NPR: ‘Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of Climate Change?’ ‘We should protect our kids by not having them’


By: - Climate DepotAugust 18, 2016 6:24 PM with 46 comments


  • Rod W of Oz

    Rider might be onto something. Perhaps people who believe the climate catastrophists should indeed voluntarily not have kids to help save the planet. Society’s average IQ would certainly increase over the ensuing decades.

    • Dano2

      Perhaps people who believe the climate catastrophists

      What about the vast, vast majority of reg’lur people who accept the findings of science? Since the fraction is so large, IQ would likely not be affected…

      Best,

      D

      • So you (and the vast, vast majority) accept every single finding of every scientist (and groups claiming to be scientists)? If so, we have a serious IQ problem here. Science has never been “settled”, and new theories continue to disprove old ones. Studies are frequently biased by the scientist’s preconceived ideas and political agendas.

        • Dano2

          So you (and the vast, vast majority) accept every single finding of every scientist (and groups claiming to be scientists)?

          Whoa, whoa – careful there! Keep all flame well away from that strawman!

          Best,

          D

          • Your strawman is much bigger than mine, i.e., “the vast, vast majority” accept “the findings of science”? What the hell does that mean?

          • Dano2

            Most people across the planet accept that man-made climate change is a fact.

            The notable exception in the First World is conservative, English-speaking Anglo-Saxons.

            HTH

            Best,

            D

          • That is such a dumb statement, I don’t know where to begin…Where is your global polling data to support your contention? I would suspect that the majority of the world’s population has never read a scientific paper on the subject. How could they possibly make an informed decision on anthropogenic affects on climate? I will accept the concept that the majority of the world’s population are naive and gullible, and will accept the word of someone with a political agenda who claims to be knowledgeable on the topic.

          • Dano2

            Cons hate polls. It reminds them of how backward behind the times their ideology is.

            1. , 2. , 3. ,

            Best,

            D

          • Facts don’t seem to matter to leftists.

          • Dano2

            I’d blather and ululate to try and hide poll results if I were a con too.

            Best,

            D

          • What poll results? What are you talking about? Am I wasting my time arguing with a drunk or a pajama boy?

          • Dano2

            I gave you poll results. Can you grasp it?

            Best,

            D

          • flyboy46

            That doesn’t mean the fools who listen to NPR shouldn’t have kids. I think that is a capital idea. We should even enforce the ban on childbirth from those morons. It would take awhile, but some things are worth waiting for.

          • Dano2

            You made this up: hundreds of climate predictions that have all proven to be wrong.

            You can’t show it is true.

            Best,

            D

          • Well, here’s a link to 107 failed predictions. There are plenty more examples I could pull up fairly quickly, if you are interested.
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/

          • Dano2

            Disinformation site! Drink!

            Best,

            D

          • I provide facts which you requested, and you dismiss it as “disinformation”. I should have expected that facts don’t mean anything to a leftist. I could provide many more, from James Hanson, the IPCC, and other climate alarmist sources, but it would be a waste of my time to try to dissuade a true believer.

          • Dano2

            No, you linked to a disinformation site. You can’t hide it. It’s all you have, isn’t it?

            Best,

            D

          • Dano2

            Your 13 more amuses me. You apparently are ignorant of the fact that the petroleum, demographics, and agronomic professions do not make climate perdiktins. Aren’t you something?

            Best,

            D

          • John Galt

            Watch out for the “informal expert”….. those who, eager to garner the attention of the mainstream news media, will “do whatever it takes” to rig the system to “save” our planet. To hell with the 10 commandments or equivalent which have served as the foundation of civilized society for the last approx. 2000 years.

      • John Galt

        You are confusing real science with voodoo science…… In fact even the latest 2013 IPCC AR5 – Annual report on Climate change confirms there has been in fact a 15 year hiatus on earth temperature increase……because the pdf file is 1500 pages long, taking well over one hour to download and store on a hard drive I will make it easy for you – see snippet below….. I think it was from page 769 chapter 19….
        Politicians have a long history of failing to discern the difference (FAILING EVERY TIME) and the results continue to devastate…… They fail every time because truth has to be filtered through the political agenda to win an electrion NO MATTER WHAT!

        https://books.google.ca/books?id=LjhtdMmJdQMC&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=the+gods+of+energy+planning+foolishness&source=bl&ots=SxKplKt3K6&sig=CdwKmSUCnhpbk6ejuyaT2WOhAJI&hl=en&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwiKtrisks7OAhUW_WMKHeIGB0EQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=the%20gods%20of%20energy%20planning%20foolishness&f=false

        • Dano2

          Nice cherry-pick.

          That aside, try giving us the latest science. What do a half-dozen papers since (by some of the authors who constructed this statement) have to say about the hiatus?

          Let us know what your awesome research skills find.

          Best,

          D

          • John Galt

            I opened the AR5 document again yesterday and did a search for the word “hiatus”…… I gave up counting that word after finding it over 35 times…… By the time one reads and begins to understand it there are a few things that become obvious:
            1) Most of the scientific material contained tends to be quite honest in revealing uncertainties, unknown factors yet to me taken into account, need for much more work to reach a definitive conclusion in line with the scientific method, failure of many computer models to account for unexpected hiatus and a significant risk that CO2 is a prime suspect based thus far on circumstantial evidence.
            2) Pachauri’s summary statement within AR5 does not align well with the contents but is the only part that politicians, mainstream news media etc. are interested in and/or are capable of understanding….
            In summary, it becomes blatantly clear that the mainstream news media and the politicians are making dangerous assumptions about the severity of AGW relative to factors totally beyond the control of mankind… e.g., solar, solar system, Van Allen radiation belt, cosmic radiation variance, volcanic factors as well as many others yet to be discovered other factors.
            We can blame Al Gore and the mainstream news media for convincing us that AR5 supports their claims of catastrophe forthcoming.

          • Dano2

            I’ll type slowly.

            What do the results of studies SINCE (after) AR5 say?

            TIA

            Best,

            D

          • John Galt

            I have no idea! If you do…. please advise…… I make it a habit of examining both sides of any issue and not to reinforce an existing bias ad infinitum as so many people today seem to be doing.

          • Dano2

            They say no hiatus.

            Best,

            D

        • Aaron Egal

          Don’t read it. Just believe what it says.

  • Between unfettered abortions and global warming hysterics not having kids, perhaps we will see the extinction of the leftist population.

    • ScienceABC123

      Uh, no. Progressives/leftists always exempt themselves from their policies.

      • Adriennejsmith

        <<hp.. ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!il449r:….,……

    • Choey1

      If they don’t make their own kids they will import them. legally or illegally.

  • ScienceABC123

    This is the same dribble as the ‘Voluntary Human Extinction Movement’. Yes, there is such a movement in today’s world (http://www.vhemt.org).

  • Generalist

    This is just another manifestation of the malthusian/people are toxic to the earth/global warming catastrophe death cult. As I watch this unfold, I think I see an answer to the Fermi paradox – progressive liberals.

  • I’m all for Liberals not having kids. I’ve been saying this for decades!!

    • cc

      sure, they (Liberals) should be the ones leading by example to show us how rapidly a specific group can depopulate and change the arc of history.

  • Sam Pyeatte

    Travis Rieder should not have kids – he is a bad seed. In fact, far-left idiots – which, by definition, is all of them, should not have kids. We, on the other hand, will continue to have kids.

  • Buster

    the warmists are a cult. a wacky, mind warped neo-hippie cult. nothing else.

  • John Galt

    For God’s sake has everyone gone mad?
    The altruistic argument of the extreme green movement is utterly bogus and here is why.

    Basic human nature is to procreate, nuture and protect our own progeny first and foremost….(tribal instinct)… Without any possibility of a doubt, the extreme green’s are more interested in protecting their own tribe than any other. And now many including some UN leaders are calling for “depopulation” as a means of controlling Earth’s climate: http://www.emancipatedhuman.com/2015/04/10/un-climate-chief-calls-depopulation/

    Comparing the end result of man’s efforts to a fruit tree – “Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit!”

  • Duke Silver

    What they meant was, their parents should have protected US by not having THEM.

  • Noah

    Unbelievable omniscient ignorance. The climate after it got here has always changed. Earth’s history recently there was an ice age. GOD’s Nature will decide whether offsprings are born or not.

  • DavidAppell

    Why does the world need more people?

    • Duke Silver

      Good point. Remove yourself, please. Nice to see you lead by example.

  • BBrianL

    This all goes hand in hand with their theory that humans are a parasite that needs to be eradicated in order for the planet to survive. That is, all humans that don’t believe as they do.

  • strawnman

    Of course, the people who need to stop breeding are the primarily non-college-educated, blue-collar Anglo-Saxon types; i.e. Christians. It would be nice for the progs if the Muslims stopped breeding as well, but the primary threat is Christians. You will never catch a progressive denying him or herself something they desire, whether it be a pet, a child, or an abortion. That duty falls on the benighted masses, not the educated elite who will take care of Mother Earth.

  • Aaron Egal

    Not going to a secular University ever!

  • 84Cheetah

    The corrupt, liberal, propagandists, who are pushing this agenda should definitely not be having any offspring!