Gov’t Climate Scientist Suggests “Culling” the Human Population with a Deadly Pandemic to Solve the “Climate Crisis”
Covid 19 was just a trial run.
We are the carbon they want to get rid of. Net Zero means nothing for you & me, but all the power to our rulers.
One government climate scientist made the mistake of blurting out the real end-game of so many radical environmental activists in a bid to preserve the planet: Killing off the human population.
Bill McGuire, a Professor of Geophysical & Climate Hazards at University College London (UCL), authored a tweet Sunday that lamented the fact carbon emissions were not falling nearly as fast as needed and suggested solving the “climate crisis” with a deadly pandemic to wipe out swaths of the human population.
“If I am brutally honest, the only realistic way I see emissions falling as fast as they need to, to avoid catastrophic #climate breakdown, is the culling of the human population by a pandemic with a very high fatality rate,” he wrote.
After righteous backlash from social media users, McGuire deleted his post and whined that people were deliberately taking his words out of context.
He then lied and claimed that his initial post was about falling economic activity despite clearly referencing a pandemic killing off mankind.
As the National Pulse notes, McGuire is infamous for being a member of a British government body that advised politicians on the COVID-19 response. He also co-authored a report for the radical United Nations’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which helps influence climate policy worldwide.
McGuire is also not the first leftist to suggest exterminating the human population to solve the planet’s issues. For example, infamous animal rights activist Jane Goodall once floated reducing the Earth’s population to what it was 500 years ago. A University of Texas professor also called for killing 90 PERCENT of all humans to save the planet.
The Biden regime is funding dangerous experiments that could turn these vile individuals’ dreams into a reality. The National Pulse reveals Peter Daszak, a researcher with ties to Anthony Fauci, is still receiving millions in taxpayer dollars to “research” not only coronavirus samples in Wuhan, but also to source new bat viruses from Burma, Laos, the Philippines, Thailand, and other countries. Some of these pathogens are highly infectious.
American taxpayers are also funding risky Chinese research on the bird flu more transmissible, a disease that kills over 50% of the people it infects. COVID-19, by comparison, has a fatality rate of less than 1%.
These facts add fuel to the theory that COVID-19 was created as a trial run and globalists are planning to develop a far more deadly virus to provide a “final solution” to the human race.
An interesting article, based (as always) on the ‘Them and us’ premise that the advocates for mass destruction will (OF Course) survive while the ‘lower orders’ are exterminated; Ultimately, control of the many by the few.
One wonders however, what would happen if the ‘Exterminator’ confined itself ONLY to the advocates of it’s use? No doubt the ‘wailing and gnashing of teeth’ would be loud and long…
You don’t need to “cull” people. All you have to do is urbanise, and educate women.
100% agree with this comment . The other issue is they are trying to scare the part of the population that isn’t even replacing itself at the moment. Maybe the vax was supposed to work and the virus wasn’t supposed to go benign so quick.
Bill McGuire is a 70 year old volcanologist – hardly a necessary asset to the planet. I vote he leads by example and shows the rest of us what a lower population may look like.
McDuff@0856
You know that he would NEVER do that – voluntary death is something for ‘them’, and he’s an ‘Us’ .
‘Leading by example’ is for everyone else, never the conceited, self-important, ‘elites’ with which McGuire evidently identifies..
“The birth rate is the ratio between the number of live-born births in the year and the average total population of that year.” This definition is problematic because it doesn’t take the proportion of elderly into account.
Imagine two countries.
In country A, there are 2 million women of childbearing age but a large number of elderly (think of Japan). Let’s say 5 million elderly. The total population of country A is 10 million. Let’s say that there are 100,000 lives births.
In country B, there are 2 million women of childbearing age but a far lower proportion of elderly (think of Africa). Let’s say 1 million elderly. The total population of country A is 6 million. Let’s say that there are 100,000 lives births.
In both countries, the true rate of birth is the same (2 million women having 100,000 babies). However, the figures for country A are skewed by the high proportion of senior citizens.
Always question the methodology.
Thanks Ody, I hadn’t thought of that and realise it makes current stats misleading at least. Actually I support culling the population provided I decide who is culled and my list is only thousands but I suspect once those on the list are culled the rest of would get on with life and solve any actual issues of climate change – humans have always adapted to change.
Humans will always find a way. It’s the nature of our species. We are extremely adaptable.
Nature has a way of depopulating whenever she feels like it. Mad scientists and their benefactors should be top of the list for Mother Earth’s target.
More than 670 feared dead in Papua New Guinea landslide
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2024/05/more-than-670-feared-dead-in-papua-new-guinea-landslide.html
Its not just or even mad scientists its Politicians and wealthy elites and if we started their elimination I suspect others would reconsider moving to Pitcairn as a preferred place to the dead centre of any city or town.