UN hysteria linking climate change and species extinction mindlessly parroted by media
It is truly sad that U.N. reports on the climate and extinctions are printed throughout the media to push the agenda and scare the public, especially the children, with no questions asked and no attempt to verify the information in the reports.
People who pretend to be journalists just report these predictions as if they are factual while never seeming to look back and see how bad previous predictions have been.
The following article says one million species are threatened because of humans. It says there are a total of eight million animal species. I am sure there is not a list of the one million endangered or a list of the eight million. The numbers are purely made up.
One million of the planet's eight million species are threatened with extinction by humans, scientists warned Monday in what is described as the most comprehensive assessment of global nature loss ever.
Their landmark report paints a bleak picture of a planet ravaged by an ever-growing human population, whose insatiable consumption is destroying the natural world.
The global rate of species extinction "is already tens to hundreds of times higher than it has been, on average, over the last 10 million years," according to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), a UN committee, whose report was written by 145 experts from 50 countries.
The actual number of species on the endangered list appears to be 3,000, so why are we told that one million are endangered?
Currently, more than 3,000 species of animals are considered endangered. In the United States, the Endangered Species Act was passed in 1973 to help with conservation efforts, but there are now three times as many endangered species as there were just ten years ago.
If you look up the number of species that have gone extinct since the last (almost) 120 years, it is 477, or around four a year. I am sure most of those started going extinct long before fossil fuels could have caused the problem. So four species per year, and the U.N. puts out the prediction of one million, and journalists like puppets just print this.
Nearly 500 species have gone extinct during the last century–and in most cases, we humans are to blame. According to a 2015 study by the National Autonomous University (UNAM), 477 species have disappeared since 1900 due to our degradation and destruction of their natural habitats. The researchers said it was the largest mass extinction of species in history.
In 1989 the UN predicted disaster and we only had ten years left to fix the problem. They were 100% wrong but journalists and other Democrats pushing the agenda to take trillions away from the public don’t care.
June 29, 1989
A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.
He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.
In 2015, Yale University estimated that there are three trillion trees on Earth. Previous estimates were 400 billion. Why would we believe any estimates when previous estimates were 700% off? If they go from 400 billion to three trillion, does that make it appear that humans, CO2, and fossil fuels are destroying the planet?
A study led by Yale University researchers has found that there are over 3 trillion trees on Earth - but they are disappearing at an alarming rate.
The study found that there are around 3.04 trillion trees on Earth, or around 422 for each person on the planet.
The number is a huge increase on the previous global estimate, which was just over 400 billion trees worldwide.
We have been told that humans and CO2 are killing the oceans so now they only estimate that there are 3.5 trillion left. That seems to be an odd definition of dying.
According to the best estimates of scientists, there are 3,500,000,000,000 (3.5 trillion) fish currently living in the ocean.
Then there were all those looming disasters projected by scientists on the first Earth Day almost fifty years ago.
A quick summary: We would all be dead by 1985 to 2000. (I would ask Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez what she thinks of that one.)
We would be out of food either in the 1970s or 1980s.
During the 1980s, four billion people would die, including 65 million in the U.S.
By 1980, urban dwellers would have to wear gas masks to survive.
Soon, none of our land will be usable because of too much nitrogen.
The rivers will be out of oxygen, and freshwater fish will all be gone.
By 1995, 75% to 80% of species will be gone.
And ecologist Kenneth Watt said, because we were going into an ice age, that the Earth would be four degrees cooler by 1990 and eleven degrees colder by 2000. I thought CO2, humans, and fossil fuels caused warming and it was a consensus, so how did anyone predict a coming ice age?
1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that "civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind."
2. "We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation," wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.
3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, "Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction."
4. "Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make," Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 Mademoiselle. "The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years."
5. "Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born," wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled "Eco-Catastrophe! "By… some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s."
6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the "Great Die-Off."
7. "It is already too late to avoid mass starvation," declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.
8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, "Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine."
9. In January 1970, Life reported, "Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half…."
10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, "At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it's only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable."
11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America's rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.
12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in his 1970 that "air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone." Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during "smog disasters" in New York and Los Angeles.
13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons "may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945." Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out.
14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, "By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won't be any more crude oil. You'll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill 'er up, buddy,' and he'll say, `I am very sorry, there isn't any.'"
15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.
16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, "Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."
17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that "since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it."
18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. "The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years," he declared. "If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age."
Why the hell would anyone with a brain take U.N. reports as factual when so many have been spectacularly wrong by direction and amount? Why would politicians base any policies on these crackpot reports, especially since we know that scientists have manipulated the numbers when their previous predictions have been wrong?
Should the public just be willing to hand over trillions to government bureaucrats to control our lives? Does anyone believe that politicians and bureaucrats can control temperatures, sea levels, and storm activity if we hand over trillions to them? If they do, they are a few bricks short of a load.
The big question is, why would journalists, who are supposed to fact-check and investigate what they publish or report, just repeat all these things as if they are factual?
Why are people who question these reports called stupid and deniers and blocked so often from debate?