The Guardian: Climate Activists Avoid or Regret Having Children

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Imagine kids growing up in a household where the eco-activist parents think their own children are an unacceptable burden on the planet.

Climate ‘apocalypse’ fears stopping people having children – study

Damian Carrington
Environment editor
Fri 27 Nov 2020 22.00 AEDT

Survey of 600 people finds some parents regret having offspring for same reason

People worried about the climate crisis are deciding not to have children because of fears that their offspring would have to struggle through a climate apocalypse, according to the first academic study of the issue.

The researchers surveyed 600 people aged 27 to 45 who were already factoring climate concerns into their reproductive choices and found 96% were very or extremely concerned about the wellbeing of their potential future children in a climate-changed world. One 27-year-old woman said: “I feel like I can’t in good conscience bring a child into this world and force them to try and survive what may be apocalyptic conditions.”

These views were based on very pessimistic assessments of the impact of global heating on the world, the researchers said. One respondent, for example, said it would “rival world war one in its sheer terror”. The research also found that some people who were already parents expressed regret over having their children.

Having a child also potentially means that person going on to produce a lifetime of carbon emissions that contribute to the climate emergency, but only 60% of those surveyed were very concerned about this carbon footprint.

“The fears about the carbon footprint of having kids tended to be abstract and dry,” said Matthew Schneider-Mayerson, of Yale-NUS College in Singapore, who led the study. “But the fears about the lives of existing or potential children were really deep and emotional. It was often heartbreaking to pore through the responses – a lot of people really poured their hearts out.”

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/27/climate-apocalypse-fears-stopping-people-having-children-study

The abstract of the study;

Published: 

Eco-reproductive concerns in the age of climate change

Matthew Schneider-Mayerson & Kit Ling Leong 

Media reports and public polls suggest that young people in many countries are increasingly factoring climate change into their reproductive choices, but empirical evidence about this phenomenon is lacking. This article reviews the scholarship on this subject and discusses the results of the first empirical study focused on it, a quantitative and qualitative survey of 607 US-Americans between the ages of 27 and 45. While 59.8% of respondents reported being “very” or “extremely concerned” about the carbon footprint of procreation, 96.5% of respondents were “very” or “extremely concerned” about the well-being of their existing, expected, or hypothetical children in a climate-changed world. This was largely due to an overwhelmingly negative expectation of the future with climate change. Younger respondents were more concerned about the climate impacts their children would experience than older respondents, and there was no statistically significant difference between the eco-reproductive concerns of male and female respondents. These and other results are situated within scholarship about growing climate concern in the USA, the concept of the carbon footprint, the carbon footprint of procreation, individual actions in response to climate change, temporal perceptions of climate change, and expectations about the future in the USA. Potential implications for future research in environmental psychology, environmental sociology, the sociology of reproduction, demography, and climate mitigation are discussed.

Read more: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-020-02923-y

On one hand, perhaps we are seeing evolution in action; if the only people who have kids are those with an unusually strong urge to procreate, expect to see a lot more children in the future.

But my heart goes out to the few kids those radical activists decide to have despite their beliefs, and the psychological trauma some of them must be enduring.

Imagine growing up in a household where the parents literally think their children are planet wrecking wastes of space or worse. Imagine being taught from the cradle that you are your parents’ guilty burden on the planet.

How do the children of parents who see their very existence as a mistake, whose parents teach them that their inevitable future is misery and a painful fiery death, ever discover a sense of self worth and happiness?

“Daddy, daddy, look what I made in art class!”.

“That’s lovely, but it doesn’t really matter, because you’ll die a horrible death from global warming before you reach adulthood. And you’re helping to make it happen just by being alive”.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
186 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gus Harris
November 28, 2020 10:10 am

Nice picture of Greta

saveenergy
Reply to  Gus Harris
November 28, 2020 10:14 am

Showing her best side !

fred250
Reply to  saveenergy
November 28, 2020 6:44 pm

And later in life

comment image

Mike
Reply to  fred250
November 29, 2020 5:51 pm

She’s got a lot of soy-based ice cream eating to do.

saveenergy
November 28, 2020 10:13 am

I agree, true Eco-activist’s should stick to their principles & never be parents as they are a blight on the earth.
… the Eco-activist’s will die out just like the Shakers (but at least they made nice furniture) & the earth won’t even notice…or care.

Shoki Kaneda
Reply to  saveenergy
November 28, 2020 5:07 pm

They did make nice furniture and cabinetry. I’ve visited Sabbathday Lake, Enfield and Canterbury. They were very interesting and had a lot of good practices. But, the sex part is a deal breaker.

George Daddis
Reply to  Shoki Kaneda
November 29, 2020 9:43 am

TRIVIA: Shakers also pioneered the idea of putting vegetable and flower seeds in paper packets for sale. Prior to moving to the Cleveland vicinity they were in upstate NY (overlooking Sodus Bay of Lake Ontario; the original Shaker Heights. They moved because there were plans for a connecting canal between Lake Ontario and the Erie Canal and the area was touted as the new transportation center (Great Lakes cities to NYC) . Turns out railroads doomed the canal idea but the Shakers had already moved.

Greg
Reply to  saveenergy
November 29, 2020 12:21 am

Darwinian selection is great but I fear it’s a little too slow in this case. They should probably start by ending their own “carbon footprints” starting tomorrow. Stop talking, walk the walk.

James Snook
November 28, 2020 10:16 am

There have always been nutters like these – it used to be ‘the Bomb’ that they cited.

November 28, 2020 10:19 am

During the Cold War and escalating atomic weapons menace I too feared somewhat to have children, but finally, my fear disappered. Not to compare with imaginated climate crisis

ResourceGuy
November 28, 2020 10:34 am

I suggest they go preach this in the Sahel, south Asia, and the Arabian peninsula…….without bodyguards.

Scissor
November 28, 2020 10:34 am

The nut doesn’t fall far from the tree, hence the regret.

markl
November 28, 2020 10:35 am

More proof that ecoloonies are unhinged at best. Imagine growing up and finding you were an unwanted child. Especially when AGW is found to be a false narrative all along.

Chaswarnertoo
November 28, 2020 10:36 am

People like this should not breed.

Dan Sudlik
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
November 28, 2020 11:07 am

absolutely true, a very wise observation.

PaulH
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
November 28, 2020 1:20 pm

These people were children at one time. Perhaps they’ll retroactively cancel themselves for the climate sins they possibly committed in their youth?

Rich Davis
November 28, 2020 10:37 am

Whatever it takes to get them to drop out of the gene pool.

Graemethecat
November 28, 2020 10:48 am

This is great news: Natural Selection at work! Guardian readers and journalists are on the way to becoming extinct.

Michael Jankowski
November 28, 2020 10:55 am

Imagine the guilt of the parents who bore the nutters.

Derg
November 28, 2020 10:56 am

I wonder if Griff, Ghalfrunt, Lloydo…have procreated?

God help their children if they did. I can’t imagine what it would be like living with misanthropes.

MarkW
Reply to  Derg
November 28, 2020 1:24 pm

You don’t meet many eligible girls when living in your mom’s basement.

JN
November 28, 2020 10:57 am

I sure hope that they will accomplish the promise. If this pathetic eco-activism can, somehow, be linked to genes, they will loose their genetic continuity. Check this link in the same guardian page:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/mar/12/birthstrikers-meet-the-women-who-refuse-to-have-children-until-climate-change-ends

So they will not have children forever…

d
November 28, 2020 11:25 am

Think of it as evolution in action

nyolci
November 28, 2020 11:26 am

Tipical Eric Worrall. He either doesn’t understand the survey or deliberately bullshit about it. Of course his headline has little to do with the survey. What they say is “The research also found that _some_ people who were already parents expressed regret over having their children”, this “some” is never quantified and likely amounts to a few. Our Eric actually missed the most important finding: the overwhelming majority, 97% of US Americans are deeply concerned with climate change. This is significant on multiple levels. The actual effects of climate change are too obvious now, and the constant barrage of denier BS, the never ending gas lighting and gish gallop is getting ineffectual at last. This is natural, reality eventually overcomes any BS.

Derg
Reply to  nyolci
November 28, 2020 11:59 am

“ the overwhelming majority, 97% of US Americans are deeply concerned with climate change. ”

97%. …are you sure it’s not 96%?

Global warming…climate change…climate extinction…this is a religion for you.

DJ
Reply to  nyolci
November 28, 2020 12:10 pm

LOL!
As mentioned, excellent example of natural selection. … Climate Change is causing a decline in reproduction among Climate Change Alarmists…. Oh, the irony.

nyolci
Reply to  DJ
November 28, 2020 2:54 pm

> Climate Change is causing a decline in
> reproduction among Climate Change Alarmists
Huh, another person with comprehension problems… So, let’s check it again! This survey is NOT about “Climate Change Alarmists”, whoever you think they are. They surveyed “607 US-Americans between the ages of 27 and 45”. The survey is likely not representative (otherwise they would’ve said that in the abstract) but anyway without any choosing crit. (otherwise they would’ve pointed that out in the abstract). In other words, these people had been randomly selected. Hope you can follow it… ‘Cos there’s more! This survey is NOT about decline either! These random people overwhelmingly expressed “concern” mostly about how their already existing off-springs would live in the future. Please practice reading on simple texts and ask professional help before you write anything.

Derg
Reply to  nyolci
November 28, 2020 4:51 pm

Overwhelming at 97% 😉

You are a misanthrope.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
November 28, 2020 5:01 pm

“ask professional help before you write anything.”

YOU obviously didn’t !!

Go find your nearest psycho-analyst and book several session for yourself.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
November 28, 2020 5:07 pm

“The researchers surveyed 600 people aged 27 to 45 who were already factoring climate concerns into their reproductive choices

So they surveyed a bunch of gullible AGW whackos…..

…… and the nyholist nincompoop extrapolates to 97% of all Americans

hilarious….

dumber than griff or Loy !!……. is that even possible ????????

meiggs
Reply to  fred250
November 29, 2020 7:30 am

Seems 97% are brain washed TV viewers, they all think what they’re told, “left” or “right” and hence, the dumb & dumber as unfolding b4 yer very eyes. The planet survived for 4.5 billion yrs but now needs to be saved by the dems…what adult of any ilk can believe this stuff.

Hivemind
Reply to  nyolci
November 29, 2020 1:27 am

Just because the authors don’t disclose selection criteria for participation doesn’t mean that there was no selection. The number 97% reveals that there must have been some very strong selection going on.

Question: what do you get when you pay scientists to be activists?
Answer: A lot of activists that write pseudo-scientific propaganda, and no scientists.

nyolci
Reply to  Hivemind
November 29, 2020 4:18 am

> Just because the authors don’t disclose
> selection criteria for participation doesn’t
> mean that there was no selection.
While the answer is in the paper, if the criteria is something beyond the mere description of the selection method, it should be mentioned in the abstract, and this is a kinda strict requirement. So I find it very likely that there was no explicit criteria. But again, the answer is in the paper.

> The number 97% reveals that there must have
> been some very strong selection going on.
Very likely no. If this had been the case, our poor Eric would’ve made a cosmic fuss about it already. The fact that he was only able to sling a small bit of bullshit makes it clear he didn’t find anything you claim.

fred250
Reply to  Hivemind
November 29, 2020 1:49 pm

All YOU are doing is slinging BS

Its all you are capable of.

Rational thought or scientific evidence are NOT anything you can do.

fred250
Reply to  Hivemind
November 29, 2020 1:51 pm

“Very likely no.”

Absolutely CERTAINLY YES. !!

Seems you are INCAPABLE of reading

” The researchers surveyed 600 people aged 27 to 45 who were already factoring climate concerns into their reproductive choices”

Remain dumb and ignorant, nyholist.. your only choice in life.

fred250
Reply to  DJ
November 28, 2020 3:25 pm

““607 US-Americans between the ages of 27 and 45””

So a meaninglessly small number of people… almost certainly hand picked.

You will grab only any floating scum to try to keep your little fantasies afloat ,

You poor worthless little nyholist.

DJ
Reply to  nyolci
November 28, 2020 12:13 pm

97%? Really?? Typical climate alarmist percentage based on speculation.
We were expecting at least 98%. I mean, if you’re going to make up numbers, do it right.

nyolci
Reply to  DJ
November 28, 2020 2:54 pm

> 97%? Really??
You’ve caught me, I’m devastated 😉

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
November 28, 2020 3:26 pm

You act like you are, that is for sure,

Devastated by your own moronic claptrap.

Pat Frank
Reply to  nyolci
November 28, 2020 12:21 pm

nyolci, “The actual effects of climate change are too obvious now…

Such as what, nyolci? Show us all.

Start here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/extreme-weather-page/

Then the US heatwave index since 1890: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-high-and-low-temperatures

US precipitation since 1900:comment image

US drought since 1895:comment image

Global precipitation since 1900:comment image

Where are the actual obvious effects of (human-caused) climate change, nyolci?

bonbon
Reply to  Pat Frank
November 29, 2020 5:06 am

Of course the effect of climate on those “concerned about the climate” is a positive feedback in the thinking process of those who are easily modelled as an op-amp.
Their complete certainty leads to actual major mood swings, and not just +/- ranges. Result – XR, F4F, tantrums.

On a serious note, observe the number of countries, including Netherlands and Germany, openly discussing euthanasia, recently with movies and chat-shows.

Ken Pollock
Reply to  Pat Frank
November 29, 2020 6:10 am

Brilliant. I wanted to do that but lacked the references! Can we expect refutation of all those statistics or will the alarmists resort to “predictions” from “models”? That is the usual response, even though most models are flawed and have never predicted the actual sate of the climate. Go back 50 years, and you find a succession of failed warnings. The only difference now is that most governments seem to believe in the models. But then, there are many areas where our leaders fail to stand up to their critics, no matter how bizarre or unrepresentative they may be. A failure of leadership, motivated by fear

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
November 28, 2020 12:32 pm

The RANTINGS of another religious nutter.

Seek solace in you bottomless abyss of self-deprecation, , dolt !

What does anyone here “DENY” that you can produce solid scientific evidence for?

Your endless BS and ranting shows just how DESPERATE your insignificant little existence has become.

A survey of 607 similar AGW whackos?? irrelevant, and meaningless

Only the most gullible fool would take anything from that.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
November 28, 2020 12:33 pm

I bet your parents regret having you…

…. and not because of any “climate” related BS fantasy.

Mental illness is tough on the parents.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
November 28, 2020 12:37 pm

” The actual effects of climate change are too obvious now”

ROFLMAO..

In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

Awaiting another EVIDENCE-FREE rant from the sick little nyholist

Doonman
Reply to  nyolci
November 28, 2020 12:38 pm

I don’t recall any polling, survey or study where 97% of “US Americans” were found to be “deeply concerned with climate change”. Perhaps you could quote your source. Otherwise I’ll have to assume that for someone deeply concerned with BS, you seem completely unconcerned with spreading your own around.

nyolci
Reply to  Doonman
November 28, 2020 3:09 pm

> I don’t recall any polling, survey
> or study where 97% of “US Americans”
“survey of 607 US-Americans between the ages of 27 and 45. […] 96.5% of respondents were “very” or “extremely concerned” about the well-being of their existing, expected, or hypothetical children in a climate-changed world. This was largely due to an overwhelmingly negative expectation of the future with climate change.”
While the survey did express a bit different thing, I think you get the point.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
November 28, 2020 4:00 pm

“I think you get the point.”

Yep, climate alarmists are gullible morons who should never be allowed to have children…

… because they will cause those children deep mental harm.. eg princess Greta.

Steven Finder
Reply to  nyolci
November 29, 2020 12:40 pm

I sometimes find the comments here to be a little frustrating. Normally they are great and insightful but this is an example of where they get frustrating.

Nyolci makes a comment about what the article says. He either didn’t read the article or knowingly misread it. He keeps implying that the article was based on a random poll of people though he admits he doesn’t know the criteria. But the authors state the criteria in the abstract: “who were already factoring climate concerns into their reproductive choices” So in this situation he is wrong. That is not a random survey because for example, I had no chance to be in this survey given that I don’t meet the criteria.

So what happened. One person mentions this but it isn’t even acknowledged. Instead we have dozens of posts back and forth that focus on personality and rebuttal. Fun for one or two posts but it gets old quick.

What I would have preferred is to point out the error in what Nyolci was saying and leave it at that. He would either admit he was wrong showing that he was a reasonable person. Or he would ignore that critical information at which point revealing that he is being dishonest and not worth anyone’s time. We could then safely ignore him and he would go away.

Sure, we’ve have fewer comments but the overall quality would go up.

nyolci
Reply to  Steven Finder
November 29, 2020 11:56 pm

> But the authors state the criteria in the abstract:
> “who were already factoring climate concerns
> into their reproductive choices”
> So in this situation he is wrong.
This is really getting beyond idiotic. What you quoted was not the abstract, that was the Guardian article, and it clearly confused the first two sentences of the abstract. The abstract is clear, no criteria is mentioned, furthermore, it’s evident that they are talking about young people in general: “[…] young people […] are increasingly factoring climate change into their reproductive choices.” The actual scientific paper is about this, not about “climate activists’ reproductive choices”.

fred250
Reply to  Steven Finder
November 30, 2020 1:02 am

Yawn, the nyholist goes DEEEEEP into denial .

So sadly PATHETIC.

fred250
Reply to  Steven Finder
November 30, 2020 1:04 am

As non-scientific paper, about selected people’s mindless brain-washed opinions….

SO WHAT !!!…

Could only be published in a really low-level rag-mag

Mike
Reply to  nyolci
November 29, 2020 6:02 pm

”“survey of 607 US-Americans between the ages of 27 and 45. […] 96.5% of respondents were “very” or “extremely concerned””
Yawn. I’m sure that if they heard there was a nuclear missile headed their way within the next six months they would be concerned too! Or maybe that they were going to rained on be by frogs…Some people are still waiting the second coming too!

nyolci
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 28, 2020 2:42 pm

It was perhaps you who didn’t read the abstract. Or didn’t understand its meaning. ‘Cos this survey is evidently (1) not about climate activists, (2) not about regretting having a child (the Guardian’s quote says only “some” had), (3) neither about avoiding children (single example in the Guardian).

The abstract is clear, and it’s clearly not what you claim: 60% of these people expressed _concern_ about the carbon footprint of having children, and almost all of them expressed concern “about the well-being of their existing, expected, or hypothetical children”. If I can discover climate activism here, it’s from you.

nyolci
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 28, 2020 3:31 pm

> Eco activist = someone who takes action…
Eric, Eric, I’ve expected more from you. You were talking about “CLIMATE” activists, and please cut the BS, we both know well what you mean with this. (Hint: clearly not 600 randomly chosen US-Americans.)

> I suggest deciding not to have children…
Eric, Eric, this is pathetic. Is this supposed to be some kind of “turning the tables” or whatever? Work on it!

fred250
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 28, 2020 3:39 pm

Cutting through YOUR BS, nyholist

What do you use to cut through a thick, slimy, green ooze?

Reply to  nyolci
November 28, 2020 3:00 pm

Talking about a “carbon footprint” (doesn’t exist, if, it’s ugly black on white background) is part of climate activist s speaking. Nobody elses vocabulary contain “carbon footprint.
Actual times are good times for well beeing, only climate activists fear the future bc of horrible climate change.
What would you tell us else ?

nyolci
Reply to  Krishna Gans
November 29, 2020 4:39 am

> Talking about a “carbon footprint”
1. As far as we can ascertain, this expression comes from the survey, not from the people surveyed. Ie. they were asked about this.
2. While I admit I don’t like this expression either, this has been part of the public discourse for a long-long time. In other words, its use is not evidence for anything.

4 Eyes
Reply to  nyolci
November 28, 2020 5:31 pm

Are you OK Nyolci

nyolci
Reply to  4 Eyes
November 29, 2020 4:19 am

Yes, of course. How about you?

fred250
Reply to  4 Eyes
November 29, 2020 2:47 pm

certainly mental unstable..

…brain has gone passed the delusional stage into pure fantasy has the nyholist tries desperately to find some self-worth in his worthless little existence.

and FAILS.

His/her/its attention seeking is LAUGHED at as he continues to make a mockery of himself and the AGW farce…., and he/she/it doesn’t even realise it 🙂

The title image of the whole thread fits perfectly.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  nyolci
November 28, 2020 1:01 pm

“The actual effects of climate change are too obvious now”

Really? Can you point some of those effects out?

I think those “effects” you are talking about can only be seen by True Believers, because they are not evident in the real world..

nyolci
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 28, 2020 2:58 pm

> Really? Can you point some of those effects out?
Reading science deniers’ writings have had an obviously bad effect on your worldview 😉

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
November 28, 2020 3:29 pm

So, that is an TOTALLY EMPTY comment from the worthless little nyholist

So sad. !

We know you DENY real science

We don’t.

YOU are a science free zone.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
November 28, 2020 6:05 pm

“> Really? Can you point some of those effects out?</em.

Tom is STILL WAITING for an answer that isn't a child-like evasion.

Funny how EMPTY you remain when asked for actual science and evidence, isn't it, nyholist. 😉

Tom Abbott
Reply to  nyolci
November 29, 2020 5:20 am

So I guess the answer to my question: “Can you point some of those effects out?” is no.

If you had something to cite, you would. You have a real weak case there, nyolci, and insults don’t make it any better.

nyolci
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 29, 2020 8:06 am

> So I guess the answer to my question:
> “Can you point some of those effects out?” is no.
Very bad guess 🙂 Just as I’ve expected. I really wonder why you thought that. Of course the answer is yes. I cite the IPCC, and you can get a bit more friendly descriptions in RealClimate.org. By the way, poor hapless Tony very often cite serious sources (and try to “debunk” them). So, effects. Average temperature is up by cc 1C from the 70s. This is indisputable, we have very precise instrumental record from that time. Not just for temperature, but all other factors, including sun’s radiation, earth’s albedo, atmosphere content, etc, moreover we know emissions quite precisely. And yes, this is beyond your favorite bullshit, weather variability. Scientists have put together all these factors, and warming can only be explained by CO2 rise of anthropogenic origin. Actually, scientists have drawn a limit, 30 years, saying anything that’s beyond this time frame is not mere “variability” but actual change. This 30 years is kinda arbitrary but very likely much longer than what we actually need. The reliable measurement era is cc 35-45 years long already.

We can feel the direct effects too now, ‘cos 1C is already quite a lot. The number of extreme hot days is increasing, spring comes earlier, autumn comes later. Weather gets more extreme, eg. rainfall tends to concentrate on lesser number of days, so there can be drought even if average rainfall increases. The consequences are obvious, including extreme forest fires and more destructive storms. Etc, etc.

fred250
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 29, 2020 1:58 pm

So, absolutely ZERO science just mindless AGW regurgitation, backed by… NOTHING.

Weather HAS NOT got more extreme, it is NOT outside normal veariability

Still on the cool end of the last 10,000 years.

Warming since the LIA has been totally natural …. and has been highly beneficial.

Temperature has only increased at El Nino releases of solar drive ocean energy.

Apart from mindless zero-evidence pap……

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

Scientifically, you are a EMPTY zone, nyholist

fred250
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 29, 2020 2:01 pm

“Average temperature is up by cc 1C from the 70s”

After dropping about the same form the 1940s

Unadjusted data shows current temperatures similar to the 1940s

Why cherry pick a date at the end of the “global cooling” scare.. 😉

You are EMPTY.

fred250
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 29, 2020 5:41 pm

“including sun’s radiation,”

Yep and its been at or near its highest for quite a long time.

comment image

Seismic energy is also highly correlated with atmospheric temperature.

far better than CO2 is.. comment image

Live with your ignorance, nyholist…

…. that way you won’t be so lonely !!

fred250
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 29, 2020 5:44 pm

And your last paragraph is load of mindless propaganda yapping point, unbacked by any actual reality..

…. a pack of mal-information.

But this is always the way with AGW sympathisers/stooges.

fred250
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 29, 2020 9:44 pm

“earth’s albedo, ”

Yep, the drop in Tropical cloud cover has let more energy into the oceans.

Good call, nyholist. ! 🙂

“The reliable measurement era is cc 35-45 years long already.”

Yep, and it starts at the very coldest part of the 20th century at the end of the global cooling scare, at the bottom of the AMO cycle, when Arctic Sea Ice was at an anomalously extreme high extent.

Thing is , nyholist, untampered records exist from before that, and show clearly that temperatures in the 1940’s were similar to current temperatures.

eg Reykjavik (here shown against the AMO) comment image

comment image

Even Hadcrud4 shows that to be the case.

comment image

But you knew that didn’t you.

Mike
Reply to  nyolci
November 29, 2020 6:47 pm

nycoli said…….

”Average temperature is up by cc 1C from the 70s. This is indisputable, we have very precise instrumental record from that time. Not just for temperature, but all other factors, including sun’s radiation, earth’s albedo, atmosphere content, etc, moreover we know emissions quite precisely. And yes, this is beyond your favorite bullshit, weather variability. Scientists have put together all these factors, and warming can only be explained by CO2 rise of anthropogenic origin.”

Woah there cowboy.

* We also have a precise instrumentation record from 1958 in radiosonde data.
This shows the GAT in 2002 was exactly the same as it was in 1958.
* We also know this data is correct because it agrees very well with the satellite data from 1979 onwards.
* We can see in the balloon data that it was coming down in 1958 from a higher point earlier on
* We know from surface data that this higher point was around the late 30’s and early 40’s
* We also know from the surface data and reconciling it with the 58 to 2002 data that the GAT of around 1940 was the same as it is today.
* Using the surface data, we also know – as indisputable and verified as such by both the radiosonde and satellite data that there was a dip of about 1 degree C to the early 1970’s.
* To contend that since the 1970 the temperature has risen 1C without noting the starting point is an incomplete therefore meaningless statement.
* Before you claim that co2 is the ”only explanation” for the modern rise of 1 degree C, you also need to explain what caused the 1 degree C dip starting in 1940
*The reason for this need is that to date, no evidence is available to show anthropogenic co2 has done anything.
* If you use the often heard explanation that that dip was due to air pollution and that the modern rise is a consequence cleaning up the air, you need to provide data which shows the explosion of aerosols from places such as China and India (not to mention the rest of the world) in the mid to late 20th century onwards does not match that of the early to mid 20th century.
I await your evidence.

fred250
Reply to  Mike
November 29, 2020 7:14 pm

the nyholist doesn’t “do” evidence.

he/she/it just yaps mindlessly like a demented chihuahua

nyolci
Reply to  Mike
November 30, 2020 12:17 am

> We also have a precise instrumentation
> record from 1958 in radiosonde data.
We have a comprehensive satellite based record of almost all the variables from the late 70s – early 80s. Before that time some or most of the variables’ values are reconstructions, more and more reconstruction is needed as we go back in time. Of course these reconstructions show the same, exactly as scientists say. That’s why you deniers go into tailspin when you hear the name “Michael Mann”. So, to ease your pain, I restricted the discussion to the really undisputed, non reconstructed part, and that’s the last 40 or so years.

> This shows the GAT in 2002 was
> exactly the same as it was in 1958.
No. The precisely reconstructed GAT for 1958 is +0.025C (baseline: 1970), the GAT for 2002 was almost +0.55C on the same scale. The GAT for 2019 is almost +1.0C.

fred250
Reply to  Mike
November 30, 2020 1:08 am

Poor nyholist, STILL wants to start at the COLDEST period since the warm 1940s

slurp down that cherry-picking. little stooge. !!

Data shows 1940s were similar temperatures to now.

GET OVER IT !!!

and of course , let’s see you RUN and HIDE yet again….. or just rant mindlessly….

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

fred250
Reply to  Mike
November 30, 2020 1:13 am

“The precisely reconstructed GAT for 1958″….

ROFLMAO.

Your grasp of measurement, or any sort of science at all, for that matter is like aan empty abyss.

If you are using GISS or any of its throw-offs, you are using one of the most corrupted and mal-adjusted pieces of anti-scientific junk nonsense there is.

But fabricated JUNK data is all you have is all you have.

You can only support YOUR LIES with more lies.

fred250
Reply to  Mike
November 30, 2020 1:16 am

Hadcrud, 4 even after adjustments shows 1940 similar to now.

comment image

Areas unaffected by UHI shows the same thing

comment image

And the world is STILL well below the Holocene average.

still waiting…

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  nyolci
November 28, 2020 1:09 pm

Clearly, the Climate Troll is delusional, and doesn’t have the slightest clue what he’s talking about. It is in fact laughable that the Climate Troll thinks it knows what reality is.

nyolci
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 28, 2020 3:01 pm

> It is in fact laughable that the
> Climate Troll thinks it knows what reality is.
Exactly. I completely misunderstood the abstract and the article. I regret it now… JUST KIDDING 🙂

Mike
Reply to  nyolci
November 30, 2020 3:27 pm

”We have a comprehensive satellite based record of almost all the variables from the late 70s – early 80s. Before that time some or most of the variables’ values are reconstructions, more and more reconstruction is needed as we go back in time.”
WRONG. The radiosonde data is not reconstructed. It is direct measurement.

”Of course these reconstructions show the same, exactly as scientists say.”
Once again, not reconstructed. Here it is for you…Lower trop. 1958 to 2002 Fig9
Fig one shows data collection localities.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2004JD005753
”So, to ease your pain, I restricted the discussion to the really undisputed, non reconstructed part” ….You continue……”No. The precisely reconstructed GAT for 1958 is”….
You’re not very good at this are you?
Still waiting for your evidence………

Notanacademic
Reply to  nyolci
November 28, 2020 1:12 pm

97% where have I heard that before?

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
November 28, 2020 1:26 pm

Typical progressive.
Someone doesn’t reach the same conclusion as you, and that’s proof that they are an idiot.

Why is it that progressives never quite manage to figure out that we aren’t laughing with them?

fred250
Reply to  MarkW
November 28, 2020 2:27 pm

The word progressive is in their minds only

They are really economically, morally, and personally …REGRESSIVE

Regressing back towards neanderthals…. in nyholist’s case.. not far to go.

Trouble is.. they want to bring everyone else down to their pre-human level.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
November 28, 2020 2:59 pm

> Typical progressive.
I’m not 😉

> Someone doesn’t reach the same conclusion as you
??? I didn’t reach any conclusion. I simply quoted the conclusion of actual scientists.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
November 28, 2020 3:30 pm

No, you are a total REGRESSIVE.

Not capable of a rational thought.. a worthless non-entity.

ie very much like a so-called “progressive”

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
November 28, 2020 5:18 pm

“I simply quoted the conclusion of actual scientists.”

You should probably check if either of the authors is an actual real scientist, as a opposed to a “social scientist” before you make any more STUPID comments. !

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
November 28, 2020 8:02 pm

No you didn’t, you searched for any statement that you agreed with, then declared that the person making the statement is a scientist, therefore anyone who says something else isn’t a scientist. Typical progressive logic.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
November 29, 2020 4:23 am

> then declared that the person making
> the statement is a scientist
Haha, I wasn’t alone it that declaration. Relevant universities and other scientific institutions did that too 🙂 And this is much more than you deniers can show. Apart from literally a handful of scientists in relevant fields, you’ve got an army of bullshit slingers.

fred250
Reply to  MarkW
November 29, 2020 2:39 pm

Again, little nyholist.

Whet do we DENY that you have solid scientific evidence for

So far your evidence is lost in an abyss.

TOTALLY EMPTY.. disappeared, never to be seen..

And these guys are NOT scientists, they are “social scientists”

Do you even know the difference ?????

Or are you just ignorant and aware, living in a brian-hosed stupid.

The whole AGW farce is supported by scientific BS.. or NONE AT ALL.

Try again, little tapeworm….

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

fred250
Reply to  MarkW
November 29, 2020 3:23 pm

typo fix.

Or are you just ignorant and un-aware.!

The nyholist way.

Trapped in the mindless anti-science of the AGW farce.

Incapable of any rational thought of his own.

Just regurgitate AGW mantra pap, lies and mis-information, nyholist, its all you have.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  nyolci
November 28, 2020 2:11 pm

Nyolci
The 97% is correct but you misread the poll

That is the percent of Americans unwilling to spend $1 to prevent climate change

Because they know a scam when they see it.

Biden is going to go 75% stupid on this file and my prediction is the dems lose the House in 2022 because of it

Scissor
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
November 28, 2020 2:57 pm

The fraud is becoming apparent to all. Even CNN has reported a path to victory for the President.

nyolci
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
November 28, 2020 3:06 pm

> That is the percent of Americans unwilling
> to spend $1 to prevent climate change
They weren’t worried about _spending_ to _prevent_. They were worried about how shitty it would be in the future. It’s very likely that most of them had a shitty present as well already due to economic reasons (rents, student loan debts etc.). Anyway, from the abstract:
“[they expressed deep concern] about the well-being of their existing, expected, or hypothetical children in a climate-changed world. This was largely due to an overwhelmingly negative expectation of the future with climate change”

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
November 28, 2020 3:33 pm

You poor gullible, victimised little nyholist.

No wonder you have little self-worth.

I can’t see any hope for YOUR future, either. !

So sad.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  nyolci
November 28, 2020 3:03 pm

Nolci, it is to your credit that you have come to WUWT. That at least separates you a step or two above most of the horde of the compliant, which even includes the majority of the consensus climate change crisis scientists. However, to have thoughts truly your own, you have to transcend the designer-brained education that the last three generations have increasingly had for the purpose of making them obedient and unquestioning of the global governance lock-step planned for us all. We get to hear the same official “talking points” from many of such ‘like-minded’ folk who come to WUWT.

A correction: the 97% figure is not about how many Americans are concerned with climate change. It’s supposed to be the size of the consensus of climate scientists who believe climate change is an urgent issue (climate, in fact, is always changing and was 10°C higher when dinosaurs were at their peak about 100 million years ago -a world without polar ice caps. Only 6000-8000 yrs ago there were wave washed beaches on the north coast of Greenland (now ice-locked for several millennia) with driftwood still sitting there and sealevel a couple of metres higher.

I tend to accept that 97% figure for the “consensus” though. The remaining 3% of dissenters is about what there was in the Soviet Union and in Germany in the 1930s- to the end of WWII. That 3% is a powerhouse you’ll have to admit. We are always being blamed for arresting “progress” toward destruction of the greatest civilization ever. I hope you visit often. I think your mind can be changed somewhat if you think about things removed a bit from the harmony of all-in agreement. You’ve taken the first step.

nyolci
Reply to  Gary Pearse
November 28, 2020 3:46 pm

> which even includes the majority of the consensus climate change crisis scientists
Small correction: “includes the majority of climate scientists”

> However, to have thoughts truly your own
Sorry to disappoint you but I have thoughts truly my own. FYI (hard or natural or real) science is a thing you should learn instead of reading BS on the net, I can recommend to you.

> We get to hear the same official “talking points”
I didn’t repeat any “official” “talking point”. I repeat scientific talking points. In this specific article I pointed out that Eric had completely misunderstood the scientific paper in question. (And this is the favorable interpretation, favorable to him, the other interpretation is that he was deliberately bullshiting.)

> A correction: the 97% figure is not about how
> many Americans are concerned with climate change
From the abstract:
“96.5% of respondents were “very” or “extremely concerned” about the well-being of their existing, expected, or hypothetical children in a climate-changed world. This was largely due to an overwhelmingly negative expectation of the future with climate change”
I gladly interpret this as above, while I admit this is not exactly the same. But the difference is not that great.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
November 28, 2020 4:15 pm

“I repeat scientific talking points.”

Yet you have NO SCIENCE to back them up

You have a pointless, meaningless survey of a paltry 607 picked individuals.. pertaining to NOTHING.

Other than that, you remain TOTALLY EMPTY.

There is NO SCIENCE in any of your rantings.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
November 28, 2020 4:19 pm

“science is a thing you should learn instead of reading BS on the net”

You seem to have missed out COMPLETELY on learning any actual real “science”

You can produce NONE.

You have spent your time reading AGW BS on the web.

Hence you are a science free drone.

Let’s see if you can produce some actually science to support the very basis of the AGW cult religion.

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

Waiting for your “LOL-science”

Harkle Pharkle
Reply to  fred250
November 29, 2020 5:40 am

Oh Griff. Changing your pen name will not make you any less of a shill for your Chinese masters.

Eric H
Reply to  nyolci
November 28, 2020 4:40 pm

Take your Space X/Musk hating, communist loving, Hungarian as* back to Reddit…and troll there.

overview for nyolci – Reddit
https://www.reddit.com/user/nyolci/

Derg
Reply to  Eric H
November 28, 2020 4:55 pm

Reddit is a cesspool of eco fascists.

nyolci
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 29, 2020 4:30 am

Oh, yes, of course 😉 You should always watch out for some long marching guerillas in your backyard 🙂 I told you!

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
November 29, 2020 2:40 pm

As opposed to the fairies and unicorn farts in your mind, hey nyholist.

Laertes
Reply to  Eric H
November 28, 2020 7:01 pm

The link between green and red is so obvious every time…

They couldn’t build a successful communist utopia in the past, because rich, prosperous Western countries supplied the example of how much of a failure those communist utopias were. I know, I lived in a communist country during my youth, and we looked at USA and dreamed it was like that here.

So they’re using AGW to destroy all capitalist gains in production, energy, food and consumer goods. This way, when you have almost nothing, and sit in a damp, cold room where you cannot even light a candle (CO2 emissions), communism will FINALLY look tempting and reasonable.
Now with added “bonus” of social isolation (distancing) and complete division between men and women (radical feminism) and races.

Sounds like hell on Earth? Remember, they want you to be as poor and miserable as possible first…

nyolci
Reply to  Laertes
November 29, 2020 4:36 am

> The link between green and red is so obvious every time…
Correction: the link between green, red and brains is so obvious every time…

> They couldn’t build a successful communist utopia in the past,
Yes, because they are building it in the present

> because rich, prosperous Western countries supplied the example
Now the rich, prosperous China is supplying the example

> of how much of a failure those communist utopias were.
Hm, the West is in a fairly bad shape lately… After “winning” the cold war 🙂

> So they’re using AGW to destroy all capitalist gains in production
No. Capitalism is doing that without any external intervention.

> communism will FINALLY look tempting and reasonable.
How is that Cuba has better health care than the US, and a very livable country then? How is that Cuba is in a much better situation than any other Central American country?

George Daddis
Reply to  nyolci
November 29, 2020 9:56 am

Thank you for revealing what you are actually promoting (with “climate” as faux cause).
The recap of your previous post is that Communism didn’t work in the past but it will work THIS time because the new leaders are so much smarter than socialist leaders of the past.

nyolci
Reply to  nyolci
November 29, 2020 11:05 am

@George Daddis
> Thank you for revealing what you are
> actually promoting (with “climate” as faux cause).
??? Really, how can you be this stupid? Climate change IS a real thing. What is true though that capitalism is completely unable to solve this (and most other problems as well).

> The recap of your previous post is that
> Communism didn’t work in the past
> but it will work THIS time
Sorry, I’ve never claimed that it didn’t work in the past. And it definitely works this time 🙂

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
November 29, 2020 2:50 pm

“Climate change IS a real thing. ”

Yep it has done since the year dot.

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

Or will you remain, as always, a empty sock-puppet, waiting for that hand to give you meaning to your life..

Laertes
Reply to  nyolci
November 29, 2020 3:37 pm

How many millions will you kill this time to build your “utopia”? How many secret police and secret informers? We had 90,000 of secret informers at the end of the communist era. Cuba is in a good shape? Really? How about Venezuela? Remember, I lived through this. I remember empty shelves, censorship, political prisons, restrictions on everything, one party system.

“Now the rich, prosperous China is supplying the example” by running literal concentration camps for organ harvesting. By punishing people harshly for even mentioning Taiwan exists. What a wonderful example… of how twisted and evil a communist mind is.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
November 29, 2020 5:48 pm

“And it definitely works this time “

LOL.. your dole/unemployable payment tells you that, does it. !!

Move to Venezuela, see how well totalitarian socialism is working there, dolt !

Just remember, even, or especially, in a socialist country, people like you are still very much at the very bottom rung of the social ladder, and far more victimised than you think you are now.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
November 29, 2020 7:23 pm

“How is that Cuba is in a much better situation than any other Central American country?”

comment image?width=600&height=398.52071005917156

Again, your little FANTASIES are dashed. see what happened around 1990…

poor widdle nyholist !

nyolci
Reply to  nyolci
November 30, 2020 12:44 am

@Laertes
> How many millions will you kill
> this time to build your “utopia”?
Ah, you’re in the counting game 🙂 Okay than. Let’s start with Iraq 🙂 Or Bengal in the 1940s. Or Korea. Or Vietnam.

> Cuba is in a good shape?
It was eye opening. I visited Cuba and Jamaica one year apart recently. Okay, this is the so called “anecdotal evidence”, but pure statistics show that Cuba’s situation is by far the best in Central America.

> How about Venezuela?
How about sanctions, coup attempts, literal stealing of bank reserves (B of England), literal gunboat diplomacy, literal attempts at pirating commercial vessels to the country, well documented and very widespread sabotage by the fifth columnists in the country, etc.etc. And Venezuela still has better general health and higher average living standards for its citizens than Colombia. So I think Venezuela is a very good example why socialism is good.

> Remember, I lived through this.
Me too 🙂

> I remember empty shelves
It took cc 10 years to me after 1990 to realize capitalism, apart from a handful of “core countries” is much worse than what we had and, arguably, much much worse what we potentially could’ve achieved without the constant counter activity from the “imperial core”.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
November 30, 2020 12:44 pm

Poor poor PITIFUL YOU>!

I don’t think I have ever seen someone with such LOW self-worth as you have.

Please tell us once you have moved to a country you LUV , Venezuela or Cuba.

…. rather than polluting the morality of the country you now HATE.

But you WON’T, Will you.

Too busy enjoying the trappings of capitalist society….

.. and yapping like a demented chihuahua about how bad things are for you.

So SAD … roflmao !!!

nyolci
Reply to  Eric H
November 29, 2020 4:27 am

> Take your Space X/Musk hating
I thought hating Musk would be cool here, he is the self anointed prophet of green bullshiting. Huh, another disappointment. Someone wrote that you deniers were very consistent in being inconsistent. Now I can see why… again!

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
November 29, 2020 4:19 pm

Again, that word that you cannot back up with any rational thought process…

What do we DENY that you have solid empirical scientific evidence for?

You may as well say we “DENY” Grimm Bros fairy tales.

It would be just as MEANINGLESS as the rest of your mindless prattle.

You are NOTHING but an AGW zealot, sympathiser, collaborator, apologist, and a low-level socialist stooge.

Mike
Reply to  nyolci
November 29, 2020 6:58 pm

” Someone wrote that you deniers were very consistent in being inconsistent”
People who still use the word denier without the slightest idea what they are saying is getting quite boring . I’m almost embarrassed for you …almost.
Just what in your world, do you thing these deniers are denying exactly. Did you know that there was a study showing most ”deniers” have more of a grasp of the science than the co2 enthusiasts?
As you say …Now I can see why…again!

nyolci
Reply to  Mike
November 30, 2020 1:13 am

> People who still use the word denier
> without the slightest idea what they
> are saying is getting quite boring
What a relief! I know exactly why I’m saying this.

> Just what in your world, do you
> thing these deniers are denying exactly
Science. And by it I mean natural (or real) science. The other part of science (usually called “human” or “social” science) really does have problems, but for their credit, scientists cultivating these fields are very eager to admit it. Climate science is like Quantum Mechanics, you’d better avoid disputing it. Gender studies have widespread (and valid, non politically motivated) criticism inside science (mostly from biologists/ethologists).

> Did you know that there was a study showing
> most ”deniers” have more of a grasp of the
> science than the co2 enthusiasts?
While I justifiably doubtful about this “study” (= a polite way of saying “bullshit”), let’s accept it for the argument. If so, please stop and think a bit. Whether you like it or not, modern natural science is extremely complicated, comprehending even narrow segments of it may take months or years of hard study, depending on your previous qualifications. I think you accept this, right? This is nothing controversial. But in means, in turn, that most people are simply isn’t qualified enough even to understand any arbitrary field. That’s why we have scientists, and AND THAT’S WHY WE SHOULD ACCEPT WHAT THEY SAY. They are the experts anyway. In other words, your “more grasping” deniers are making amateurish attempts at science, while the “co2 enthusiasts” do the right thing by simply accepting what real experts say.

Of course in science single studies rarely count. When a series of studies show persistently the same result, we can say there’s a thing. So please forgive me if I simply disregard your “study” (if it exists at all) about deniers and enthusiasts.

fred250
Reply to  Mike
November 30, 2020 1:29 am

You have proven you are SO GULLIBLE you will accept any GARBAGE that suits your little brain-hosed mind.

Actual science is never allowed to enter into the matter in your tiny cranium..

Let’s see you produce some of this actual SCIENCE that you say exists.

So far all we have from you is mindless brain-washed regurgitation of anti-science GARBAGE.

You are SO PATHETIC that you just BELIEVE what someone tells you to believe

You don’t have the brain-power or knowledge to do otherwise.

Come on, let’s see if you can PRODUCE SOME SCIENCE..

…. or just more mindless yapping and plaintive pathetic appeals to low-level authority.

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

So far you can’t even produce one single bit of science to back up your anti-science ranting.

And again that word, “denier”

Tell us what we DENY that you can provide solid scientific evidence for?

You are still totally EMPTY on that as well… a vacuum, a mindless abyss.

And no, AGW mantra regurgitation is NOT EVIDENCE…

…. except of your total inability to form a single rational scientific thought of your own.

fred250
Reply to  Mike
November 30, 2020 1:42 am

“That’s why we have scientists, and AND THAT’S WHY WE SHOULD ACCEPT WHAT THEY SAY.”

That is probably one of the most STUPID things you have ever said….

…. and that is amazing in itself…

How much DUMBER can you manage to get.. (I guess we will see as you keep exposing you sewer level ignorance)

It proves straight away that you are TOTALLY CLUELESS about any sort of real science whatsoever.

Science is based on EVIDENCE.

Its about discussion…. not gullibly-blind, ignorant, brain-washed acceptance.

We are STILL WAITING for your evidence. !!

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

fred250
Reply to  Mike
November 30, 2020 1:47 am

” Climate science is like Quantum Mechanics”

ROFLMAO.

And just when I didn’t think you could get any DUMBER.

You stretch the lead to DUMBEST !!

I guess to a self-loathing degenerate, low-IQ junior high drop out, like you, it would seem that way, right nyholist.

But i t really does show you are on a brain function level even lower than a slime mold. !

fred250
Reply to  Mike
November 30, 2020 1:56 am

You do realise that this thing you refer to as “climate science” is mostly just glorified computer games… Don’t you.?

Or are you so DUMB that that had not occurred to you. !

Why should anyone believe them when they are ALWAYS proven so very wrong by actual data (until they adjust that data of course)

I guess if you choose to let yourself fall for the fraud and mal-information inherent in so-called “climate -science”, that is up to you….

But most people here have a mind and a will of their own, and know how to use it

You should try it some day.. !

LdB
Reply to  nyolci
November 28, 2020 6:30 pm

If it was 97% Biden would have won in a landslide because Trumps stance was clear even down to pulling out of the Paris deal.

So I think you are full of BS.

Laertes
Reply to  nyolci
November 28, 2020 6:51 pm

So 97% of US Americans are bent on suicide by cutting down their life expectancy from 75+ years down to 30?

I guess returning back to stone age has its merits. Closer to nature and all that.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  nyolci
November 28, 2020 7:28 pm

In a 2007 survey over 10,000 “scientists” were polled and asked 2 questions. Just over 3000 responded. Of those 3000+ 75 out of 77 said they were climate experts and “Yes” humans were causing climate change (Question 2). That is the origin of the 97% “consensus”.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  nyolci
November 29, 2020 8:13 am

97% of Americans know how to mouth politically correct intact male bovine dejecta when cornered by stranger from liberal coastal enclave.

Now there is a surprise.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
November 29, 2020 7:08 pm

“the never ending gas lighting and gish gallop is getting ineffectual at last.”

Yep your attempts are like those of a 5 year old chucking a tanty…

LAUGHED at.

The picture at the top is YOU to a “t”. !

Or is this you ? comment image

yosef
Reply to  nyolci
December 1, 2020 11:52 pm

I have sixty years perspective and I do not see any change in climate since my youth. I do notice that the air is much cleaner. When I was in college, it was scientifically proven that we would be heading into a new ice age. I had to study the Club of Rome report which scientifically proved that by the 80’s there would be widespread famine in the USA. There is no way 97% express the same opinion on any issue.

Ian
November 28, 2020 11:31 am

Natural Selection.

shrnfr
November 28, 2020 11:44 am

These creeps are just warmed over zpgers. Shame that their zpg parents did not follow through.

DJ
November 28, 2020 11:56 am

LOL!
As mentioned, excellent example of natural selection. … Climate Change is causing a decline in reproduction among Climate Change Alarmists…. Oh, the irony.

Climate believer
November 28, 2020 12:11 pm

Are Guardian readers branching off and becoming a new species that will quickly become extinct due to their self hate?

Peta of Newark
November 28, 2020 12:21 pm

Good grief. What perfectly vacuous garbage.
How is it possible for somebody, in fact, ANYBODY to be sooooo clueless?

Of course parents and would be parents worry about their kids.
They worry about potential physical or mental defects right the way through as to whether the kid might get run over by a bus, struck by lightning, become a drug baron or even, Heaven Forbid amongst these braindeads, a new Mr Trump.

Its what being a parent is all about.
Lord help us

That these clowns create a survey with Climate Change places tops as a potential worry could *only* get the response it did. As would a survey leading with the hazards I just mentioned.

I’m of a mind to suggest that there is one humongous undercurrent of selfishness combined with hypocrisy going on here.. (There, at the Grauniad)

Michael in Dublin
November 28, 2020 12:27 pm

The people the Guardian is writing about are those who expect the state to look after them from the cradle to the grave. They are not interested in being responsible adults who do not need the state to be their perpetual nanny.

EternalOptimist
November 28, 2020 12:31 pm

I hope this is untrue.
Imagine a world without diversity coordinators, equal opportunities managers and telephone sanitizers.
Just try to imagine the horror of no more whiners complaining that we stole something they never had in the first place

n.n
Reply to  EternalOptimist
November 28, 2020 7:29 pm

Ah, yes, diversity (i.e. color judgment) dogma, that denies individual dignity, individual conscience, intrinsic value, normalizes color blocs, color quotas, and affirmative discrimination, a liberal belief under the Pro-Choice quasi-religion dictated by the Progressive Church/Synagogue/Mosque/Club/Clinic, etc, and Humpty Dumptys. #InStorkTheyTrust

Coeur de Lion
November 28, 2020 12:40 pm

Griff is a consortium

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
November 28, 2020 1:29 pm

And sort of a con

fred250
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
November 28, 2020 2:31 pm

Sort of like “the Graeae” who shared one eye and one tooth between them.

….. except “the griff” share only half a brain, and you can never tell which griff actually has it.

Usually not the one commenting.

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
November 28, 2020 5:13 pm

Global warning (Ode to Griff)

His name is Griffin. Folks though call him “Griff”
He hails from universities of stone
Debate with him is as a smoken spliff
It leaves one’s mental faculties undone

For high o’er land and sea and distant isles
The eye of Griff doth wander wide and free
All he beholds, his intellect defiles
Dreaming disaster from the rings of trees

The seas do rise – we’re told – to drown our coasts
Though photos of past bays show nary a change
Griff terrifies the kids with tales of ghosts
That steal the frost from every mountain range

Beholding life, he see-eth only death
In forms of beauty, veiled catastrophe
That morbid gas in every human breath
Damns sinners to a lost eternity

But that dread gas – O Griff! How see-est thou not
Bringeth not death but life, that springeth green
The photosynthesis thou hast forgot
Is nourished by the thing thou call’st unclean

And so adieu, my ode to Griff is done
To that sly master of the shifting files
Of numbers spelling our Armeggedon
And yet behind that mask of doom – he smiles!

Tom Abbott
November 28, 2020 1:07 pm

Yes, these Human-caused Climate Change lies are detrimentally affecting many people.

When they find out it was all a hoax, they are going to be really mad, I imagine.

Those who have been fooled should take their anger out on the Climategate Charlatans and their Spawn. They are the ones who perpetrated this Big Lie about humans causing the climate to change. They are the ones keeping you from having babies and keeping you scared all the time.

Mickey Reno
November 28, 2020 1:18 pm

I’m happy when climate nutters don’t have children, too.

TonyG
November 28, 2020 1:21 pm

And they don’t understand why there’s such a problem with depression in the current generation.

TonyG
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 28, 2020 2:30 pm

I was in HS early 80’s, I remember the gloom and doom being sold then. It seems several orders of magnitude beyond that now. Fortunately, I’ve managed to keep mine with firm footing, but so many of their peers are badly broken by the time they reach 20 from all the despair they’re being fed.

Rob_Dawg
November 28, 2020 1:50 pm

“Eat your termite paté with seaweed sauce. Don’t you know there are children out there scarfing down “Happy Meals” destroying the planet?”

Bruce Cobb
November 28, 2020 2:02 pm

Climate Bedwetters don’t want children?
Shocker.
They really shouldn’t have them anyway, forcing their climate psychosis onto their own children.
The ultimate in bad parenting.

james fosser
November 28, 2020 2:08 pm

I suppose the bright side of this is that they are not attempting to reproduce their own kind.

Pat from kerbob
November 28, 2020 2:23 pm

I say again
There needs to be penalties for climate alarmism causing the young and otherwise weak minded to despair of the future and contemplate suicide?
The equivalent of yelling “fire” in a crowded theater

Should start a website for parents of children who have taken their lives over this and post lists of the people in each country most guilty of spreading irrational fears.
Then those parents can go visit said climate scientologists.

This only gets better when real penalties are applied

Otherwise it’s like ethics in canada. Over the top ethics violations garner a $300 fine and no further penalty

Hence we have the most unethical cretin as PM as possible

Rod Evans
November 28, 2020 2:33 pm

This must be the ultimate example of every cloud having a silver lining, story
The next generation of easily led delusional greens will not be born.
That may be the most helpful thing the greens have done in a very long time.
If any of them start to berate there own children for simply existing, then those crazy individuals should be locked up for the sake of the innocent children they hate!

ATheoK
November 28, 2020 2:36 pm

“Imagine growing up in a household where the parents literally think their children are planet wrecking wastes of space or worse. Imagine being taught from the cradle that you are your parents’ guilty burden on the planet.”

Or the parents purposely mislead and misinform the child who already has mental challenges, then shills that child out to the world as some sort of saviour prophet while using huge amounts of the very products they decry…

It appears there are no innocent life of Gaia that climate alarmists are not willing to parasitize and consume.

Wayne West
November 28, 2020 2:55 pm

Darwin’s natural selection at work. I wonder if they realize that without CO2 feeding plants they would eventually suffocate from lack of Oxygen. They probably havent examined the CO2 spectral absorbance curve for black body radiation. Oh well, don’t worry, be happy.

Mr.
November 28, 2020 2:59 pm

Here’s the give-away quote that alarmists are incapable of thinking –
One 27-year-old woman said: “I FEEL like I can’t in good conscience bring a child into this world and force them to try and survive what may be apocalyptic conditions.”

Note that these numpties are always led through life by what they FEEL.

That’s because they are incapable of rational thought, comprehension and logical conclusions.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Mr.
November 28, 2020 5:18 pm

… also incapable of correct grammar: “…bring a child into this world and force them…”

Kone Wone
November 28, 2020 4:24 pm

If those morons who really believe in an impending apocalyptic climate disaster decide not to have children, that’s surely a good thing isn’t it? The last thing we need is a lot more little morons.

Art
November 28, 2020 4:26 pm

Climate activists shouldn’t be allowed to have kids. We don’t need those who are easily fooled to pass on their genes.

Al Miller
November 28, 2020 4:42 pm

Any people as mentally ill as the Thunbergs would be well advised to NOT have children. The torturous life of Greta is something to behold and the should be incarcerated for what they have done to her.

Reply to  Al Miller
November 28, 2020 7:09 pm

Amen

November 28, 2020 5:00 pm

Here’s the inside story of a Guardian journalist sacked because her feminism made her a transphobe

https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/11/26/suzanne-moore-why-i-left-the-grauniad/

n.n
Reply to  Phil Salmon
November 28, 2020 7:23 pm

Trans/homosexual, bisexual, intersexual, neosexual? The biggest transphobes are trans/homosexuals who take gay pride in their pure transgenderism (e.g. sexual orientation deviation – diametrically – from normal). Embrace the Rainbow (exclusive of black, brown, and featuring the shredded remains of white) – a symbol of unity and inclusion. That said, they should lose their Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic, relativistic (e.g. “ethics”) quasi-religion and discover principles.

n.n
Reply to  Phil Salmon
November 28, 2020 7:24 pm

The Guardian is also worried about too many white girls from next door in the Olympics. Rabid diversity (i.e. color judgment), not limited to racism.

fred250
Reply to  n.n
November 28, 2020 9:44 pm

Some Olympic events are now only open to certain races. 😉

comment image

n.n
Reply to  fred250
November 29, 2020 9:40 am

Hah, I thought it was a play on words, but you were speaking literally. Next: trans neo- and masculine females (excluding trans/homosexual and bisexual females) replacing feminine females. Hey, if two males or two females can father and mother, respectively, a child. So, science progresses.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Phil Salmon
November 29, 2020 6:57 am

I read it (the whole thing, which is rather long), and feel sympathetic, and it is a bit of an eye-opener to what is going on in the what can only be described as bizarre world of sexuality today, where not only does anything go, but what was once described as normal is now sneered at, and called “binary” (a dumb descriptor). Feminism itself, though, has been guilty of excesses, and in a way, that has come back around to bite them. Still, us “binaries” need to stick together. We’re not the haters, they are. And a lot of that hatred stems from self-hatred.

n.n
November 28, 2020 7:15 pm

You’re such a “burden” h/t Obama. I should have “Planned” you, sequestered your carbon, or recycled, reused, redistributed your profitable parts. Here’s to the good people for social progress and other purposes. #WickedSolution

John F Hultquist
November 28, 2020 7:18 pm

Here’s another (O/T) unintended — but easily seen coming — consequence of the big city mayors and governors not understanding what they are doing.

In San Francisco, the Muni transit system faces the biggest crisis of its 110-year history, said Jeffrey Tumlin, transportation director of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. Bus boardings are down 70%, and transit revenue has plunged 93%.” [from the WSJ]

Send more money! Right.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Some ideas: Stop testing — number of “cases” will tank.
Stop arresting folks, many know more than the mayors and goveronors.
Open schools.
Stop wasting money on wind turbines and build elderly care facilities as though the lives of the elderly depended on it. [If you don’t trust my word on this — go visit several “standard” facilities.]
There is a little wealth remaining — stop draining it away. [Too late for many.]

michael hart
November 28, 2020 8:15 pm

“The researchers surveyed 600 people aged 27 to 45 who were already factoring climate concerns into their reproductive choices..”

I’m grateful to the authors for posting, up-front, their biased sample selection. It means I do not need to read any further.

Patrick MJD
November 28, 2020 10:13 pm

The picture in the lead article is exactly how I imagine climate worriers to react when their world view is shattered with scientific fact.

Scott Henderson
November 28, 2020 10:53 pm

I am 53. My generation was discouraged from having kids because of the population bomb. I remember feeling sick to my stomach when one of my professors in college promulgated that point of view. I didn’t listen and have two children of my own. I think this is all the same self-destructive garbage. It just has a different wrapping paper.

TonyG
Reply to  Scott Henderson
November 29, 2020 9:21 am

What is it about some (many) people that they have such an overwhelming need to be completely terrified about everything?

William Haas
November 29, 2020 2:27 am

It is the parents own fault. They should have thought about that before they went ahead and had children. The planet is already overpopulated with humans anyway. It is not like that well if they do not have another child the human race will become extinct. It has nothing to do with climate but it is a matter of how much resources and space is available per human. The Earth has only a finite amount of resources and of space.

November 29, 2020 3:18 am

The ability to predict is the best objective means of assessing scientific competence, and the global warming alarmists have NO predictive track record – they have been 100% wrong about everything and nobody should believe these fraudsters – about anything!

“MacRae’s Maxim”:
“VIRTUALLY EVERY SCARY PREDICTION BY GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISTS IS FALSE.”

The Great Global Warming Fraud is a litmus test for basic intelligence – if you believe is catastrophic human-made global warming (aka “climate change”) hysteria, then you are an unscientific dolt, and no useful knowledge can be imparted to you. This is your unfortunate personal affliction – kindly get help for your very personal turmoil and do not foist your false mania on others, especially schoolchildren. I suggest that you avoid children and small animals – you are seriously deranged and may even be dangerous.

The Great Global Warming Fraud has no place in polite, intellectual company – it is a scary fiction, concocted by wolves to stampede the sheep. It is not real – be comforted by this fact.

Josie
November 29, 2020 3:47 am

Would be nice if the Gretas of this world would be factored out by climate fears of the millennials. But I think it’s a BS study. People want to have fun before they settle, can not find/ afford a place to live or they exaust themselves in 80 hour work weeks in order to afford a place to live….a host of reasons to postpone having kids indefinitely. Guess what, there’s adequate contraception available to sponsor all this mayhem.
Maybe I’m mistaken but climate believers/ lefties are very hypocritical usually. They will have kids while denying others the pleasure just like they fly around the world (or in Gretas case let people fly around the world to serve her) or attend parties while bestowing corona porn on hoi polloi aka the deplorables or join BLM protests in droves while it’s about forbidden to take a walk in the parc with your neighbours. It’s just noise they’re making and this “study” seems 2b part of that.

Coach Springer
November 29, 2020 6:32 am

Environmentalism means calling your parents bastards for having you.

SAMURAI
November 29, 2020 7:12 am

Looking at the bright side, it’s encouraging Leftists are afraid of having children, which translates to fewer Leftists in the future as most children naturally adopt the philosophy of their parents…

I love Darwinism in action.

Perhaps just Leftists will eventually go extinct before their insane actions cause all humans to suffer the same fate..

Leftism is such a bizarre religious cult…

Jack
November 29, 2020 10:25 am

That’s good news !
Climate activist is an endangered species on the way to disappearance from our planet !

Brad Mueller
November 30, 2020 6:11 am

OK.
I’ll have a diet Coke.

Gen Agustsson
December 4, 2020 1:21 pm

great article. they tried depopulation but it isn’t working!

%d bloggers like this: