So, you wanted to take a fossil fueled drive over to the burger place and eat well? Well, the kiddies thank you due to future Disasters
If the Earth continues to warm at its current pace, a 6-year-old child will experience about three times as many climate disasters as their grandparents, a first-of-its-kind study in the journal Science predicts, based on a wide array of climate and demographic models. The study, published online Sunday, attempts to quantify how much kids will be affected by the “intergenerational inequality” of climate change.
The average 6-year-old will live through twice as many wildfires, 3.4 times as many river floods, 2.3 times as many droughts, 2.5 times more crop failures, and 1.7 times as many tropical cyclones as someone born in 1960, the 37 researchers determined. Compared with people who lived 150 years ago, in pre-industrial times, today’s children will experience five times more climate disasters — or if they live in sub-Saharan Africa, 50-54 times as many heat waves, The Washington Post reports. (unfortunately, the WP seems to be about the only ones with a story on this, and it is behind the paywall)
And those numbers are almost certainly an underestimate, says co-author Joeri Rogelj at Imperial College London, noting that the researchers were unable to quantify certain risks, like floods from rising ocean levels, and did not account for the increased severity of climate-related events, just frequency.
Ah, yes, another prognostication of Doom using computer models, which do not take a lot of real world data into account. Surprise! I wonder, what happens when this doesn’t happen. What consequences are there to the “researchers” for putting out a scaremongering study? What is the time frame? The current average life span for humanity is 79 years, so, do we need to wait 73 years? Or, can we start looking to see if the study was right in, say, the next 5 years? Because there really has been no acceleration of wildfires, floods, droughts, or crop failures. For tropical cyclones, modern technology, particularly satellites, allows us to see way more than they would have known about in 1966, when those kids born in 1960 were 6.
Georgia Institute of Technology’s Kim Cobb, who did not work on the study, said the climate scientist in her was not surprised by the findings — but the “robust study” did hit her on the parental level. “It brings into sharp focus what so many economic models of climate change impacts fail to capture — the vast toll of human suffering that is hanging in the balance with our emissions choices this decade,” she tells the Post. “The moral weight of this moment is almost unbearable.”
When you’re yapping about “moral weight”, and “intergenerational inequality”, well, this is no longer about science, it’s about politics and sociology. It’s about manufacturing issues to allow government to implement more and more controls on the people.
Lead author Wim Thiery said the study was partly inspired by his three young sons. “Young people are being hit by climate crisis but are not in position to make decisions,” he said. “While the people who can make the change happen will not face the consequences.”
So, parents are fighting to get government to restrict and control the lives of the children? That’s irresponsible and abusive. And they’re framing this all as “health”
(Spiked) It’s scary, portentous stuff. But this rather desperate presentation of climate change as a public-health emergency is hardly a surprise. Policies and measures to tackle everything from knife crime to racism are now often framed in terms of public health. It has become the catch-all justification for policymakers – a source of authority and legitimacy for technocrats. And this tendency to justify just about anything in terms of protecting citizens’ health has been supercharged by the response to the pandemic, where all sorts of measures, from school closures to bans on protests, have been imposed in the name of health and safety.
I’ve been looking for that piece by Tim Black for over a week. COVID allowed government to instituted all sorts of authoritarian controls. This is how they’re trying to frame ‘climate change’ now. Progressivism is called “nice Fascism.” It doesn’t mean things are great, it means “they are doing this for your own good.” It’s a softer, kinder, gentler approach to Authoritarianism.
Read: Your Fault: Today’s Kids Will Experience Three Times More Climate Disasters Or Something »
The agents are at the center of a Department of Homeland Security investigation after images emerged which Democratic lawmakers and left-wing activists claimed showed them using “whips” against migrants. Officials and agents quickly noted that the agents were in fact using long reins to control their horses, and were twirling them to move the horse forward, not to attack migrants.
When Donald Trump lost the presidency, he 
New York City in September is a hotspot for world leaders as the United Nations holds its annual General Assembly. Climate change is a key topic at this year’s conference, with leaders including President Joe Biden announcing additional investments in 
Opposition from a single moderate Democrat to corporate and income tax rate increases has revived efforts in the Senate to draft a tax on carbon dioxide pollution as a way to pay for the Democrats’ proposed $3.5 trillion budget bill.
Speaking at a climate rally in Berlin on Friday, 
Martha Gabriel knows the effects of sweltering heat. For the last five years, Gabriel has been picking sweet potatoes, beans and tomatoes under the blazing South Florida sun.
