Al Gore: “Climate Change is Term Used For Population Control”

al gore house

MONTECITO – USA – The Daily Squib’s climate change reporter has gained exclusive access to one of Al Gore’s four properties, a $15 million sprawling estate in the hills of California.


We conducted this interview on the proviso that it would paint Mr Gore in a favourable light regarding his fight to halt ‘climate change’ or the previous term ‘global warming’.

Daily Squib: Hello Mr Gore, thank you for the honour of interviewing you, we have many questions we would like to ask.

Al Gore: The pleasure is all mine, I really do enjoy reading your silly website, you make fun even of me, here have another sip of lemonade, I didn’t have my servant Benito put anything nasty in it.

DS: (putting full glass down on table) Mr. Gore, these are serious times we’re living in right now with multiple threats, not only with climate change but terrorism, how do you think the Industrialised nations are going to cope?

AG: Indeed, we’re living in dangerous times. You see my little friend, it’s the carbon footprint that is the problem, populations are growing exponentially and their carbon footprint increases daily. Did you know that every time you flush your toilet you are causing one more problem for the environment. We need to stop this madness.

DS: How many toilets do you have in this amazing mansion?

AG: We have 43 toilets here but in one of my other mansions there are 67 toilets, but it’s not all bad, because each mansion I own has over 300 rooms so the toilet to room ratio is well below the criteria.

DS: What does climate change mean?

AG: Climate change means exactly as the term suggests, a change in climate.

DS: But hasn’t the earth’s atmosphere been changing for millions of years, even before humans?

AG: Yes, it has, but we own the earth right now, and it’s a great tool for taxing people for simply standing still.

DS: Surely, even you can see that it is madness to charge people for something that is as global as the environment. No one owns the environment or nature.

AG: Wrong, wrong, wrong. Governments and corporations own everything, and it is our right to charge the little people just to breathe the air or drink the water. Don’t tell me you’re a climate change denier or I’ll get my people to escort you out head fucking first.

DS: Okay, let me change tact. What does climate change really mean?

AG: (whispering) Climate change is a term that denotes a very important underlying fact that there are too many people on this planet. It is a euphemism for unfettered population growth, disguised as a cutesy climate change thingy. Now if governments or agencies were to go on about population control, there would be an outcry amongst the plebs, we don’t want that, we’re the few you see, we don’t want them realising what we want them to do.

DS: What’s that?

AG: Well, to put it nicely, drop off, die, kick the bucket, shuffle off this mortal coil.

DS: So you’re saying in a rather indirect fashion that the term climate change is a subtext for population control?

AG: Yes, exactly. We are sleep walking into a Malthusian nightmare, and the only way out is a serious cull. The planet is not designed for this kind of garbage, and one way or another we’re going to have to clean house because not only is the earth getting too overpopulated by useless eaters, but they’re becoming even more unmanageable daily.

DS: So how on earth is this all going to happen, it sounds so horrific?

AG: Climate change will occur naturally, and of course if a disease were to come along, and more wars were started, the process could take between five or fifteen years, so that the earth is at a more manageable level of a population. Something that sustains nature. The engineers and cohorts within certain agencies would obviously be protected, but the rest are not even worth thinking about. They’ve done their job, and are not needed any more.

DS: With all the plastics and chemicals in the environment already, how long would it take for the earth to regain its natural self again?

AG: I’m thinking close to 50 years. But one must consider that the remaining populations would have to be heavily controlled. There must be a very strict adherence to breeding quotas, and quality genetic makeup. We’re already seeing massive strides in nano and bio tech as well as other areas which I will not discuss here because that’s another subject entirely. Ah, is that the time, please let my manservant escort you out.

DS: Thank you for this revealing insight into the many facets of climate change.

AG: I have to say your site is one of the more insightful on the internet, let’s hope it survives. (laughs out loudly)