96.5% of people say they are 'very' or 'extremely' concerned about 'climate change' impact on their potential offspring - The first-of-its-kind study found that 96.5 percent of people surveyed said they were “very” or “extremely” concerned about the impact of global warming on the well-being of their potential offspring, the Guardian 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,” a 27-year-old woman told researchers. Another participant in the study, published in the scientific journal Climatic Change, worried that future weather conditions would “rival world war one in its sheer terror.” In addition to those people who said they’d forgo reproduction, 6 percent said they felt bad about already having brought children into the world, according to the Guardian.
“I regret having my kids because I am terrified that they will be facing the end of the world due to climate change,” a 40-year-old mom said. The study, titled “Eco-reproductive concerns in the age of climate change,” involved 607 Americans between the ages of 27 and 45.
NASA's Director of its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), Dr. Gavin Schmidt smeared scientific dissenters of man-made climate change claims on September 12, 2020: "A reminder (if one was needed) that most climate deniers are sociopaths," Schmidt wrote about Climate Depot's Marc Morano. Dictionary.com defines a "sociopath" as "a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience."
"There is no ‘mode of discourse’ that will make Morano suddenly stop being an awful person who is (well) paid to try to prevent any efforts to reduce fossil fuel use by fair means or foul. So, might as well call it as one sees it," Schmidt added. Schmidt has a long history of political and policy activism at NASA.
Anand Giridharadas: "Have you witnessed a shift in the inner experience of youth with this death knell of climate hanging over people’s heads? Do you think a lot of young people feel that their childhoods have been stolen?"
VARSHINI Prakash: "It’s rampant. We'll go to trainings and kids will share really intense stories of contemplating suicide. I don't want to call it nihilism because it's not something theoretical. People are really, really, really feeling this deep sense of foreboding — a lack of agency, basically. "
ANAND: "You’re saying you hear young people contemplating suicide because of climate specifically?"
VARSHINI: "Yes. Because of the climate crisis. It’s not uncommon."
VARSHINI: 'The climate crisis and racial inequality are linked in causation as well as in effect."
Boris Johnson, Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron, and Narendra Modi will apparently gather in the Netherlands. There, along with Bill Gates, UN head Antonio Guterres, and personnel associated with the European Union, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, they’ll attend a climate summit hosted by the Global Center on Adaptation. ...
We’re told this summit "will launch a comprehensive Adaptation Action Agenda to kick start a transformational decade."
Donna Laframboise: "The chutzpah is astonishing. The global economy is in tatters. Billions face an uncertain future. Health care workers are exhausted. Yet this Clique of Self-Important People™ is full speed ahead, determined to impose its climate vision on the rest of us."
In the last 500 years only some 80 mammals are recorded as having gone extinct. In his book, More From Less, Andrew McAfee, a board member of HumanProgress.org, discusses how relatively rare recorded extinctions are – with some 530 across all species in the last five centuries. More importantly, he notes, the rate of extinction “appear[s] to have slowed down in recent decades; for example, no marine creatures have been recorded as extinct in the last fifty years.”
Matt Ridley, another board member and frequent contributor to this site, argues that despite the human population doubling in the last half-century, “the extinction rate of wild species, especially in the most industrialized countries,” seems to have fallen rather than increased. While absence of evidence isn’t the same as evidence of absence, and there might be millions of unrecorded species in the world’s oceans and tropical forests, the most aggressive claims rest on shaky foundations.
CNN: Jon Aars, a senior researcher at the Norwegian Polar Institute: "Polar bears are optimistic animals," Aars says. "It seems that they are quite resistant, and they are doing quite well despite the fact that they've lost a lot of their habitat." Despite the odds, Svalbard's polar bear numbers do not appear to have decreased in the last 20 years, he says.
Hulme: "January 12021, a new World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) climatological standard normal came into effect. The ‘present-day’ climate will now formally be represented by the meteorological statistics of the period 1991-2020, replacing those from 1961-1990. National Meteorological Agencies in member states are instructed to issue new standard normals for observing stations and for associated climatological products. Climate will ‘change’, one might say, in an instant; today, the world’s climate has ‘suddenly’ become nearly 0.5°C warmer. It is somewhat equivalent to re-setting Universal Time or adjusting the exact definition of a metre." ...
"So, what is the significance of the move to a new 1991-2020 WMO normal in January 2021? On the one hand, it is a pragmatic move to redefine ‘present-day’ climate for operational applications to that of the most recent 30-year period. On the other hand, it puts into play a third climatic baseline. Already existing is the ‘pre-industrial’ climate of the late nineteenth century and the ‘historic’ climate’ of 1961-1990, the latter about 0.3°C warmer than the former. And now there is the new ‘present-day’ climate of 1991-2020, in turn about 0.5°C warmer than the ‘historic climate’ of 1961-1990." ...
"Combining a climatic tolerance of 2°C—or indeed 1.5°C—with a pre-industrial baseline yields a very different climate target than, say, using a 1986-2005 baseline, the period widely adopted by IPCC AR5 Working Group I as their analytical baseline. The choices of both baseline and tolerance are politically charged. They carry significant implications for historic liability for emissions (La Rovere et al., 2002), for policy design (Millar et al., 2017) and for possible reparations (Roberts & Huq, 2015)."