Humans Will Go Extinct If We Don’t Fix ‘Climate Change’ (scam) By 2023 Or Something

I should put this one into ye olde calendar for 2023 to see how it’s gone

Top Climate Scientist: Humans Will Go Extinct if We Don’t Fix Climate Change by 2023

A top climate scientist is warning that climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years.

In a recent speech at the University of Chicago, James Anderson — a professor of atmospheric chemistry at Harvard University — warned that climate change is drastically pushing Earth back to the Eocene Epoch from 33 million BCE, when there was no ice on either pole. Anderson says current pollution levels have already catastrophically depleted atmospheric ozone levels, which absorb 98 percent of ultraviolet rays, to levels not seen in 12 million years. (snip)

While some governments have made commitments to reduce carbon emissions (Germany has pledged to cut 95 percent of carbon emissions by 2050), Anderson warned that those measures were insufficient to stop the extinction of humanity by way of a rapidly changing climate. Instead, Anderson is calling for a Marshall Plan-style endeavor in which all of the world takes extreme measures to transition off of fossil fuels completely within the next five years.

Of course, he doesn’t actually say when humans will become extinct. Just that it’s going to happen, so, Other People have to pay taxes and stop using fossil fuels.

“The chance that there will be any permanent ice left in the Arctic after 2022 is essentially zero,” Anderson said, with 75 to 80 percent of permanent ice having melted already in the last 35 years.

And there’s another prognostication to track.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

9 Responses to “Humans Will Go Extinct If We Don’t Fix ‘Climate Change’ (scam) By 2023 Or Something”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Let’s hope he is wrong. We suspect, even if the worst occurs, that some pocket of humankind will survive somewhere.

    It’s believed that even after the eruption of supervolcano, Mt. Toba 74,000 yrs ago, that the world’s human population could be counted in the thousands, perhaps between 3000 to 10,000. And whereas Toba let to a rapid and long-term global winter for the Earth’s primitives, our current rapid warming is more gradual and we may be more adaptive because of our technologies.

    Let’s hope the professor is wrong.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      our current rapid warming is more gradual

      Yep, that makes total sense.

      *to an ignorant angry little black fella

  2. Dana says:

    But, but, but, His Eminence, St Al of Gore had told us that we had to fix global warming climate change by 2016, which was, if my math is correct, over a year in the past.

    Just how many ‘tipping points’ are there, anyway?

    Well, that might sound like a rhetorical question, but it’s not. If there is a scientifically-determined tipping point, we don’t know what it is, because we’ve had so many politically determined tipping points, ones that always seem to move five or so years into the future, after the previous one has already passed, so that the warmunists can keep making political plays for money, control and power.

  3. Jeffery says:

    Donna,

    Will there come a day when our actions will not be able to limit dangerous warming? Of course. But we will only be able to name that day after it’s past. The deni-munists keep making political plays to protect their money, control and power.

    • Dana says:

      Yet, amazingly enough, the ‘scientists’ keep telling us that that ‘tipping point’ is ever-so-near, yet when it passes, keep pushing it forward. The empirical evidence is that the tipping point day is being set by politics.

      And with each new tipping point prognostication, we see the same thing: urgent, urgent! calls from the Patricians telling the plebeians what they must do, and how much they must pay, now, into government coffers, to avoid Ragnarok.

      It is easy to mock the warmunists as warmunists, because all of their ‘solutions’ amount to nothing more than ever-increasing government control over the lives and wallets of ordinary people. Our esteemed host has noted just how often the elites amongst the warmunists show no belief that they, personally, have to change anything, as they jet off to Paris for global warming climate change talks, or make their pitches in places like Davos, Switzerland — fly into Zurich, then 140 KM by limousine to a ski resort — yet you expect us to lives colder, hungrier and darker lives under the government’s thumb.

      It’s really laughable! Some whacko shoots up a school or a church, and the left’s response is to try to curtail the rights of people who didn’t kill anybody. Freedom of speech is under assault by leftists under the stupid notion that the weak-willed and weak-minded need to be protected from having their precious little feelings hurt. Democrats try to restrict the rights of law-abiding Americans yet defend tooth and nail the ‘immigrants’ who came here illegally. 99.7% of people know what sex they are, yet the left would try to override the privacy rights of that huge majority as a sop for the feelings of the 0.3% of deluded?

      And you wonder why Donald Trump is President?

      • Jeffery says:

        yet you expect us to lives colder, hungrier and darker lives under the government’s thumb.

        Will a gradual conversion from fossil fuels to non-fossil fuels make you live a colder, hungrier and darker life? Aren’t you being just a bit overdramatic?

        When we switched our home to LED lighting we got brighter lights that consume about 10% of the energy of incandescents.

        • Dana says:

          Will a gradual conversion from fossil fuels to non-fossil fuels make you live a colder, hungrier and darker life? Aren’t you being just a bit overdramatic?

          If the technologies exist to replace fossil fuels with other sources, in a manner which is timely and just as inexpensive, then no, it won’t make like colder, hungrier or darker. But those technologies do not yet exist!

          We do not have the capacity, with current technology, to replace oil, natural gas and coal with solar, geothermal and wind power, and where people are trying to install smaller systems, their neighbors are fighting them tooth and nail, because they don’t want their beautiful vistas ‘polluted’ by having to look at windmills. Nuclear power, which does have the potential to replace a lot of coal and natural gas usage for power plants, is anathema to the left.

          I have excluded hydroelectric from the list, because where it has been feasible, it has already been employed.

          I would love to see some Star Trek future where we have as much clean, renewable energy as we could ever need, but I’m enough of a realist to recognize that such does not yet exist. Y’all seem to think that we could live in the Next Generation world, but if you were in charge, it would look more like Bajor under Cardassian occupation.

        • drowningpuppies says:

          When we switched our home to LED lighting we got brighter lights that consume about 10% of the energy of incandescents.

          Well then, ignorant angry little black fella be walkin’ the walk yo.

  4. Jl says:

    “Dangerous warming”. What danger? Cold kills about 20 times what heat does.

Bad Behavior has blocked 6362 access attempts in the last 7 days.