From the express:
Out of those who voted by today, 31 per cent (2,457) said God would be responsible for finishing off mankind.
But those thinking it would be severe storms and floods caused by climate change came in at an incredible ZERO per cent.
Source
This is as good a time as any to comment on one climate extremist who claimed “they had won the argument” or another who said “the public were on their side”. The response goes like this:
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ….
On a more serious note – NOT ONE PERSON out of 2457 supported the catastrophic doomsday cult? Even out of 70 academics they found three who didn’t agree it had warmed last century (or at least couldn’t fill in the right box). So assuming that 3% is a typical error rate, one would expect some 74 people to have “ticked the wrong box”. Even if there were 20 possible responses there should have been around 4 people who agreed – just by pure dumb chance of misreading the question or answer.
However, it does raise the question of what will destroy humanity. I would suggest:
- We will evolve into something else
- Something else will evolve which will then kill us off
- Or as usually happens a long series and combination of events: Global cooling will make most of the north uninhabitable from cold, much of the south will turn to desert (as was seen before). This will massively reduce world population and concentrate it into a few habitable areas – then, already under massive pressure – with much of the economy in ruins and very few e.g. firearms, something like a new bug and perhaps some newly evolved predator will in combination send the human population into a spiral of long-term decline and eventual extinction.
Our great great grandchildren will still be safe!
Projecting natural warming for a century ahead and then blaming man (in advance) for the fantasised results, is too far-fetched for most normal people it seems.
Are alarmists rushing to buy boats?
….However, it does raise the question of what will destroy humanity…
How about: We will go somewhere else (probably several places) and the Earth will be left as a nature reserve…?
Totally off topic but thought this might interest you.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3407267/The-English-one-Anglo-Saxon-Study-reveals-time-immigrants-mixed-British-population.html
DNA still has a lot to say but these results are interesting.
Why should anything ‘destroy’ humanity? Why couch this as an inevitable, as in “will destroy?” Such a statement surely employs the same implication seen in the underlying doomsday thinking of climate catastrophists?
Of considerably greater and practical concern is ‘transition demographics’….http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/01/world_population_may_actually_start_declining_not_exploding.html
Thanks that’s very interesting. But as for the article, it all depends what you mean by “British” and “Anglo Saxon”.
Well originally we’re all African and after that it gets complicated, LOL.
First – the one thing climate and other subjects have taught me – is to never assume even the simplest assertion like “we came from Africa” is necessary true. And give the PC madness attitude of academia – I would be certain that if contradictory evidence were available it would be repressed.
However, I grant you that the earliest (published) evidence of the various hominid species are in Africa – but it then gets a lot simpler as every other species magically disappears (or perhaps we all went to some orgy and they all got mixed together?)
However, again this “mixing together” of distinct strands in the past into one today is contrary to the orthodoxy of academia which adheres to a “divergent” view of history and applies it pretty ruthlessly in all areas from linguistics to history.
So, e.g. “divergence” is seen as good, whereas “reduction in divergence” is seen as bad – which is almost the opposite view of industry – where e.g. if every temperature station in the world were calibrated and set up in a different way – industrial engineers would think it nuts – but academics would see it as “good”.
Aren’t we also supposed to be part neanderthal? However if we could mate it suggests we had a common ancestor. How far back that ancestor was might be interesting. Not sure how far you have to get before you can’t interbreed at all and at what point you only produce mules. In captivity there are a number of horse mixes (eg Zetland pony) and lion tiger versions (eg liger). Not sure if any of them are reliably reproductive.
I have no problem taking science at face value so long as it doesn’t matter. A bit like trusting a friend with £10, it’s not really a problem if they never pay you back. If that person wanted to borrow £10,000 I’d want a lot more information and reassurances.