Leftist socialist academics are hoping that this week’s cold snap didn’t deter us from thinking about how the world is going to end several million years from now — they say in fire. Of course, because of global warming.

Given a reprieve to that constant drone — that global warming is an “existential threat” — because the Democrat socialist media is consumed with writing about impeachment, we’re still condemned by leftist social scientists who have pronounced global warming an existential threat. Which, to them, means it’s beyond serious.

Writing about “existential” in August as a trendy cliché, we said “Every time a Democrat running for the party’s presidential nomination mentions how many trillions — it’s always trillions — of taxpayer dollars they are going to devote to ending the manufactured global warming hoax, they utter this combined phrase — existential threat.”

We point this out because last week 11,224 scientists published a paper “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency.”

Their main concern wasn’t global warming but that the Earth’s population has “be stabilized — and, ideally, gradually reduced — within a framework that ensures social integrity.”

BioScience, an academic journal from Oxford University Press, cited the paper. The majority of those signing it were foreign, from 152 countries. Only 240 (2%), said Casey Plunkett at American Thinker, were “individuals with professions that can be construed as bona fide meteorologists, climatologists or atmospheric scientists.” Perhaps, he added, because “they know that this is faux science.”

In 2017, Mr. Plunkett reminded us that we were warned by 16,000 scientists from 184 countries that “human beings and the natural world are on a collision course.”

But in “Principia Scientific International” Dec. 18, 2016, James Taylor said, “Only 36% of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed ‘Organization Studies.’

“By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem. …”

At family gathering in the holiday season when someone mentions “scientific consensus” and “global warming,” Mr. Plunkett suggests that we advise them “to seek out the consensus opinion of a group of chemists, linguists and data scientists if they believe they tore a rotator cuff or have concerns with an asymmetrical mole they’ve discovered.”

Existential, combined with the word “threat” is still very much in vogue, meaning it’s in style, that it’s a fad. Forget about the fact that this also conveys herd instinct.

(6) comments

DeadBolt

I'd bet not 1 of these idiot scientist's ever had to chop their own firewood! Possibly they can lead by example? [beam]

David Collins

Don’t know about firewood, although the burning of it releases carbon which in the state of California is believed to be the end all of bad things, but are we now going back to the ZPG “zero population growth” movement of the 1960s. Remember that? We were in grave danger of consuming all things and ultimately facing starvation world wide. What happened? Why did this not come to pass? Sooooo, now this thought has been dredged up and given a fresh coat of lipstick. Will it sell? Can it be somehow be blended in with climate change, sea level rise, the super volcano at Yellowstone Park or the fact that I am unable to find Vanilla Bean ice cream at my local store. Yup, surely tragedies, all of them.

DeadBolt

Well, now David, you must know that the 'Vanilla Bean Tree' growth has declined quite abit since the 1980's! ( ALSO, Jeffrey Epstein DID NOT KILL HIMSELF) .

[wink]

David Collins

Aha yes. The mysterious well connected Mr. Epstein. Food for endless theories, alongside the magic bullet of JFK fame. He is quite dead no matter how it occurred. Quite sure a collective sigh of relief was shared amongst the rich and powerful that share his fetish’s for young flesh. A time honored pastime in some circles.

00rolf

This editorial is beyond ridiculousness.

A group of people where there are allegedly only 2% meteorologists, climatologists or atmospheric scientists have published a paper.

To prove this paper wrong the editor are quoting a group of people where there are exactly 0% meteorologists, climatologists or atmospheric scientists, and of whom less than 2 out of 3 are actually disagreeing with the before mentioned paper.

It is difficult to dream up a more moronic approach to science, or journalism.

DeadBolt

Here's 1 that does not agree. [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmIJCGQzCiU ]

Welcome to the discussion.

As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive/condescending attacks on other users or goading them. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning.