IF the climate charts and models that cover the last 800,000 years are an indication, no one will have to do a darn thing to cut the population.
The coming drop in global temps by 7-10 degrees centigrade, and the ice age that follows and lasts for the next 75-90 thousand years, will trim the population quite effectively.
Just sayin.
If the guy was a good climate scientist, he would already be familiar with the data.
“..a climate scientist at the University of Colorado, Boulder, ...”
Ignore that fool - it has a severe case of Boulder dementia Syndrome.
I’m a “you first”-er with these types, as I no longer have patience for their hypocrisy.
Now, anytime some leftist starts saying that “people” should do xyz, I say to them, “you first.”.
If they balk, they are the worst kind of rank hypocrites. This should come as no surprise.
Just take the bag limit off liberals and we will handle it for you
I like the comment at the link...
“Sorry to swear, but what a f##khead.”
Couldn’t say it any better myself.
He reminds me of my sister- a far left wing nut. Her head explodes everytime she points out how I am ‘not doing my part’. I then inform her that with her bicycle and 3 cylinder car she and I, with hubby’s Ford F-350 Turbo diesel at 19 mph, cancel each other out.
As for him, he should do his part and go first. After his wife, children and grandchildren of course. No life on this earth is worth less than theirs and he should practice what he preaches. Unless he wants to put a bullseye on his back and point out who is of the lesser worth.
Perhaps sending muslim children to their country of origin?
Americans should hold fast to the Founders' ideas of liberty instead of allowing its leaders and the "global warming" fearmongers to plunge it into European-style socialism.
From the Liberty Fund Library is "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, excerpted final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay:
Note the first sentence in the first of the following paragraphs: "I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal life—imperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive strides—broadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
...already being done, obviously! The bipartisan rich folks determined long ago that our world population should be reduced to that of the Renaissance (their favorite gay period).
I agree. The world doesn’t need barf bags like him. His mother should have drown him when he was a pup, but since she didn’t he should do the only right thing by his belief and do it himself.
I was anxiously awaiting the moment he plunged a dagger in his chest. He’ll probably wish he had after Glenn Beck turns him into his punching bag du jour.
Maybe it’s just me, but I find something grotesque about him parading both his psychosis and distracting “package” as if he were on a two for the price of one tour.
God loves people and said, 'Be fruitful and multiply'.
For God so loved the world that HE gave HIS only Begotten SON that whosoever believeth in HIM should not perish but have everlasting life.
I know what side Mr. NOAA Climate "scientist" is on...
...some of his words from the video:
“...that empowering women has been a proven strategy to make healthier, wealthier and smaller families.”
Sure, we’re seeing “healthier, wealthier” all over the place. Stop manufacturing, and that will happen along with the economic consequence ahead of us.
Classic Darwinism.
Methinks Mr. Miller should lean into the pitch and take one for the team.
(I hope he’s not related to Mitch!)
Stop immigration, that will drastically reduce the poplation growth.
Whoever he be of the Sons of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that gives any of his seed l'Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.
The liberal elites are running scared. They have no hope for eternal life so this is the solution they have. To stop what God has intended for man. This is why they are so blood thirsty for abortion. It’s only a matter of time before they move on to those who do not share their humanistic beliefs.