Would Global Genocide Solve Climate Change? By James Reed

     I saw the article first referred to at Zerohedge.com, which seemed to be a typical genocide article, so I just needed to find the “get whitey” aspect, and then done and dusted, and I could have my fifth drink for the day (not water):
  https://www.zerohedge.com/health/11000-experts-make-modest-proposal-end-global-warming-just-kill-billions-people

“Over 11,000 experts from around the world have banded together to call for solutions to the  'climate emergency,' including population control - which "must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrity." The solution? Fewer people! When absorbed in sequence, the charts lay out a devastating trend for planetary health. From meat consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and ice loss to sea-level rise and extreme weather events, they lay out a grim portrait of 40 years of squandered opportunities. The scientists make specific calls for policymakers to quickly implement systemic change to energy, food, and economic policies. But they go one step further, into the politically fraught territory of population control. It “must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrity,” they write. -Bloomberg
"We are encouraged by a recent surge of concern," reads the letter. "Governmental bodies are making climate emergency declarations. Schoolchildren are striking. Ecocide lawsuits are proceeding in the courts. Grassroots citizen movements are demanding change, and many countries, states and provinces, cities, and businesses are responding.”

     There was no proof as such here of anyone advocating genocide, so I trotted off to the paper itself:
  https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806

“Scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to “tell it like it is.” On the basis of this obligation and the graphical indicators presented below, we declare, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency. … To secure a sustainable future, we must change how we live, in ways that improve the vital signs summarized by our graphs. Economic and population growth are among the most important drivers of increases in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion (Pachauri et al. 2014, Bongaarts and O’Neill 2018); therefore, we need bold and drastic transformations regarding economic and population policies.

Population
Still increasing by roughly 80 million people per year, or more than 200,000 per day (figure 1a–b), the world population must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrity. There are proven and effective policies that strengthen human rights while lowering fertility rates and lessening the impacts of population growth on GHG emissions and biodiversity loss. These policies make family-planning services available to all people, remove barriers to their access and achieve full gender equity, including primary and secondary education as a global norm for all, especially girls and young women (Bongaarts and O’Neill 2018).”

     Ok, this is all debatable but still, the global genocide thesis is not strictly correct, but no doubt, those that favour population culling may find this useful, no fault of the scientists, of course. Zerohedge should have zeroed in on the real thing attacked by the scientists, namely “wealthy” populations, you know, the sorts of societies that have the resources to fund science, and feed and clothe scientists who can then bite the hand that has sustained them:
  https://www.theaustralian.com.au/science/climate-crisis-linked-to-wealth-by-scientists/news-story/080155d6851930196baa2959ab8eb848?utm_source=The%20Australian&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial&utm_content=TodaySHeadlines

“Global surface temperatures are not sufficient to measure climate change, which should instead be tracked by a scorecard of population growth, meat consumption, forest loss and the use of air transport, a new declaration by scientists says. A document signed by 11,000 scientists from 153 countries declared a “climate emergency” and called for major transformations in the way global society functions and interacts with natural ecosystems. In an article published in BioScience, the group said “policymakers and the public urgently needed access to a set of indicators that convey the effects of human activities on (greenhouse gas) emissions and the consequent impacts on climate, our environment, and society”. The scientists said the “climate crisis” was “closely linked to excessive consumption of the wealthy lifestyle”. “The most affluent countries are mainly responsible for the historical greenhouse gas emissions and generally have the greatest per capita emissions,” the article said. The scientists said profoundly troubling signs from human activities included sustained increases in human and ruminant livestock populations, per-capita meat production, world gross domestic product, global tree-cover loss, fossil fuel consumption, the number of air passengers, and carbon dioxide emissions.

Encouraging signs include decreases in global fertility rates, decelerated forest loss in the Brazilian Amazon, increases in solar and wind power, and institutional fossil fuel divestment. Thomas Newsome from University of Sydney, a co-author of the paper, said scientists had a moral obligation to warn humanity of any great threat. “From the data we have, it is clear we are facing a climate emergency,” Dr Newsome said. He said measuring global surface temperatures would continue to remain important. However, he said a “broader set” of indicators should be monitored, including energy consumption, fossil-fuel subsidies and annual economic losses to extreme weather. The scientists welcomed government bodies making climate emergency declarations, schoolchildren going on strike, “ecocide lawsuits” and grassroots citizen movements demanding change. “We urge widespread use of vital signs, which will better allow policymakers, the private sector, and the public to understand the magnitude of this crisis,” the scientists said. University of Melbourne climate science lecturer Linden Ashcroft said the summary showed clearly how much had changed in the environment, population and energy sectors in the past 40 years. Dr Ashcroft said the list of signatories to the paper included at least 350 Australian scientists, with more ecologists and medical researchers than climate researchers.”

     I am not impressed; science is not about a consensus of names but of evidence, data and reason; Brian, our science teacher  told me, and I believe him. If all of the above climate disaster porn was true, then clearly there is not much that could be done to stop climate change at all, so the best thing to do would be mitigation by technology. And, even if that was not a goer, well, we all have to die sometimes, and cooking to death is surely much better than freezing to death. So, be happy.