © Panya Kuanun | Dreamstime.


The Left has incited hysteria about climate change for political gain (the Green New Deal is their maximum dreams given form). Their claims go far beyond consensus climate science, with little basis in the work of the IPCC. Climate scientists and their institutions have remained silent for years as the Left’s claims grew more extreme and less grounded in science. This is irresponsible, perhaps even professional malfeasance.

Making these issues into an irrational crusade makes rational public policy far more difficult to achieve. We cannot prepare for future climate change, or even the inevitable repeat of past extreme weather.

Only one can win in the fight of the Extinction Rebellion vs. climate science. But both can lose. We all can lose.

An ignored warning from long ago, a path not taken

Here is a remarkable op-ed in the BBC: “Science must end climate confusion” by climate scientist Richard Betts, 11 January 2010. He cautions about scientists exaggerating or misrepresenting climate science “if it helps make the news or generate support for their political or business agenda.” Too bad they did not heed his warning.

Other posts about climate scientists’ culpability through silence

1. About the corruption of climate science.

2. The noble corruption of climate science – Falling prey to the Nobel Lie.

3. A crisis of overconfidence in climate science.

For more information see The keys to understanding climate change.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 5, 2019 5:54 pm

I smell a rat.

No one in their right mind, even alarmists, believe that either the world will be catastrophically, irreversibly damaged in 12 years time or that we can somehow replace fossil fuels in the next century never mind by 2030, 2040 or 2050.

Our politicians know this. Our business leaders also know this, so what is going on?

It can’t be a socialist global revolution in 12 years either, that just isn’t going to happen. And in 12 years time our indoctrinated schoolchildren will be young adults and capable of recognising that nothing has changed. I mean, if Trump is re-elected there will be only six or seven years of the climate scare left before the next president.

I might suggest that the intensity of the BBC climate hype is just to distract from Brexit, but then why is AOC campaigning so fervently?

The only thing I can put it down to is good old tax receipts to pay off national debt. Certainly in the UK our governments are obsessed with taxes being to route to salvation of everything under the sun.

Reply to  HotScot
May 5, 2019 6:42 pm

“No one in their right mind, even alarmists, believe that either the world will be catastrophically, irreversibly damaged in 12 years time or that we can somehow replace fossil fuels in the next century never mind by 2030, 2040 or 2050.”

Wanna bet? There’s a lot of deranged minds out there that have been scrambled by leftist indoctrination and psychotropic drugs.

Reply to  icisil
May 6, 2019 3:10 am

I just gave a microscope the daughter of a friend. The demonstrate to her and her friend how to use it, I took a leaf from the garden and got it on the screen. I explained that the little dots were called stomata and were where the plant absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere.

When I said CO2 the girl took a sudden gasp of breathe and looked very worried. I was expecting her to ask if it mean the tree was going to die.

Next time I will take the time to explain basic biology of plant food to them.

Reply to  HotScot
May 5, 2019 6:44 pm


“No one in their right mind …”

Sad to say, history has many many episodes of people believing quite bizarre, even impossible things. We don’t even need to look back to distant times in far-away lands. The Satanic Ritual Abuse panic. The Daycare Abuse panics, etc.

It is even easier to believe impossible things when they benefit your political cause.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Larry Kummer
May 5, 2019 9:11 pm

Worse, they believed Hitler and Lenin.

Reply to  Larry Kummer
May 6, 2019 11:05 am

Eugenics in US and Germany
Lysenkoism in Soviet Union

Reply to  HotScot
May 5, 2019 7:07 pm

I’m more pessimistic than you, Scot. Climate change hysteria is an echo change and a vacuum. It’s an echo chamber because the loudest voices simply affirm the status quo– that the world is doomed, so tax the hell out of everyone and destroy capitalism. It’s a vacuum because it sucks up the feeble-minded general public and cons them into believing it. Any suitable large, self-affirming belief system can sustain itself and grow so long as it keeps fueling itself with rhetoric and hysteria.

I think that come 2030, when kids now are adults, the hysteria will still be around. There will just be different rhetoric, more faulty “science”, lots of grandstanding politicians, and plenty of media propaganda to go around. It will not matter that the Earth survived as did the hundreds of thousands of species of creatures that roam over it. It will not matter that life will (probably) be better. All that matters is that there will be a new flavor of hysteria to promulgate (or rather, foist).

Reply to  HotScot
May 5, 2019 7:59 pm

I wouldn’t count out the socialist/anti-capitalist angle so quickly. This is definitely an attack on both consumerism and capitalism (in any form). XR has said as much. They have admitted that the current climate movement, and I suppose controlling its narrative, is their best chance of bringing down capitalism. So they are aiming for numbers of voters that will vote for any climate action, no matter what political ideology is attached to it. The other aspect of it is called the Overton Window. That is the accepted/allowed range of opinions in the public sphere. They are trying to make it such that no viewpoint other than climate catastrophe is acceptable public discourse – and then, by extension, only versions of anti-capitalism to be regarded as reasonable in the public discourse. That want capitalism and consumerism to be seen as evils, creating space for other political ideologies to take over.

They obviously know very well that it is impossible to decarbonise within 6 years (by 2025). There isn’t even the industrial capacity to do it, or the trained engineers. Just in the UK it would mean scrapping and replacing 28 million gas central heating boilers and 38 million cars. Thats not possible. No, what they want to do is control the conversation, and control what people are allowed to say in the media. But its still got communism and socialism running under it.

As for the actual attacks on consumerism and capitalism. Well, capitalism is a work in progress. Theres parts we can do better on, regulate better, free up better etc. and I’m sure it suffers from the normal issues of lobbying, corruption etc etc etc. But so would all other political systems, and they can have have far worse impacts than just being so successful at reducing poverty overall that they can put large strain on the planet. Consumerism is different though. Consumption is an issue because of low rates of recycling leading to high rates of extractive/new resource use/aquisition. Metals, for example, use much less energy to recycle than extract, refine, process etc. We could get much better at these ‘circular economy’ ideas, and that is the answer to consumerisms impact on the planet – not to just desire to stop people having new stuff. We’re never going to stop needing new stuff, even if we get better at fixing things and making them last longer. The answer isn’t to just not have new things like washing machines, fridges, heating, computers. The answer is to reduce their impact on the environment so the other 3.5 billion people can have them too. That means trying to just extract the resources only once, and then recycle them thereafter. Once again, XR are using the problem to their own gain. Consumerism isn’t an evil – its an ethical imperative. We’re just a bit crap with it currently.

Reply to  Garry
May 6, 2019 3:24 am

Agreed Garry.Ive always maintained that Global warming/climate change hysteria really took off with the fall of communism in Europe.Its a replacement ideology to gain the same end result.At the end of the day which countries pay lip service to the scam.China,Russia they don’t give a toss regarding CO2 emissions.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Garry
May 6, 2019 6:18 am

“No, what they want to do is control the conversation, and control what people are allowed to say in the media.”

That’s exactly right. Authoritarians always want to control the message. The truth is an impediment to authoritarians, so they seek to suppress the truth and put their own version of the truth out there instead.

It is a constant battle to maintain Freedom of Speech.

Larry in Texas
Reply to  HotScot
May 5, 2019 8:06 pm

It’s all about power and control. That’s all it is, through the noise and wailing. Power and control, especially by government and scientific elites over all of the rest of us. A pathway to a totalitarian regime.

Reply to  HotScot
May 6, 2019 10:59 am

12 years left to spend all your money ?

That’s old news, HotScot — where have you been ?

We just lost two years.

There’s only 10 years left now, per Robert Francis Beto “the crazy hand waver” O’Rourke.

Do I hear 8 years, from any of youze Dumbocrats?

8 years going once, 8 years going twice …

Reply to  HotScot
May 6, 2019 5:15 pm

It all comes from a complete misreading of the last IPCC report. It said we have 12 years to change carbon outputs in order to be able to keep the temperature rise under a 1.5C limit by 2100. They are pretty sure if temps rise by only 1.5C nothing too earth shattering will happen – they are even reasonably sure a rise of 2 C will be manageable, but 1.5C, they feel, will be a safer limit.

Somehow this was twisted into “A DECADE UNTIL DOOM”. We all know how this happened.

Dennis Sandberg
May 5, 2019 5:57 pm

Key quotes”
“Only the complicit silence of climate scientists makes this possible. Climate scientists and their institutions have remained silent for years as the Left’s claims grew more extreme and less grounded in science. This is irresponsible, perhaps even professional malfeasance. Forget “the industrial/military complex”, the big threat for the next two decades is the “DC swamp/academia complex”. If Trump’s Climate Commission can’t get this DEMOCRAT/RHINO “malfeasance” stopped we’re absolutely, positively going to see some horrible economy threatening legislation.

Reply to  Dennis Sandberg
May 5, 2019 6:46 pm

“Only the complicit silence of climate scientists makes this possible”

Too true. Case in point – we have an election soon here in Australia and the socialist Labor Party promises to ”tackle climate change” if they win. This fanciful idea is of course driven by public pressure which is in turn driven by social media.
No one in the mainstream media really has any idea about the pitifully small contribution AU makes to the co2 bank. In a nutshell, we contribute 1.5% of one half of 3.7%. In other words it’s so close to zero you may as well say zero. No one even mentions the fact about H20 being 95% of GHG’s. Surely the ”climate scientists” who well know these facts should point thremout so all the zombies out there are more closely in touch with reality? But what do we here? Nothing.
This, I can only assume is due to either protectionism, potential embarrassment, alternative ideological agendas or a combination of the three. Meanwhile the kids continue to strike and any dissent is quickly seen off as ”stone age thinking” if it has the power to break through the wall of media silence in the first place.
Pretty scary stuff.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mike
May 6, 2019 6:25 am

“No one even mentions the fact about H20 being 95% of GHG’s. Surely the ”climate scientists” who well know these facts should point thremout so all the zombies out there are more closely in touch with reality?”

Yeah, we never hear about H2O and the positive feedback CO2 is supposed to cause in H2O, and is the only way we could have a runaway Greenhouse on Earth.

Perhaps that is because there has never been a runaway Greenhouse in Earth’s history even with much higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and/or because there is no “Hotspot”

Anyway, Alarmists seldom bring up H2O anymore. Things are not working the way they claimed CAGW would work. That must mean their claims are wrong.

Reply to  Dennis Sandberg
May 5, 2019 7:12 pm

Scientists, strictly speaking, are not governed by professional ethics. Engineers, lawyers, and medical doctors are governed by ethical codes, scientists aren’t.

Scientists can’t commit professional malfeasance.

Reply to  commieBob
May 5, 2019 8:56 pm


Why do you say that? The concept of “professional ethics” applies when specialists have special knowledge and skill. “How the use of this knowledge should be governed when providing a service to the public can be considered a moral issue and is termed professional ethics.”

It applies to those “capable of making judgments, applying their skills, and reaching informed decisions in situations that the general public cannot because they have not attained the necessary knowledge and skills.”

I know many climate scientists. They often speak of professional ethics.

Reply to  commieBob
May 6, 2019 2:58 am

“Scientists can’t commit professional malfeasance.”

Rolls eyes, shakes head, walks away

Reply to  icisil
May 6, 2019 3:45 am

malfeasance[ mal-fee-zuh ns ]
the performance by a public official of an act that is legally unjustified, harmful, or contrary to law; wrongdoing (used especially of an act in violation of a public trust).

Are scientists with their snouts in the trough of public money public officials?

Are they subject to Courts Martial? Answerable to State Medical Boards or to the General Medical Council? Is there any professional body which will take them to task – other than their academic authority whose only interest is to protect its own funding, not the protection of the public (or public trust as above)?

The criteria for the definitions of malfeasance in these cases are in the hands of academia. Has an academic scientist making claims which support CAGW ever been subjected to the process inflicted on Dr Peter Ridd?

So no, scientists can be “really naughty boys”, but rarely, if ever, will it constitute malfeasance by the accepted definition of the term.

Reply to  PeterGB
May 6, 2019 6:03 am

By the restrictive definition of malfeasance, engineers, lawyers, and medical doctors cannot commit malfeasance, either, so commiebob’s original comment is wrong from the start.

I assumed his intent was to use a synonym for malpractice, and scientists can certainly be guilty of that, even if there is no controlling authority.

Reply to  PeterGB
May 6, 2019 7:39 am

Peter, is a pretty low-grade dictionary you are using. Here are other definitions, all showing that malfeasance is a broad concept.

” dishonest and illegal behaviour, especially by a person in authority”
— Cambridge Dictionary. Climate scientists have authority (esp in their own minds).

“Wrongdoing or misconduct especially by a public official”
— Merriam-Webster. It says “esp by”, not “only by.”

Reply to  Larry Kummer
May 6, 2019 8:06 am

Thanks, Larry, I can’t disagree, but the main point I was trying to make (to back up the original poster who said that scientists can’t commit professional malfeasance – was it commiebob?) is that in academia malfeasance has a different set of parameters to those applying to people answerable to professional bodies. Whereas a doctor, pharmacist, engineer, lawyer etc might find themselves answering to their respective professional body, the academic scientist has few such fears or constraints – so long as he/she toes the party line and does not indulge in outright criminality.
Yes, the original statement was a generalisation, and, as has been said before, most generalisations are generally wrong !

Ron Long
Reply to  commieBob
May 6, 2019 3:12 am

commieBob, I have no idea where your anti-scientist view comes from, but your comment is neither true or reasonable. Of the group mentioned only Medical Doctors take an oath at their degree-awarding ceremony, this being the Hippocratic Oath. At one of these events I attended due to a friend of my wife graduating, the speaker also asked if anyone in the audience objected to any recipient on Amy professional basis, and no person in the audience responded. I personally have been a Scientist, with BS in Geology and MS in Economic Geology degrees and have seen a mix of conduct from Engineers, Doctors, and Scientists generally reflective of their Socio-Economic status, not the same from Lawyers, who appear to me to be either really good or not so much. Profesional ethics? I , for myself and my company, turned down participation in the Uranium One conglomerate which enriched the Clinton Foundation while H. Clinton was Sec of State.

Reply to  Ron Long
May 6, 2019 9:20 am

Engineers, lawyers, and medical doctors need a license to practice. If they commit malfeasance (as defined by the licensing body) they can lose their license and thus be unable to carry on with their profession. Scientists face no such restrictions. They can’t violate an ethical or professional code of conduct because they have none.

p.s. I’m not anti scientist per se. What I am against is the folks who claim a degree of certainty that is completely unwarranted. An example would be Dr. Mann’s insistence that CAGW is as certain as the law of gravity.

Reply to  commieBob
May 6, 2019 10:32 am

Commie Bob,

(1) “Scientists face no such restrictions. They can’t violate an ethical or professional code of conduct because they have none.”

You are giving a rebuttal to something nobody is saying. But although they have no licensing requirements,

(2) “They can’t violate an ethical or professional code of conduct because they have none.”

That’s totally false. The two major climate-related organizations of US climate scientists are the AGU and AMS. There are global organizations, such as the WMO. Most or all have codes of ethics (or something similar).

American Geophysical Union

American Meteorological Society

World Meteorological Organization – for the staff

Reply to  Larry Kummer
May 6, 2019 10:39 am

“Most or all have codes of ethics (or something similar).”
Which seem not to preclude falsifying data, conspiracy to do so, etc.

Ron Long
Reply to  commieBob
May 6, 2019 10:35 am

Your comments are mis-guided, commieBob. Engineers, Lawyers, even persons with medical degrees, and yes, even geologists can work for companies or themselves as long as they do not sell services to the public. When persons sell services (and not the general product of a company, for instance) they must be registered with appropriate agency. Yes, even geologists must register if they plan to submit comments about a companies activities to the stock-buying public. This is under National Instrument 43-101 in Canada, for example. What benefit did the stock-buying public receive from requiring geologists or engineers to register? Since all scams then needed to be signed-off on by one of them, and the potential for getting caught went up, it drove up the price for this class of person and only somewhat reduced the incidence of scams.

Reply to  commieBob
May 6, 2019 11:24 am

Ron Long May 6, 2019 at 10:35 am

… Engineers, … can work for companies or themselves as long as they do not sell services to the public.

Yes, but if the product or service requires an engineer’s signature, they can’t sign it unless they have a valid license. So, someone without a license could, in theory, design part of a cell phone but someone else would have to sign off on it. That actually involves duplication of effort so, without a license, it makes no sense to have such a person design part of a cell phone. On the other hand, someone without a license could design a test jig. That’s in the jurisdiction where I live.

The complication is that the law varies between jurisdictions. disgusting example

Reply to  commieBob
May 6, 2019 1:15 pm

Peter GB,

“Which seem not to preclude falsifying data, conspiracy to do so, etc.”

People are people, everywhere. Codes of Ethics are goals to which we aspire. Lawyers and doctors have them, and both have large numbers of those who routinely violate them.

That’s life. Why are you surprised that scientists are people?

Reply to  Larry Kummer
May 6, 2019 2:17 pm

Larry K, I am not at all surprised that some scientists do it, as you say they, like the rest of us, are mere mortals. If, however, the majority of doctors in one particular field, let’s say paediatricians, or the majority of structural engineers were to commit malfeasance, then I would start to look for the source of the smell. Perhaps there is no ordure odour emitted by the majority of climate scientists, or perhaps it is just that they cannot commit malfeasance.
We accept that the occasional lawyer or dentist might go off the rails and get their just desserts, we hope that the system weeds out the rotten apples. In the case of climate scientists we seem to have lost nearly the entire barrel with everybody pretending not to notice. Malfeasance? Nah, mate, nothing to see here, move along!

Larry in Texas
Reply to  Dennis Sandberg
May 5, 2019 8:10 pm

Don’t forget the “government-science complex” that Ike mentioned (presciently, I might add) in his 1961 Farewell Address. People forget about that one.

May 5, 2019 6:02 pm

Crusties and smellies

Time for the ex-stinktion rebellion.

Pamela Gray
May 5, 2019 6:07 pm

Science progresses one death of a Professor Emeritus at a time. Meanwhile, the tide will turn slowly. Why? Because we deal with humans, who tend to make one big ass mistake at a time. What is the usual cause of these big ass science research mistakes? Confounding factors.

May 5, 2019 6:17 pm

Many people hear the word, “extinction”, and they seem to have a childish reaction to it, as if a one-year-old child had never heard about death before. Death is part of life, just as extinction is part of life systems. Obviously, this impression is not given in our educational system, and so alarmists can take advantage of many people’s infantile sense of the idea.

Also, many people do not realize how many species came into existence over time. Eons ago, there were nowhere near the number of species that exist today. If more exist, then there are more to go extinct.

Again, too many people, first, have childish attitudes about extinction, and then these atttitudes are manipulated further by emotions summoned to get approval for certain policies.

The so called “Extinction Revolution”, thus, is a scam on multiple levels.

Menicholas McGinley
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
May 5, 2019 8:21 pm

I do not think that assuring people that extinction is no big deal is really the way to go here.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Menicholas McGinley
May 5, 2019 10:54 pm

M McGinley: A betting pool would be a good thing though to bring the hype down don’t you think? This stuff is made up by the Eurocentric totes, Malthusians, Eugenic nuts, Club of Rome, Ehrlich of the Populaton Bomb… Read this stuff and see how they all turned out.

Of all the doomster alarm over the centuries, not ONE has come to pass. The not so mighty human race can’t command enough energy to cause other than localized temporary damage to the huge system that is the planet. Hiroshima was our biggest deliberate effort to inflict damage. It was a horror indeed for the people of this city, but, to everyone’s surprise, before a year had passed, radioactivity had declined to background levels. Such blast damage is subject to the inverse-square-of -the-distance attenuator.

Now, lets see how many Hiroshima bombs worth of energy the sun hits us with daily. From a critique by WUWT of a silly ‘Sceptical Science’ blog posting, the sun hits us with 1000 Hiroshima bombs worth of energy every SECOND. Human might, no contest!

This latest climateering hype is a front for a néomarxiste global gouvernement putsch – and another non starter. I’d like to somehow get a betting pool together with a clear, wide, win-lose bet.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gary Pearse
May 5, 2019 10:59 pm

Oh I should gave mentioned that, of course, the 1000 bomb sunshine is a benevolent affair! BTW, Im a geologist and an engineer and I studied paleoclimate as part if a geology course long before it was corrupted.

Nick Schroeder
May 5, 2019 6:22 pm

At their next rally an Extinction Rebellion choir should perform a rendition of “Tomorrow belongs to me” from Cabaret.

Seems appropriate.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
May 5, 2019 10:33 pm

At the Green New Deal rally in Melbourne back in March, that was exactly the emotion that was conjured up.
As the gathering of predominantly women and children was encouraged to shout “Seek Higher”, “Seek Higher”…..the public address system was sufficiently low tech for it to project across the park as a 1930’s chant from the German socialists.
Very reminiscent of past times, very disturbing.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Rod Evans
May 6, 2019 12:45 am

I am informed, they were actually saying “Reach Higher”, “Reach Higher”…. that may explain why the kids and their guardians were raising their arms in the air…..!

May 5, 2019 6:23 pm

The acolytes keep telling us that since they don’t make these claims themselves, they bear no responsibility for them. However:
1) These claims are being made in their name.
2) They are benefiting financially from the panic caused in part by such claims.
3) They frequently take the most outrageous statements made by fringe members of the skeptic movement to paint everyone in the skeptic movement.

A scientist should care about the truth. That they don’t, indicate that they are politicians, not scientists.

David Blenkinsop
May 5, 2019 8:20 pm

Just to lighten things up a bit, the “cracked earth” picture attached to this article reminds me of the ‘end of the world’ scene from the animated TV series Futurama,

(quoting Frye)
“so long earth, thanks for the air and whatnot”

(Note, here, that the whole end of the world thing is followed by a second big bang and the birth of a new universe, something like the scenario in sf writer Poul Anderson’s 1970 novel “Tau Zero”. So the superficially “gloom-ish” theme does come out science fictionally light-hearted, more or less).

Tim Gillespie
May 5, 2019 8:30 pm

What no one talks about is that we have increased human population over last 100 or so years by 5 billion people who are all consuming and emitting. Why is not population fertility control not on these people’s agenda? It seems an obvious one to help take pressure away from the planet and its limited resources.

Reply to  Tim Gillespie
May 6, 2019 12:12 pm

They are talking about humans as a plague on a beautiful planet. For example, that is the overall message in Yuval Noah Harari’s Sapiens. It is interesting in a way, but the underlying message that we need to go back to ‘premodern subsistence’.

There are lots of other books and blogs that see modern culture as a disease. Its a relief to read Steven Pinker.

Reply to  Tim Gillespie
May 6, 2019 5:18 pm

In almost every country, fertility rates have dropped to replacement levels or below already. The holdout countries are extremely poverty stricken countries like Mozambique, Malawi, etc. The only reason the earth’s population is currently rising is because we are all so much healthier we live longer. But that, being good news, doesn’t make CNN.
Once we get past the aging bubble brought on by the rapid cure of most diseases and the end of starvation on a global scale, there will be about a century of population drop before it evens out.

Dave M.
May 5, 2019 8:56 pm

There are very few climate-related extinctions that could be directly threatening to the continued viability of humanity anyway. The market should be enough to maintain a supply of things we can and would want to eat.

James Clarke
May 5, 2019 9:10 pm

By what mechanism will these plants and animals go extinct? Generally speaking, plants and animals do better in warmer climates with increased CO2 concentrations. If anything, humans are making the planet more hospitable for life, not less so!

The argument goes that the planet will get warmer and a certain percentage of species will die. That’s it. How or why they will die is never explained! Adaptation is rarely talked about, except in a few studies where the scientists are shocked that their species of choice turns our to be more adaptable to change than they expected. Why would they assume that any species is not adaptable to change? Since evolution is really the survival of the most adaptable, the assumption should be that any species currently alive has some adaptability, or they wouldn’t be here.

This is just another example of how climate change science isn’t about climate change or science, as neither one needs to be present to be rewarded the peoples tax dollars.

May 5, 2019 9:24 pm

Scientists such as Hansen and Mann are committing professional infamy.

May 5, 2019 10:22 pm

The Amazon Synod and the Vatican’s Radical Environmentalism

Quoting Laudato Si, the Preparatory Document itself defines this new ecological “sin.” No longer an offense against God or the breaking of one of the Ten Commandments, it defines “sin” as any act against the Earth. “Already in the biblical stories of creation it emerges that human existence is grounded in ‘three fundamental and closely intertwined relationships: with God, with our neighbor, and with the earth itself…These vital relationships have been broken, both outwardly and within us. This rupture is sin.’” Without mincing words, the Synod fathers affirm that this ecological sin against the earth is “an offense against the Creator, an attack on biodiversity and, in short, on life itself.” [emphasis mine].
Although the document does name specific acts as sins, its earlier condemnation of oil extraction, mining, and mechanized farming naturally leads one to believe that those activities are an offense against God. True repentance of one’s ecological sins goes far beyond cleaning up air pollution or recycling. “Integral ecology,” they write, “invites us to an integral conversion…Only when we are aware of how our lifestyles – and the ways we produce, trade, consume, and discard – affect the life of our environment and our societies can we initiate a comprehensive change of direction.

Pan Amazon Synod Watch

‘Ecocide’ Would Criminalize Resource Development

I have written often here of the threat posed by the “nature rights” movement, designed by radical environmentalists to thwart large scale development and extraction of natural resources by allowing anyone to sue to uphold nature’s “rights” to “exist and persist.” The movement has been gaining ground for the last several years, most recently with voters in Toledo granting “rights” to Lake Erie.
Think of “nature rights” as a metaphorical shield against human thriving from the bounties of the earth. But radical environmentalists also have a spear — the “ecocide” movement. Ecocide activists are striving to enact international laws that would punish those who make large-scale uses of nature as criminals, equivalently odious as perpetrators of genocide and ethnic cleansing. In other words, oil-industry executives and the like could find themselves in the dock at the Hague facing years in prison.

Reply to  brent
May 5, 2019 11:09 pm

The “Earth Charter” Is the work of Steven Rockefeller, Maurice Strong, and Gorbachev.
Interview: Maurice Strong on a “People’s Earth Charter”
But, let us be very clear, the UN action is not going to be the only goal. The real goal of the Earth Charter is that it will in fact become like the Ten Commandments, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It will become a symbol of the aspirations and the commitments of people everywhere. And, that is where the political influence, where the long-term results of the Earth Charter will really come.

Rebutting Rockefeller
The Charter says protecting Earth is our “sacred trust.”Dr. Rockefeller is a leading advocate of the radical “biocentrism,” under which, he says, “the rights of nature are defended first and foremost on the grounds of the intrinsic value of animals, plants, rivers, mountains, and ecosystems” against “human oppression.” Biocentrists believe that humans are no more important than other life forms or natural objects. Of course, rocks, trees, and ecosystems speak in words only understood by enlightened souls like Rockefeller and company, who have assigned themselves the noble task of defending these “rights of nature.”

Reply to  brent
May 6, 2019 12:01 am

The Amazon Synod and National Sovereignty

What orientation will this Synod have? Looking at the team of organizers, its predominant trend will be Liberation Theology. This can give rise to an international orchestration involving the Vatican, the UN, the European Union and NGOs from around the world, which would cry out for an internationalization of the Amazon.
It would be the launching of a new catechesis in which catechizing would be secondary and even superfluous because, according to this catechesis, the Indians already live the beatitudes: they have no private property, profit or competition. Why have a homeland if the real thing would be to establish tribal collectivism?
We would therefore be faced with a communist-inspired “New Church” where property is heresy, the owner a heretic, and life in the wild is the full realization of the human ideal.

Reply to  brent
May 6, 2019 12:22 am

Pope Francis’s Green Friends

We can see his true intentions for these summits in the people he invites. The scientists, activists, and politicians who attend are open proponents of population control, contraception, and abortion as “solutions” for global warming. The majority come from the political Left and oppose the Western, free-market economy. Some are enthusiastic supporters of socialism. All accept the man-made global warming theory as dogma

Rod Evans
Reply to  brent
May 6, 2019 3:40 am

Kind of makes the sixth day’s work redundant then….
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Reply to  Rod Evans
May 7, 2019 9:02 am

Yes. It certainly overturns the old paradigm where human life was accorded an unique and higher value than other biota, and rocks and landscapes etc.

Reply to  brent
May 6, 2019 4:05 pm

Brazil says no to rainforest privatization plan, asks Gore for help
October 18, 2006
On Tuesday Brazil rejected a alleged British proposal to fight climate change by “privatizing” parts of the Amazon rainforest, according to Reuters.
In an editorial published on the opinion page of Folha de S.Paulo newspaper, Environment Minister Marina Silva and Foreign Minister Celso Amorim said that the Amazon was “not for sale”. Their comments were expected since Brazil has long objected to internationalization of the Amazon, seeing such attempts as a threat to its sovereignty.
The “Amazon privatization” report, which originally appeared in Britain’s Sunday Telegraph newspaper on October 1, 2006, said that David Miliband, Britain’s Environment Secretary, planned to propose an initiative that would turn parts of the Amazon into an “international trust” wherein credible buyers could lockup parts of the rainforest for preservation. However, shortly after the article was published, Miliband’s office strongly rejected the story.

Wall St. sets the stage for the next Big Heist

As in all schemes brought to life by Government office, the first question that begs to be asked is Qui Bono? When a Carbon Tax or a Carbon Cap and Share program is announced the one thing that can be assumed is that it will be designed to make money for those who usually make the money all along. To believe that Washington or London have developed a more altruistic nature and suddenly want to save the world, is to deny decades of Political and economic history. The road to discovering the real truth behind the plan is to follow the money, the players and the science.
If we assume that Global Warming is indeed a political potpourri of half truths and lies, then we have to see why so much trouble has gone in to its creation. One simple answer? Money. When we look at the campaign donors to Obama’s campaign, you could be forgiven your inevitable cynicism when we see the list contains the biggest players on Wall St. (Click image to enlarge)

May 5, 2019 11:33 pm

This disease has hit Australia with an election happening in 12 days. “Fix the Climate Emergency” posters now being stuck over conservative policy bill boards. What emergency?

May 6, 2019 2:43 am

The IPCC is the “gold standard” … what a load of codswallop!

The “IPCC” is not an organisation, it is instead a few people in selected areas who are mostly eco-nutters and all suffer from groupthink. It is no more a gold standard on climate science than a group of make-up obsessed teenagers are experts on the science of lipsticks.

The reality is that except for the 1970-2000 warming after the cleanup of the smog via the clean-air acts, the planet has seen ABSOLUTELY NO ABNORMAL CHANGES. That is the scientific fact – and no amount of huffing and puffing by eco-nutter academics will change that.

I know it is getting unfashionable here to say that nothing is changing, that there is absolutely no evidence of any crisis at all, but that is the scientific facts, and the great thing about science, is that no matter what people would like the evidence to be, it will be what it is despite us.

Reply to  Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
May 6, 2019 11:23 am


“The IPCC is the “gold standard” … what a load of codswallop! …The reality is that except for the 1970-2000 warming after the cleanup of the smog via the clean-air acts, the planet has seen ABSOLUTELY NO ABNORMAL CHANGES”

That’s quite a reading FAIL. Let’s replay the tape to see what I said.

“The IPCC is the “gold standard” source showing the consensus of climate science.

You believe that the consensus is wrong. That’s your privilege, but it is irrelevant to my statement that the IPCC shows the consensus of climate scientists.

David A
Reply to  Larry Kummer
May 6, 2019 4:58 pm

True, but the term “gold” can not apply to anything so corrupted. I am not certain what the climate scientist “consensus” is either. I really do not know what the consensus is among scientists that study or research the causes of climate change. The vast majority so not study cause, but do ATTRIBUTION studies of what will happen if droughts floods and extreme weather of every sort increase due to CAGW.

Mark Hansford
May 6, 2019 2:45 am

There is a couple of points that never seem to get represented in the MSM

1. The oceans are not warming at the same rate as the atmosphere – thats actually impossible. so throwing mass extinctions in the ocean into the same category as mass extinctions on land is just very poor science.

2. Man cannot be responsible for the entire increase in CO2 year on year, its arithmetic and never seems to be represented. If we are contributing 4% of the worlds CO2 and the worlds CO2 is increasing by 0.5% (keeping things simple by rounding) per annum, that would mean to contribute all of the increase in CO2 we would have to be increasing our CO2 emissions by 12.5% pa. Currently mans total emissions are increasing at a ate of under 2%. That seems to me to be relatively simple Maths. So where is the other 10% coming from and why and how does that link in to it being humans at fault.

If the answer is outgassing from the oceans then this must have started in preindustrial times and cannot be caused by human emissions.

As far as warming is concerned it is ‘very likely’ this is caused and regulated by the prominent GHG – water vapour – and not CO2 at all.

The planet is looking particularly healthy and green at present – again not explained

May 6, 2019 6:00 am

“Planet Earth Is Doomed. How Do I Go On?”

If the Earth truly is doomed, you don’t. Stick your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye.

May 6, 2019 6:17 am

If they really believed their own nonsense, they would just shut up and let climate change destroy capitalism and reduce the human population of Earth.

They should be making their own plans for survival, and awaiting the event with glee.

CD in Wisconsin
May 6, 2019 6:21 am

Ratcheting up the fear yet another notch with a new U.N. report out today….

“….Nature is in more trouble now than at any other time in human history, with extinction looming over one million species of plants and animals, scientists said Monday in the UN’s first comprehensive report on biodiversity.

It’s all because of humans, but it’s not too late to fix the problem, the report by the United Nations says.

Species loss is accelerating to a rate tens or hundreds of times faster than in the past, the report said. More than half a million species on land “have insufficient habitat for long-term survival” and are likely to go extinct, many within decades, unless their habitats are restored. The oceans are not any better off…..”

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
May 6, 2019 6:41 am

Today the BBC (surprise!) lunchtime tv news led with this and spent nearly half the program broadcast time with reporters (female, for effect presumably) doing much hand-wringing about how we all need to stop consuming “stuff” and reorganise our evil lives. Then another few minutes on the narrow headed ant (no, me neither) which is apparently heading for extinction because man, plastic, CO2, consumerism and whatever.
I hope someone here with expertise on this subject will do the “write” thing.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
May 6, 2019 7:55 am


That’s a powerful example of the ill effects of the climate hysteria campaign. For 50+ years scientists have warned about damage to the biosphere from pollution, habitat destruction, and excessive use (in ag, hunting, and fishing) – with a strong evidentiary basis (unlike the climate apocalypse). But there is little political juice for the Left in this issue, unlike climate change – for which they advocate giving themselves massive power, up to abolishing democracy and capitalism.

I have not read this report, but I’ve written a lot about this issues. Here are two examples, about the oceans.

Let’s defend the oceans, before it’s too late.
The oceans are dying. See their condition on World Oceans Day!

Walter Sobchak
May 6, 2019 7:29 am

The Beat Goes On:

“Civilization Is Accelerating Extinction and Altering the Natural World at a Pace ‘Unprecedented in Human History’” By Brad Plumer • May 6, 2019

WASHINGTON — Humans are transforming Earth’s natural landscapes so dramatically that as many as one million plant and animal species are now at risk of extinction, posing a dire threat to ecosystems that people all over the world depend on for their survival, a sweeping new United Nations assessment has concluded.

The 1,500-page report, compiled by hundreds of international experts and based on thousands of scientific studies, is the most exhaustive look yet at the decline in biodiversity across the globe and the dangers that creates for human civilization. …

Its conclusions are stark. In most major land habitats, from the savannas of Africa to the rain forests of South America, the average abundance of native plant and animal life has fallen by 20 percent or more, mainly over the past century. With the human population passing 7 billion, activities like farming, logging, poaching, fishing and mining are altering the natural world at a rate “unprecedented in human history.”

At the same time, a new threat has emerged: Global warming has become a major driver of wildlife decline, the assessment found, by shifting or shrinking the local climates that many mammals, birds, insects, fish and plants evolved to survive in.

As a result, biodiversity loss is projected to accelerate through 2050, particularly in the tropics, unless countries drastically step up their conservation efforts.

The report is not the first to paint a grim portrait of Earth’s ecosystems. But it goes further by detailing how closely human well-being is intertwined with the fate of other species.

James Snook
May 6, 2019 9:26 am

WWF Living Planet Report 2018 shows climate change is causing only ca.10% of extinctions. The main causes are habitat degradation and exploitation, followed by invasive species and disease, and then pollution.

May 6, 2019 10:18 am

Your average, sane climate scientist does not want people gluing themselves to the building or parking lot and they sure don’t want bullet holes in their office windows like the one at UAH.

Karl of Lochalsh
May 6, 2019 9:05 pm

I have to say that from my standpoint the Alarmists appear to be winning (not that I agree with this view, but this is indeed what I see and what the general populace appears to believe). I live in a small comunity in the North West of Scotland where several people who I have grown up with have commented on the obvious Sea Level Rise and warming…. The village I grew up in by the sea has seen a modest sea level rise of less than 1cm in the last 30 years, so I guess the David Attenborough effect is in play – David said it on the BBC so it must be true! Just like the other claim that the average temperature has increased by a degree or more…. Average people (those not really scientifically minded or just plain not interested) cannot be bothered to check actual facts when the official mouthpiece tells them the “truth”.
The average wet; cold, windy, raining again, snowing, sheite UK weather continues unabated just as it did before we added our paltry 3% to the other 97% that is produced by nature. CO2 is an essential part of the Carbon cycle that is required for life to exist on Earth, but going by the full on propeganda in the UK at the moment you would think that we would be better off without it…..
Alarmists are going to extreme lengths, guided by unscrupulous means to propegate an agenda that none of us want to be a part off, it’s going to be a literall hell on Earth very soon if we don’t stand up and be counted…

Scott B
May 7, 2019 1:17 pm

The UN’s IPCC has stated that global emissions must be reduced by 45% by 2030 and then to net zero by 2050. The evidence for this has been amassed by the the work of tens of thousands of scientists around the world over 40 years. The earliest pioneers in this field were the scientists of oil companies who first realised that the burning of fossil fuels would alter the carbon cycle and alter global temperatures. The Earth has been warmer and had much higher levels of CO2 and temperature changes have been primarily governed by Milankovitch cycles for at least 3 million years. We should according to Milankovitch cycles, be moving into a phase of cooling. We aren’t. The relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature are clearly demonstrated over a 600 million year record of oxygen and carbon isotope records. There has never been a time in the history of animal life on Earth where sequestered carbon has so rapidly been turned into CO2. The problem is not the levels of CO2 themselves, but the speed of change. The biggest mass extinction ever seen (the Permian-Triassic extinction event) was characterised by a 6 degree rise of temperature over the short period of 10,000-80,000 years. This led to the 95% loss of species. The fact that the Earth could see such a temperature rise in a couple of centuries, has no precedent in the geological record. Rather than searching through climate skeptic or the popular media, just read some textbook information on the Earth sciences. The importance of the carbon cycle as the key element of the Earth’s climate is beyond question. If anything, the IPCC have to understate the problem. Out of scientific rigor, many positive feed backs have yet to be accounted for with current climate projections. I’m with Exxon Mobil on this. One of their senior scientists, James Black in 1977 indicated that the burning of fossil fuels and subsequent rise in CO2 emissions would lead to up to a 3 degree rise in global atmospheric temperatures. The use of the word “alarmist” as a weapon of stigma is as alarming as anything that Extinction Rebellion or David Attenborough have got to say. The hydrocarbon industry has employed the same tactics as those used by the tobacco industry to instill doubt so that they can squeeze a few more decades of profit out of their businesses. Articles such as this are a sad reflection of the fact that they have been very successful.

Johann Wundersamer
May 8, 2019 12:45 pm

“Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us are looking up and we’re like: ‘The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?’”

Lots of “generations” — General Motors sporting their own “generation”:

Die Kraniche des Ibykus – Unix-AG

Zitat von Friedrich von Schiller:

Doch wo die Spur, die aus der Menge, der Völker flutendem Gedränge, … Wer zählt die Völker, nennt die Namen, die gastlich hier zusammenkamen …

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights