Scientist who contributed to UN climate report touts global virus as final solution for curbing emissions

Bill McGuire, a professor emeritus of earth sciences at University College London and co-director of the New Weather Institute, has long been a climate alarmist. McGuire, whose specialty appears to be volcanoes, contributed to the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2012 report; scaremongered about the weather on numerous BBC Radio 4 series; wrote a book 16 years ago entitled “Seven Years to Save the Planet”; and now criticizes affordable energy in the pages of the Guardian.

In March, McGuire
recommended that Britons “green our towns and cities”; “replac[e] tarmac and concrete with more permeable materials”; “insulate, insulate, insulate”; and paint buildings white. On Friday, the volcanist went farther, recommending against laughing off climate alarmists’ prophesies.

It appears McGuire understands his proposals to be foolhardy — that more is needed than white paint and stoicism to save the world from imagined future harms.

Culling the herd

McGuire noted Saturday in
since-deleted tweet, “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.”

McGuire’s “realistic” solution sounds like the yet-to-be-released COVID-19 sequel that fellow alarmists, such as Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the head of the World Health Organization, have
warned about in recent months.

At a World Economic Forum event in January, Ghebreyesus discussed Disease X and said, “Anything happening is a matter of when, not if.”

The WEF suggested that “Disease X” could “result in 20 times more fatalities than the coronavirus pandemic,”
reported Newsweek.

McGuire appeared to have an idea of what virus might do the trick, having linked in his “culling” tweet to a
Saturday article in the Guardian about the H5N1 strain of influenza, commonly referred to as the bird flu.

The thrust of the linked article was that the bird flu being examined by British scientists might ultimately leap into human beings.

Virologist Paul Digard of the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh is quoted in the artlce as saying, “Now that it seems to be fairly widespread in the cow population in the U.S., that’s a much more direct route where it could transmit to people and gain the adaptations it needs to go pandemic.”

The article noted further as if to reassure, “If H5N1 did start spreading among people, the good news is that the world has plenty of recent experience when it comes to rolling out large-scale vaccination programmes. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there are two candidate vaccines against a related strain of flu viruses that could be shipped within weeks, if necessary.”

Backpedaling

McGuire’s suggestion — that the “only realistic way” to get down emissions to desirable levels would be the deaths of millions if not billions of human beings — was not well received. He evidently decided that the way forwad would be to accuse his critics of illiteracy and a collective failure of comprehension.

“I SAID ‘THE ONLY WAY I SEE EMISSIONS FALLING AS FAST AS THEY NEED TO,'” McGuire wrote in a subsequent tweet.

“SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF PEOPLE CAN’T READ. I SAID ‘THE ONLY WAY I SEE EMISSIONS FALLING AS FAST AS THEY NEED TO…’ I DID NOT SAY ‘WE NEED A PANDEMIC,'” wrote McGuire. “FFS DON’T READ THINGS INTO A STATEMENT THAT AREN’T THERE[.] I COULD HAVE SAD SOCIETY-BUSTING ASTEROID IMPACT INSTEAD OF PANDEMIC.”

McGuire’s first all-caps response to his critics did not go over well, so he tried again hours later, writing, “RIGHT, I AM DELETING THE INITIAL TWEET NOW. NOT BECAUSE I REGRET IT, BUT BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE OUT THERE HAVE MISTAKENLY, OR INTENTIONALLY, TAKE IT THE WRONG WAY.”

The Virginia Project, a Republican political action committee among the many groups and individuals that blasted McGuire, wrote, “The world understood exactly what you meant, which is that in order to meet the goals of ‘climate change’ fanatics, a mass extermination of humanity on a global scale is necessary. That is the logical conclusion of ‘climate change’ advocacy. You just got caught admitting it.”

Multitudes of other users on X suggested likewise, prompting McGuire to suggest that by a pandemic-driven “culling,” he actually meant a drop in economic productivity — the kind that in recent years corresponding with millions of people dying worldwide.

McGuire added in a Sunday tweet, “Would love to hear how emissions can be cut by at east 50% in the next 66 months (by 2030) without a major socio-economic shock that slashes economic activity[.] This MUST happen to have any chance of sidestepping dangerous, all-pervasive, climate breakdown.”

While McGuire appears to have said the quiet part out loud, he is hardly the only Britsh-based climate alarmist to publicly showcase his hostility toward human life in recent months.

Blaze News
previously reported that Donnachadh McCarthy, a failed politician involved in Just Stop Oil and one of the leading figures of Extinction Rebellion, went on British television earlier this year to suggest that “there is a moral issue” with having too many children and that families should be limited to one child.

Late last year, scientists at the U.K. Center for Ecology and Hydrology
raised the alarm that human breathing is contributing to greenhouse gas emissions, urging “caution in the assumption that emissions from humans are negligible.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!