When pressed for real-world ideas on dealing with the so-called climate crisis, climate zealots are full of them. We must get the entire planet off of reliable fossil fuels and quickly switch to fuels unable to power society, for one thing. Furthermore, we must do so with diversity, equity, and inclusion always foremost in our thoughts.

Bill McGuire, a volcanologist and climate scientist who is a professor of geophysical & climate hazards at University College London (UCL), has another idea for how to reduce emissions — the “culling” of humanity with a deadly pandemic. McGuire made the suggestion on X on May 11.

In a now-deleted post, McGuire remarked, “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.”

It’s not an original idea. Recall that in 2009 Prince Philip commented, “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation.”

McGuire deleted the tweet, but did so unapologetically, suggesting that readers misunderstood exactly what he was saying.

In all caps, McGuire wrote: “RIGHT, I AM DELETING THE INITIAL TWEET NOW. NOT BECAUSE I REGRET IT, BUT BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE OUT THERE HAVE MISTAKENLY, OR INTENTIONALLY, TAKEN IT THE WRONG WAY.”

McGuire’s problem wasn’t that people took his comment the wrong way, but that they understood it perfectly.

“No, nobody took it the wrong way. It was crystal clear. You believe that the best way to ‘save the planet’ is to reduce the human population, but you don’t want to volunteer to go first and lead by your own example because you think your existence is superior to everyone else[s],” posted weather historian Chris Martz in a scathing rebuke. Martz added that “academic institutions you send your children to for a higher education are infested with dangerous people with this mentality. They hate you.”

Instead of simply taking the rebuke and moving on, McGuire had the nerve to double down: “No I don’t. You tell me how emissions can fall by the 50 percent needed within 66 months, if not due [to] a major socio-economic shock such as a major pandemic, nuclear war or global geophysical catastrophe,” the volcanologist posted. “I am talking about reduced economic activity NOT reduced population.”

Even some peers were appalled by McGuire’s post: “I’m dismayed to see you posting such a message Bill. The argument is baseless, but worse it’s a remark that bolsters eco-facism. I urge you to delete this post,” wrote Dr. Aaron Thierry, an ecologist at the Cardiff University School of Social Sciences.

But according to McGuire, he wasn’t necessarily advocating for a pandemic — just a giant reduction in human population.

Still angrily typing in only caps, he wrote: “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..’ … DON’T READ THINGS INTO A STATEMENT THAT AREN’T THERE. I COULD HAVE SAID SOCIETY-BUSTING ASTEROID IMPACT INSTEAD OF PANDEMIC.”

When climate hysterics like McGuire speak, they’ll eventually let you know exactly what they think about humanity. Their bottom line is that people are bad. Ultimately climate zealotry is anti-human. Whether it’s a pandemic, an asteroid, or the infanticide of abortion to “cull” the population, they’re all for it, because they believe it will be good for the climate.