This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Three Paths To Near-Term Human Extinction
Submitted by Guy McPherson of Nature Bats Last
Three Paths To Near-Term Human Extinction
About a decade ago I realized we were putting the finishing touches on our own extinction party, with the party probably over by 2030. During the intervening period I’ve seen nothing to sway this belief, and much evidence to reinforce it. Yet the protests, ridicule, and hate mail reach a fervent pitch when I speak or write about the potential for near-term extinction of Homo sapiens.
“We’re different.”
“We’re special.”
“We’re too intelligent.”
“We’ll find a way out. We always do.”
We’re humans, and therefore animals. Like all life, we’re special. Like all organisms, we’re susceptible to overshoot. Like all organisms, we will experience population decline after overshoot.
Let’s take stock of our current predicaments, beginning with one of several ongoing processes likely to cause our extinction. Then I’ll point out the good not quite so bad news.
We’re headed for extinction via global climate change
It’s hotter than it used to be, but not as hot as it’s going to be. The political response to this now-obvious information is to suspend the scientist bearing the bad news. Which, of course, is no surprise at all: As Australian climate scientist Gideon Polya points out, the United States must cease production of greenhouse gases within 3.1 years if we are to avoid catastrophic runaway greenhouse. I think Polya is optimistic, and I don’t think Obama’s on-board with the attendant collapse of the U.S. industrial economy.
Apparently — too little, too late — a couple people have noticed a few facts about Obama. This “awakening” might explain why his political support is headed south at a rapid clip.
But back to climate change, one of three likely extinction events. Well, three I know about: I’m certain there are others, and any number can play. With four months remaining in the year, the U.S. has already tied its yearly record for the most billion-dollar weather disasters. Russia is headed directly for loss of 30% of its permafrost by 2050. Tundra fires could accelerate planetary warming. This year, the Northeast Passage was open as of 27 July. This is a massively dire situation for the Arctic. In fact, we have passed a de facto tipping point with respect to Arctic ice. This latter outcome is stunning, but only to those who follow the horrifically conservative and increasingly irrelevant Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Nature is responding with hybrid bears, suggesting the near-term loss of all polar bears. Indeed, all Earth’s systems are rapidly declining. Many organisms can’t keep up as they try to stay ahead of an overheating planet.
As the living planet decays, we keep piling on. Examples abound. Here’s one tiny example among thousands, from that pesky BP well at Deepwater Horizon. It’s out of the news cycle, but it’s not done destroying life in the Gulf of Mexico. But perhaps this tidbit belongs beneath the heading of …
We’re headed for extinction via environmental collapse
Nature is bankrupt, just like Wall Street and the USA. Thanks for playing, but you lose. The banksters on Wall Street “win.” But only in the short term. In the long run, we’re all dead (as first stated by John Maynard Keynes).
Among the consequences of taking down more than 200 species each day: at some point, the species we take into the abyss is Homo sapiens (the wise ape). The vanishing point draws nearer every day. Our response, in the industrialized world: Bring on the toys. Burn all fossil fuels. Harvest the rain forests and strip-mine the soil. Pollute the water, eat the seed bank.
And, most importantly, figure out how we can make a few bucks as the world burns.
We have our hand in a monkey trap, and we can’t let go.
We’re headed for extinction via nuclear meltdown
Safely shuttering a nuclear power plant requires a decade or two of careful planning. Far sooner, we’ll complete the ongoing collapse of the industrial economy. This is a source of my nuclear nightmares.
When the world’s 442 nuclear power plants melt down catastrophically, we’ve entered an extinction event. Think clusterfukushima, times 400. Ionizing radiation could, and probably will, destroy every terrestrial organism and, therefore, every marine and freshwater organism. That, by the way, includes the most unique, special, intelligent animal on Earth.
Ready for some good news?
Meanwhile, back on Wall Street
The Securities and Exchange Commission is busily covering up Wall Street crimes, just as they did during the last presidential administration. And, as it turns out, they’ve been performing this trick for two decades. Finally, though, the S&P is taking the U.S. to the woodshed.
The S&P knows what the media and politicians know: U.S. national debt isn’t really $14 trillion and change, as we’ve been led to believe. In fact, it exceeds $200 trillion. And, back when it was a mere $10.5 trillion, it exceeded the value of all circulating currencies as well as all the gold ever mined. It cannot be paid off, ever. The response will be default. With luck, it’ll happen quickly and completely, thus sending us directly to the new dark age (with the post-industrial Stone Age soon to follow).
The ongoing crash of the stock markets differs from prior events because, for one thing, the Fed is about out of ammunition. At this juncture, there are no easy solutions. In fact, there are no solutions at all. We have just about used up all our “rabbits in the hat” as far as fiscal and monetary policy are concerned. Economics pundit Graham Summers agrees: The Fed is about to find itself completely powerless as 2008 redux appears.
Think of 2008 as an economic teddy bear, and 2011 as a grizzly. And I think I mentioned this one already: The hunters are out of bullets.
The all-too-expected political response from the final remaining superpower: ratchet up covert wars. Maybe, while we’re at it, launch another World War.
The bottom line
You’ve been warned repeatedly in this space, and the Guardian finally joins the party: The industrial economic system is about to blow. This burst of hope, our remaining chance at salvation, will undoubtedly be greeted with the usual assortment of protests, ridicule, and hate mail I’ve come to expect from planetary consumers who want to keep consuming the planet.
The underlying predicament — reduction in available energy — is described graphically by Gail Tverberg in this essay. She then tacks on fine analysis in this subsequent essay. Jared Diamond adds a dose of complexity, as described by Erik Curren at Transition Voice.
But these warning shots are only the most recent in a rich history dating back to Marcus Aurelius (and probably further). For materials only slightly older than me that focus on our energy predicament, take a peek at M. King Hubbert’s 1956 paper and the text of Admiral Hyman G. Rickover’s 1957 speech.
And then, let go.
»
- 43104 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
don't like the weather?? hang around awhile --It'll change---always has, always will ---don't like the banks or the gov't? wai't a century or few--- you won't recognize them.
One thing that is consistant in all the universe --is -----you guessed it-CHANGE.
It was hotter when the dinosaurs roamed the earth. I just contributed to the problem when I cut one a minute ago. Me bad
Al gore for President ( oh wait we tried that and he built the carbon trading systems instead).
Climate change yeah, but runaway heating to begin in less than three years, I think not. I'd want to see an aweful lot of evidence before I believe that is even possible let alone probable. Collapse of the dollar unlikely but possible, total collapse of our economy seems far fetched since that would mean precious metals and alternate currencies also failed. Economic misery and maybe class warfare sure. Meltdown of all nuclear reactors is REALLY unlikely, most of them are designed in such a way that even if the engineers just stand up and walk away they'll scram automatically. Even with deferred maintenance it took a combined earthquake and tsunami to take down just one facility in Japan. The author has obviously been reading too much ZeroHedge and got excessively depressed.
You didn't actually think we were here to stay did you?
Silly Rabbit
Lovelock was right. This is the final outcome of Benny and the printing presses. They'll burm all all the cash this winter and tip us over the edge like they did in the Weimar Republic so many years ago.
Yea verrily the end is nigh.........BOLLOCKS!!!
The game is coming to an end and the people in power know it. They know that the only way they can hide and renige on the debt is to have a world war but I think even that won't help.
Tyler, glad you posted this. Thanks!
You can rule out global warming which has been thoroughly discredited by last year's disclosure of data fudging by the global warming 'scientists.' This new book by Roy Spencer puts the final nail in the coffin. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=global+warming+myth&x=12&y=21#/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=global+warming+&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Aglobal+warming+
Gore will have to find another scam.
You can rule out global warming which has been thoroughly discredited by last year's disclosure of data fudging by the global warming 'scientists.' This new book by Roy Spencer puts the final nail in the coffin. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=global+warming+myth&x=12&y=21#/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=global+warming+&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Aglobal+warming+
Gore will have to find another scam.
Roy Spencer, you mean the guy on the Exxon payroll?
Ok...now there is a objective source.....
Yah, and whose payroll are you on, Sir Flaky? Oh I forgot, you are an esteemed academic who published 20 plus peer reviewed papers, NOT!!
Actually, I am all but retired at age 48.... I do a liitle private wealth management to keep me in greens fees...
I made a lot of money investing using a GW, Peak Oil theme, along with the knowledge the financial system was ready to collapse....
the sky is falling.............
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vnp4kj5lLOU
Is it April 1st? Because this article has to be a joke. Sometimes I wonder how crap like this gets posted on an otherwise premier website.
It's not a "premier" website. The publisher gets paid by page clicks; and "persons" click on the page. that's it. A premier website requires an education to read and understand.
***
What are the odds that the arguably infinite progressions and linear path that it took to ultimately create a basic life form out of nothing, then nurture that life through various improbable fragile states, would eventually meet its own doom, shortly after trillions of favorable mutations took that very creature to a such a point of self awareness, that it would be able to calculate the impossibility its own existence.
1 in 2:)
Paranoid much?
Greenland is melting. I won't supply the links to the primary data. Let it be a surprise.....
Wanna lose all credibility as fast as possible? Start your apocalyptic hypothesis with "climate change."
Usually referred to as the "Northwest Passage" by the marginally literate, rather than the NorthEast passage. There was no polar ice in 1926; Photographs were taken of the open water by an automated camera on a research balloon; then all the ice came back; the northwest passage was completely open in 1940 when a Wooden ship sailed thru from one side to the other and then sailed back again in 1941. the ship is on view in a Canadian Maritime museum. The the ice came back. There is no trend. There is nothing unusual going on. Gllobal temps. increased about 0.5C during the twentieth century and this entire increase was eliminated in two years. There is no trend. It was warmer globally in 900AD than it is now. Out of ten thousand molecules in the atmosphere, about 3.7 are CO2; which allows green plants to grow and allows us to live. Global warming and Co2 paranoia are the luminiferous ether of our time. Only a certifiable science illiterate can believe this crap. Climate Change is not a subject for rational discussion; you can measure t emperature; but the results are embarrassing for the cult members so they changed their great fear to climate change. There is no chimate-changometer. The statistics can be and are manipulated endlessly; nothing can be demonstrated. Everything has happened before; everything will happen again; without any input from Homo Sapiens whatsoever. The Messianic motivation to have the great knowledge and be the one who informs the people that the world is coming to an end has been with us forever; but it is merely an emotional disease.
IQ 145 are you saying if Lewis and Clarke had set out on their expedition in 1940 they would have reached the Pacific Ocean by boat?
Okay IQ. You are talking about the northern Northwest Passage which I was not aware of. I was thinking of the attempts by Lewis and Clarke to find the Northwest Passage from St. Louis to the Pacific Ocean via the Missouri River. I was going to ask how that boat in 1940 floated over the Rocky Mountains.:) My lack of edycation hasn't hurt me none. Tuco
IQ 145 are you saying if Lewis and Clarke had set out on their expedition in 1940 they would have reached the Pacific Ocean by boat?
Global warming threads on ZH make me sad. The community is intelligent and well informed on most issues except AGW. We need a lot less defending of beliefs and a lot more seeking of truth in the science. The topic is deep and very complex. Don't expect to understand the science after reading a few blogs. You need to dig in. Start with James Hansen's book "Storms of My Grandchildren".
No "Peak Everything", you're sad. It's not that complicated at all. Rejoice, Doomsday has been called off --- because science and common sense prevailed.
CO2 is currently at a near all time low levels over the last 500 million years of Earth's history at 388 ppm. The average has been 1250 ppm, and it's been over 5000 ppm for tens of millions of years at a time. We've known this this from ocean sediment samples for decades, it's not even new data. You've been lied to.
They didn't call it the Carboniferous Period for nothing.
The current Earth period is very cold historically, too. We're actually still at the end of the Pleistocene Ice Age, or an interglacial period. Just 10,000 years ago New York City was under 1 mile of ice. The average surface temperature of the Earth over the last 500 million years has been around 66 deg. F (eg., hence prehistoric ferns and dinosaurs in found in Northern Canada), while today the average surface termperature is only about 55 deg. F.
James Hansen is a fraud who is paid millions to lie and promote global warming to prop up the scam which is skimming billions from suckers. Please don't be a sucker. It looks more and more like global warming was just a scheme to back the fiat currencies with carbon, by taxing it.
Yeah, that carbon that was sequestered out over a period of 200 million years or so is being dumped back into the atmosphere over the course of 200 years...
Take a complex system in a *slowly* varying equilibrium and give it a massive peturbation.... lets see what happens..
Bingo, that is the scary part of what we are doing.
This is a great experiment! If I wasn't worried about what will happen to all the nuclear power plants I would be enjoying myself.
TPOG
Really, Flaky? Is that so?
I am still waiting for those links to your 20 plus author published peer reviewed papers proving AGW.....
If you insist, they are all here:
http://arxiv.org/archive/hep-ex
Nice generic bullshit link, much like your resume.
Yah, mixed in with 1000´s of other papers. But of course the science is settled, you wrote 20 plus peer reviewed papers and we are supposed to disprove them, except, there are NO Fucking papers, except the ones you use to wipe your ass after taking Al Gores load. All Bullshit, no proof, sums up AGW and you very nicely.
The same types of people who think they've figured out something as complicated as, well, the earth's weather, also think they know how to top-down manage an economy. Birds of a feather.
You do understand the difference between climate and weather?
Yes I do. When the AGW predictions are wrong, they call it weather. But when they are right (even a broken clock is accurate 2x a day), they call it Climate.
Flaky, your papers please :-)
Why should I care about human extinction?
It's my extinction that concerns me.
I agree with IQ101
AGW will only impact the survivors in the depleted petri dish. 90+% of us will miss it.
The article gets one out of three right, so is a Fail.
Human extinction via radioactive contamination of Earth's biosphere, due to civilization collapse leading to long term failure of containment at all nuclear power, weapon and waste installations is a very real risk. It's even possible that scenario would extinguish all higher forms of life on Earth, for millions of years. Bacteria might be able to adapt to very high background radiation, but complex multi-cellular organisms probably can't. Humans definitely can't.
The other two - climate change (previously known as global warming) and environmental collapse - wrong.
Yes, humans are screwing the environment, driving more than usual numbers of species extinct, and even causing large areas of the ecosystem to die completely (think, Gulf oil spill.) But it isn't technically correct to suggest this will send humans (or even most life) extinct. Reduce numbers drastically, yes quite possibly. But then so will the next ice age we seem to be entering into the early stages of now. Ecosystem 'bulk' ups and downs are nothing new in Earth's history.
As for 'Anthropogenic Global Warming' and all the panic about the temperature supposedly rising a few degrees due to our returning geologically sequestered carbon to the biosphere... It's rubbish from top to bottom. The planet isn't actually warming any more, and has actually been cooling slightly for several years. Even the AGW-scamists know this, hence the famous phrase "hide the decline" in the leaked CRU emails. Earth has been hotter than now in the past, and colder. The CO2 levels have been *much* higher in the past too. In fact today we are near an all-time record low concentration of CO2. So low it couldn't go much lower without most plant life on Earth dying off. CO2 simply doesn't regulate Earth's temperature. The real control factors include things like the solar wind strength, the continental land mass configuration as plate tectonics move them around, and other external solar/interstellar influences.
See this graph, which was the one which made me do a double take back in 2008, when I still believed the AGW theory:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html The article
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif The graph
CO2 is responsible for climate change? Really?
"There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today."
That graph and AGW theory are absolutely incompatible. One or the other has to be bullshit. This conflict sent me on a journey of research, in which I discovered that AGW really is a huge scientific fraud, originated by specific people, motivated by vast profits but even more by an ideology. I call these people the Global Cullists - those who believe that humans are such a threat to Earth that most humans (90%+) must be eliminated as soon as possible and by any means. Deliberate de-industrialization is part of that agenda, and the AGW cult is a component of the methodology.
In some respects, I agree with the 'humans are a threat to Earth' line. For example via our stupid and irresponsible accumulation of so much radioactive material. But I disagree with the drastic population reduction methods and Elite-controlled end state these people seem to intend. In fact I think their ideas are *so* bad, that Earth and all humans would be better off dead that going down that path. Also, if the Elites keep trying to go there, the rule of unintended consequences (and our nuclear stockpiles) say the Earth very likely will end up dead. Unfortunately the Elites are too stupid and blinded by their own egos to see that. So someone is going to have to stop them.
But that's another story.
For anyone who'd like a compilation of references on the AGW scam, here you go:
http://everist.org/archives/links/!_AGW_links.txt
There's a couple of other AGW related lists in the same folder. Just clip the URL. A few other useful lists there too.
Wow, that qualifies for the worst article I ever read on ZH.
I especially like the omnipotence attributed to us humans. But don't worry, life has learned to survive by itself, without human central planning. And that includes survival of (at least) a few humans.
Hey Flaky...Knaw on this a bit...I'm going to bed.
There are many critics of the CO2 warming hypothesis, and many of them are American scientists. However, it is a group of German experts (mostly theoretical physicists and theoretical meteorologists) who have challenged the physical foundation of that dogma much more in-depth than their international counterparts (we have started to call them the "German school of greenhouse critics"). The result: any alleged CO2-warming is not possible at all for physical reasons. This voids a little bit the laudable efforts of a much larger group of scientists who have invested an enormous amount of time to disprove claims that there was so much warming recently.
We have developed an own didactical model and put together those findings in a 26-page report which I would - hopefully with the consent of WSJ forum administrators - offer as a free download:
www.ke-research.de/downloads/klimaretter-1-3.pdf (German)
www.ke-research.de/downloads/report_climateSaviors-1-3.pdf (English)
Klaus Ermecke
KE Research
Oberhaching, Germany
Thanks so much. Good stuff and glad to know there are Europeans challenging the deeply flawed global warming theory.
Lindzen of MIT has done 20 years of actual measurements. He's acknowledged top five, if not the best. His conclusion is that virtually all the energy is reradiated back out into space anyway. There is no "roof" on our greenhouse. Never mind that CO2 is essential for all life and we're at near an all time low for the 500 million year history of the planet Earth at at an atmospheric level of 388 ppm while the average has been 1250 ppm.
It's incredible that the lies and crimes against humanity have been sanctioned and allowed to go this far.
Care to comment on the OHC data and ocean acidity?
The oceans are alkaline, about PH 8.25, and always will be.
Remarkable, indeed, because natural stream water (H20) is slightly acidic with a PH of about 6.5, and you have already assumed: 1) acidity is associated with harmful mischief 2) man is causing oceanic "acidity". You're wrong on both counts.
The PH scale is a log scale and that means the oceans are naturally about 100 times more alkaline than water from a mountain stream. This is because more pure water (H2O) tends to always have loose hydrogens (H+) running around, despite their tight molecular packing. Rejoice and be happy that doomsday is called off.
The same flawed computer models that bring us fake atmospheric predictions are being used to project fake "acidification" of the ocean surface waters.
Those fear mongering, and fake, computer models are not even predicting acidification, they are actually predicting a mere decrease in the alkalinity of the surface waters. But they're wrong about that too.
The atmosphere holds 700 Trillion tons of CO2. But the oceans contain 40,000 Trillion tons of CO2. That is a huge buffer to sop up the miniscule amounts of CO2 imparted by atmospheric CO2, which is at near all time planetary lows at just 388 ppm.
The constant exchange of CO2 between water and the oceans exists in dynamic equilibrium as part of the same Carbon Cycle that we are familiar with on land, as it always has been. If the CO2 is being pushed into the oceans, it is because there is global cooling going on, which is driving the equlibrium to favor the oceans. Conversely, warming of the oceans pushes the CO2 into the atmosphere a little more to find the new (dynamic) equilibrium. The cycle is in flux all the time.
But you already know that when you set out a cold soda can it gets warm, and then goes flat, because the CO2 escapes. This also demonstrates how the CO2 in the atmosphere is merely the side effect of warming surface temperatures, not the cause. And this works in reverse when CO2 finds it's way back into the oceans as they cool. The oceans warm and cool from decadal oscillations, which in turn, are caused by sun cycles.
Moreover, another nice product of this natural carbon in the oceans is that marine algae and other marine life get a boost. As they bloom and die with the ambient nutrient conditions, they provide carbon food sources for larger marine life. Eventually, the remnant carbon skeletons will settle on the ocean floors. Over millions of years it will form sedemantary rocks which will eventually be pushed up into great mountain ranges. BTW, Granite is also CaCO3 -- calcium carbonate.
One such mountain range is the Himalayas. As the Himalayas are thrust upward they are exposed to water erosion from rain and those mountain streams and the atmosphere, whereupon they release the carbon as CO2 back into the atmosphere whence it began, completing the long geological carbon cycle. In fact, the Himalayan Mountain Range is one of the greatest sources of atmospheric CO2 on the planet with vast yearly releases of CO2.
97% of all CO2 is produced naturally by nature, not by man. The notion that man is using everything up is hogwash. Everything that was ever here is still here. Humans are just ants rearranging twigs on a dirt mound.
Microbes are by far the dominant life form on planet Earth, both in mass and their effect on the planet. And, natural water erosion moves by far more earthen mass and causes more displacent of the Earth's surface than man, by large orders of magnitude. Look up the immense yearly silt output of just the Amazon River into the Atlantic Ocean, then extrapolate for the rest of the planet. Humans are simply not even in the same league.
Have you seen the phytoplankton data? The very bottom of the food chain...
Here is a early study
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020801plankton.html
something more recent
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/full/nature09268.html
http://geonumbers.weizmann.ac.il/bionumber.aspx?s=y&id=105273&ver=4
some more recent commentary
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/07/29/206497/nature-decline-ocean-phytoplankton-global-warming-boris-worm/
http://news.discovery.com/earth/phytoplankton-iron-ocean-acidity.html
http://climatechange.110mb.com/nations-iron-seeding-oceans.htm
Hey Flaky, We want in your own words give it to us in YOUR own words as you so vehemently declare to us.
Please indulge us with your delusional idea that anthropogenic CO2 is causing atmospheric temperature change and the dumb shit idea that CO2 is a pollutant.
GWAR5, thank you for an informative post. Wanna bet that Flaky will not directly respond, instead he will cite some irrelevancy and link to it. If he was the esteemed academic that he claims to be, he would link to his research, instead of citing others. Do not waste your time with this clown. His ilk will be flushed down the toilet bowl of history, along with the other AGW cultist turds.
The oceans are alkaline, about PH 8.25, and always will be.
Remarkable, indeed, because natural stream water (H20) is slightly acidic with a PH of about 6.5, and you have already assumed: 1) acidity is associated with harmful mischief 2) man is causing oceanic "acidity". You're wrong on both counts.
The PH scale is a log scale and that means the oceans are naturally about 100 times more alkaline than water from a mountain stream. This is because more pure water (H2O) tends to always have loose hydrogens (H+) running around, despite their tight molecular packing. Rejoice and be happy that doomsday is called off.
The same flawed computer models that bring us fake atmospheric predictions are being used to project fake "acidification" of the ocean surface waters.
Those fear mongering, and fake, computer models are not even predicting acidification, they are actually predicting a mere decrease in the alkalinity of the surface waters. But they're wrong about that too.
The atmosphere holds 700 Trillion tons of CO2. But the oceans contain 40,000 Trillion tons of CO2. That is a huge buffer to sop up the miniscule amounts of CO2 imparted by atmospheric CO2, which is at near all time planetary lows at just 388 ppm.
The constant exchange of CO2 between water and the oceans exists in dynamic equilibrium as part of the same Carbon Cycle that we are familiar with on land, as it always has been. If the CO2 is being pushed into the oceans, it is because there is global cooling going on, which is driving the equlibrium to favor the oceans. Conversely, warming of the oceans pushes the CO2 into the atmosphere a little more to find the new (dynamic) equilibrium. The cycle is in flux all the time.
But you already know that when you set out a cold soda can it gets warm, and then goes flat, because the CO2 escapes. This also demonstrates how the CO2 in the atmosphere is merely the side effect of warming surface temperatures, not the cause. And this works in reverse when CO2 finds it's way back into the oceans as they cool. The oceans warm and cool from decadal oscillations, which in turn, are caused by sun cycles.
Moreover, another nice product of this natural carbon in the oceans is that marine algae and other marine life get a boost. As they bloom and die with the ambient nutrient conditions, they provide carbon food sources for larger marine life. Eventually, the remnant carbon skeletons will settle on the ocean floors. Over millions of years it will form sedemantary rocks which will eventually be pushed up into great mountain ranges. BTW, Granite is also CaCO3 -- calcium carbonate.
One such mountain range is the Himalayas. As the Himalayas are thrust upward they are exposed to water erosion from rain and those mountain streams and the atmosphere, whereupon they release the carbon as CO2 back into the atmosphere whence it began, completing the long geological carbon cycle. In fact, the Himalayan Mountain Range is one of the greatest sources of atmospheric CO2 on the planet with vast yearly releases of CO2.
97% of all CO2 is produced naturally by nature, not by man. The notion that man is using everything up is hogwash. Everything that was ever here is still here. Humans are just ants rearranging twigs on a dirt mound.
Microbes are by far the dominant life form on planet Earth, both in mass and their effect on the planet. And, natural water erosion moves by far more earthen mass and causes more displacent of the Earth's surface than man, by large orders of magnitude. Look up the immense yearly silt output of just the Amazon River into the Atlantic Ocean, then extrapolate for the rest of the planet. Humans are simply not even in the same league.
(bad wifi, repeat)
My pleasure...
"It's incredible that the lies and crimes against humanity have been sanctioned and allowed to go this far."
I'm indeed astonished each time I see headlines supporting this insanity. My mind cannot wrap around how so many seemingly intelligent well meaning people have fallen for such chicanery.
In a another post I speculate a reason why many fall for this delusion.
"I believe there are many people in love with the idea of Global Warming because their solution to the problem makes them feel powerful and that they are making a positive contribution to the world.
However, how much more valuable would their contribution be if they were in love with the truth????"
GRUNT, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the Flake to reply. He is still trying to figure out where he hid the 20 plus peer reviewed papers that he claimed to author, as per his CV below.
Flakmeister
Vote up! 0
Vote down! 0
M. Sc. in Theoretical Physics, Ph.D. Experimental Physics,
Post Doctroral Experience: U. of Chicago, U. Michigan, Visiting scientist U. of Manchester,
Staff Scientist at Brookhaven National Lab
Primary author of ~20 peer reviewed research papers....
Referee for the Physical Review
Internationally known: Invited seminars and colloquia in 7 countries, 3 continents.... ~20 of the top 100 research universities in US, places like Stanford, CalTech. Featured speaker at 2 international conferences....
Over 20 years experience basic research....
And while not related 5 years experience in structured finance on Wall St.
Hope that helps....
It looks as though there is no hope. But the grand design that we see in our existence is grossly underestimated by our rational thinking/beliefs that things got evolved from inorganic matter to complex life forms and then to the complex social mechanisms.
What if this evolution story is partly true, and the intelligence behind grand design knows to use this climax of seeming apocalypse only to cleanup the mess that we intellectually created by our inaccurate and egoistic ideas about creation and God.
Because we misunderstood about our identity, there is also misunderstanding of creation too. I say this because, the brain cells are given an identity of the self. If you are brain cells, then God has no role in the business.
I am not referring to the role of God in any religious sense. Most people think God is religious and only to judge sins and to give punishments.
As night yields to day, this mess will also yield to something beautiful. But have patience and faith to putup with it.
And there you have it. The stupidest article of the year.
+10
I can see what Tyler is trying to get at but he is doing it in the wrong way. He is, as most of us are, very frustrated with all the greed, corruption, ignorance and just plain evil that is affecting our world that we live in. Some of what he says is true - we are decimating the Earth of its other inhabitants - many of our Native American forefathers and mothers have warned us of this and the effect it will have on us and our world. We do not know enough about the Earths systems as they are or what they have been - but, we still infect it with our industry and all of its related pollutants. One thing we know is that early humans were very few and they didn't have cars, planes and Walmart. We do know that when a society overran its ability to clothe, feed and warm itself they usually went extinct or they reduced their impact on their living area. They either had to "change" or they perished. The change is coming - do we fight it or find a way to work together to get through it with the least amount of loss to ourselves and the rest of the planet. I refuse, even after reading the response to Tylers article, to beleive that we could hate ourselves as much as the rest of you despise each other. A great book that you all need to read is the "Road" by Cormack McCarthy. The title really says all about our way of life - do we just keep on "truckin" or do we take a different path - a better way of life. You have to remember that our current industrialized society, which is global now, is really only a few hundred years old. Some indigineous cultures have lived on this earth for a very long time, some learned to even get along with each other for a very long time too!! Will humans surrvive a complete collapse of our "way of life" - sure has happened before. Lot of evidence points to us going from 2,000 individuals since the last ice-age to 7 billion now. So, yeah it is pretty good that we can make it - but all that would be lost would be quite sad - the loss of all our history and culture would be a shame. We need to develop a different way to live among each other and take more accountability for both our good and bad choices. We have to include all beings in our decisions - men, women, children, and all the living creatures and systems of the earth. I think the seven generation type of thinking is pretty amazing and very wise in the way a advanced society should live. Thomas Jefferson thought this way, he learned it from a great Society at the time, the 5 nations of the Iriquois. He created the constitutiion to live for thousands of years, many generations.
Reading assholes here trying to stake claims to knowledge that they can't possibly posses reminds me that I'm reading economists. The only consolation that I can discern is that those worshiping at the alter of clunky opinion (pitched as fact) will probably not have to live with the results of their ego laced lunacy.
That's how I feel when I read the crap coming from the assholes at UN/IPCC. You've put your middle finger on it.
The first global warming event occurred when cave men harnassed fire for their camps. No records on how many polar bear deaths all those camp fires caused?!
i agree with Hulk
#we are destroyi ng the planet but noit through C02 that is just BULLSHIT
C02 is needed by plants to breathe, its just utter hogwash and makes people m iss the point omn thw whole enviromental agenda.
Indeed rainforests are replaqced with paLM OIL and that ios ok apparently .
utter crap
thats why I do not5 trust Max keiser as he always spouts this nonsense
the earths temps are controlled by the sun and if you look atr milancovitch cycles its clear we are entering an ICE age not a global warminbg meltup.
Ev reything else in thios articel is spot on
THERE are too many people for the plaNET TO support whilst we are all buying Ipods etc
somethinhg has to give and nature will cull us one way or another, whether by war or disease.
By 2020 the population of humans on the earth is unlikely to be over 900 million after an 8 year long world war. Many other life forms will also become extinct.
sambo
there is no real doubt that war will be ther result as faber says its is the reboot for the economy
All I have to say is why are we having an environmental debate on one of the very best financial sites in the world. Look this shit has already been hashed out and we know scientifically that the world is warming. How much and compared to what? Who the hell knows. Has anyone been around for the last 4-5 billion years or so to collect data or is this just conjecture? Has the planet gone through much more severe catastrophes than "man". In a word, "yes". Look the last global species was on this planet they figure for about 600 million years or more. Remember those big reptiles? Man has abeen here what say a million or so. Perhaps about 100 in an industrialized sense? Yes, species dissappear daily on this planet but they always have. I might add that the planet has been a lot warmer in the past than it is now ladies and gentlemen. The planet has ways of correcting imbalances all by itself people. If we go too far one way we'll find this out. I doubt very much that we are doing too much damage. I mean what does a serious volcanic eruption do to the atmosphere as far as green house gases are concerned? So please spare me the shacko babble without at least some serious and long term (measured in millions of years) data.
Extinction Level Event and social break down is not the same thing. We lost agriculture for a couple of years in much of the world in 536 a.d.
http://www.ees1.lanl.gov/Wohletz/Krakatau.htm
While this event was the end of the world for millions, it was not the end of the world for all. While most of us agree that living in a place like Miami would be fraught with dangers should the lights go out; the assumption that some people will not survive that event is not supported by history.
Give me a break. I wish all we had to worry about was the fucking idiots trying to ruin us all with their global warming bullshit. The global warming lunatics are no better than the current govt/Bank power grabbers.
I'm a bit more worried about the potential real consequences of worldwide economic collapse such as civil unrest, vast poverty and world wars.
He is right about Wall Street and nuke plant dangers, but this global warming err. climate change stuff is a bunch of horse manure. It's all about the new carbon tax the deminati (You heard it here first. The term illuminati or elite should never be used without a reference to "demons" which is what they are.) Yes, now carbon dioxide which plants consume to survive and expel oxygen for our survival, is a poison and must be taxed. Ha, ha ha!
I heard about a street poll that some organization did whereby they asked citizens if "di-hydrogen oxide" should be banned as toxic. An overwhelming majority said yes ban "water"! Duh.
Tuco Benedicto Pacifco Juan Maria Ramirez
Bugs Bunny to Daffy Duck....."What a maroon!"
But y'all are overlooking the obvious. Lemons to Lemonade. With the Arctic melting we've just opened up vast resources up there.
Why there's the new Northwest or Siberian Passages that cut thousands of miles from Rotterdam/Murmansk to all points east & west.
http://news.yahoo.com/russia-beat-canada-arctic-shipping-france-200021935.html
And then there's all those new resouces to exploit. Geopolitical turmoil, possibilities for new wars... that's great for the economy.
http://www.npr.org/2011/08/16/139577789/russia-pushes-to-claim-arctic-as-its-own
And if this is all monkey-shit... well they've been taking pictures and surveying the arctic ice cap since 2000
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/324873main_kwokfig4_full.jpg
So maybe this post should have been "Three paths to near term human extinction in our lifetime"
And remember boys and girls... Extinction may not apply here, as the TPTB have all those new bunkers to hunker in.
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message747410/pg1
http://www.shtfplan.com/emergency-preparedness/russians-to-rapidly-build-5000-bomb-shelters-in-moscow-by-2012_11122010
Hundreds of years from now, you'll be really something if you can trace your lineage all the way back to Jamie Dimon, Blankfein, Hillary, Obotama or even Mitch McConnell. I can hear it now. And running for the 3014 President of the World, straight from the honourable bloodlines of Mayer Amschel Rothschild let's give it up for Barack Putin Rothschild! yaaaaaaaaaay!
GAHHHHH!!!!
So many errors.
The easiest - the earth has been much, much warmer and life has survived throughout these climate cycles. ASSUMING (show me the proof beyond correlation, which is NOT causation) man is "causing" global warming, the fact is humankind can handle it. Remember, hippos used to use the Thames to bathe, and vineyards covered a warm Britain. Eric the Red found a GREEN Greenland.
We, as humans, ARE different. We are capable of responding quickly to crises. We are capable of finding unique solutions. We are able to withstand tremendous hardships.
I love conspiracy theories only because it tells me who the nutjobs are. I love GLOBAL conspiracies which implicate "man" as an altogether evil and destructive power, because it shows me how poorly educated people can be.
I believe there are many people in love with the idea of Global Warming because their solution to the problem makes them feel powerful and that they are making a positive contribution to the world.
However, how much more valuable would their contribution be if they were in love with the truth???
Naw, GRUNT, they are into AGW for the money, free trips and cheap green pussy.
You may be right rs, however base that is, you may indeed be right.
First, I apologize if the font is too small, but I haven't figured out how to adjust yet on this forum:
"Three Paths To Near-Term Human Extinction"
"During the intervening period I’ve seen nothing to sway this belief, and much evidence to reinforce it. Yet the protests, ridicule, and hate mail reach a fervent pitch when I speak or write about the potential for near-term extinction of Homo sapiens."
In terms of the short-term or long-term possibility, human extinction strikes me as largely possible even though the probability appears to biasly placing such a risk largely in the long-term rather than short-term. Essentially, no species is immortal in any sense of the word; the species will eventually run into a series of events rendering its ability to adapt ineffective.
This really is the problem with gradualism if the series of events happen too slowly; the species have the ability to adapt.
Now, lets evaluate your three paths:
"We’re headed for extinction via global climate change"
"the United States must cease production of greenhouse gases within 3.1 years if we are to avoid catastrophic runaway greenhouse."
In other words, path 1 is under the basis of man-made climate change or formerly known as man-made global warming.
"We’re headed for extinction via environmental collapse"
"Among the consequences of taking down more than 200 species each day: at some point, the species we take into the abyss is Homo sapiens (the wise ape). The vanishing point draws nearer every day. Our response, in the industrialized world: Bring on the toys. Burn all fossil fuels. Harvest the rain forests and strip-mine the soil. Pollute the water, eat the seed bank."
Essentially, this is an extension of path 1.
"We’re headed for extinction via nuclear meltdown"
"When the world’s 442 nuclear power plants melt down catastrophically, we’ve entered an extinction event. Think clusterfukushima, times 400. Ionizing radiation could, and probably will, destroy every terrestrial organism and, therefore, every marine and freshwater organism."
Another extension of path 1, I always did find it interesting that Climate scientists who prior to man-made climate change mostly dealt with temperature averages focuses on carbon emissions, which I do find interesting that climate scientists seek to decouple Ionizing/Non-Ionizing radiation emittence even though complex life couldn't exist on early Earth due to the radiation levels.
"Meanwhile, back on Wall Street"
Ok, this isn't necessarily a path to extinction but likely a path to implosion and likely lawlessness. Lets face it while many city-slackers believe their tough; their simply not accustomed to harvesting their own vegetation and meat sources since it's predominantly shipped to them processed and ready to cook or through fast food.
"The bottom line"
"You’ve been warned repeatedly in this space, and the Guardian finally joins the party: The industrial economic system is about to blow. This burst of hope, our remaining chance at salvation, will undoubtedly be greeted with the usual assortment of protests, ridicule, and hate mail I’ve come to expect from planetary consumers who want to keep consuming the planet."
Putting your bottom line another way, the paths to human extinction are largely man-made, so man can or should be able to reverse your assessed paths towards human extinction. Admirable perhaps even noble, there are several problems here:
"We’re headed for extinction via global climate change"
"the United States must cease production of greenhouse gases within 3.1 years if we are to avoid catastrophic runaway greenhouse."
1). Now, I grant you that I don't know much about Physics; however, I am familar with what a scentific law is. A scientific law essentially describes a system in a simple system fashion much like the predominantly used analogy to a sling shot; the debate devolves into if the sling (the rubber band) snaps the sling shot loses its function without another mechanism to conduct the same task, which complex systems routinely does.
Temperature is largely derived from the bottom up and top down approach that interacts with the oceans that disperses the temperature throughout the planet. Solar Activity is the top down approach while submerged volcanic/tectonic forces is the bottom up. These two forces temperature is then dispersed through earth's dispersement systems: Wind, Ocean gyres, and Global Conveyer Belt. Scientific Theory is a highly substantiated observation of a complex system. El Nino and La Nina are nothing more than when the process of the global conveyer belt is altered. El Ninos are hot because the cold ocean water and warm ocean water are no longer being cycled that when it corrects, which is supposed to occur before an El Nino or La Nina are declared over, they don't just stabilize; they fluctuate back and forth over time.
CO2 levels pre-Ice Levels were much higher, and there appears to be a diveregence. Another poster has already pointed out that temperature effects carbon levels, and my personal favorite the need to lower Nitrogen levels in the atmosphere, which is a gas/vapor that makes up the super-majority of gases in the atmosphere and predates Industrial capacities.
While we are indeed undergoing climate change, it was both inevitably beyond people's control.
"We’re headed for extinction via environmental collapse"
"Among the consequences of taking down more than 200 species each day: at some point, the species we take into the abyss is Homo sapiens (the wise ape). The vanishing point draws nearer every day. Our response, in the industrialized world: Bring on the toys. Burn all fossil fuels. Harvest the rain forests and strip-mine the soil. Pollute the water, eat the seed bank."
2). Interesting assessment. Environment is local unless you oversimplify and over generalize it into a Collectivist viewpoint.
A). I love how people so easily come to adapt the concept directly or indirectly that the enemy of the paganistic god, Earth, or to be more politically correct Gaia is humanity as a whole.
B). While your argument basis is, these 'paths' toward human extinction are caused by human activity in their entirety; you're overlooking one basis of extinction underlies the species are confrontated with a series of events that the species are incapable of adapting to:
C). Although reading the 6th Mass Extinction is in progress, it points to man-made climate change as a cause. Frankly, this is grounded in speci egotism, and it's going to eventually blow up in the almighty human species face. Climate Change has historically accord through various factors, and there are certainly unknown factors to also consider.
However, you do have a point here; there are various toxins that we do put into the environment particularly the water supply, which will cause problems. This also means greater concentration of various complex organisms competing for food and water at a more intensified level.
"We’re headed for extinction via nuclear meltdown"
Frankly, while I understand your assessment here:
1). Those 442 nuclear power plants would have to melt down very rapidly and in sequence to firmly express a path of extinction.
2). The other way to view this is to essentially conduct a 180 on the rest of the article to express suspicion towards the lack of complex organisms during an era of Earth that radiation levels were much too high for complex organisms to live. In essence, this draws an expression towards Climate scientists focus on greenhouse gases, which includes water vapor, and focuses on attempts to decouple radiation as a factor. Based on pre-existing theories, non-framed radiation emittence holds enough water.
"back on Wall Street"
"The Securities and Exchange Commission is busily covering up Wall Street crimes, just as they did during the last presidential administration. And, as it turns out, they’ve been performing this trick for two decades."
http://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/08/15/oil-limits-recession-and-bumping-against-the-growth-ceiling/
http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/gail-tverberg/2011/08/12/recession-we-are-hitting-an-economic-growth-ceiling-caused-by-limited-cheap-oil
http://transitionvoice.com/2011/08/five-bummer-problems-that-make-societies-collapse/
Interesting.
1). Club of Rome and its members have created quite a few articles, books, and etc that surrounds:
A). Overpopulation. (Better known as Malthusian Theory and strongly discrouages industrial society, which amounts to creating a bottleneck).
B). The enemy of Gaia is people. (Also known as the Gaia Hypothesis, which underlines Earth Worship)
C). Advocates an Authoritarian Regime through Collectivist Control IE The Federal Government or Executive Branch of government holds the Absolute Power to determine what all citizens and residents do by mandatory event at the detriment of the individual. In other words, the individual must be sacrificed for the preservation of the Collective, which in humanities case is the society's civilization that have historically never outlasted the test of time.
More thorough research appears to be in order, and I'd include the differences between scientific law and scientific theory.
As for following the money:
1). Big Oil has quite a bit of profit coming their way through components of inflation and through man-made climate change. "By necessity, under my plan the price of oil will go up". I love how many people think increasing the price of oil products will be a hinderance on Big Oil's profits especially with subsidies.
2). Who essentially already poised for Cap and Trade and Carbon taxes? The Big's and political elite are poised, and it amounts to taxing the right to live and breath because many complex of the biosphere emit CO2 for one reason or another. I seem to recall Stalin talking about something surrounding 'useful idoits'.
3). Despite the downgrade, I highly doubt that the TBTF will ever be dismantled or essentially racketeering curtailed. After all, many make globalization possible, and it's political career suicide to correct the structural imbalances within the economy while the Big B's will certainly risk that purty mal-investment driving them under despite likely doing so anyway.
What does the Big B's and political elite want? Big Government and expansion of control. Money is influence, and influence is power.
The world will end but not the way this article describes. Whenever you wonder what the world is coming to just remember WHO is coming to the world. That is not to say we should ignore what is wrong because what we do here and now has eternal consequences.
Man suffers from a serious case of megalomania. To think we can change the world's climate by reducing our own miniscule amount of CO2 output is ludicrous at best and will go down in history as one of the most misguided junk science scams ever.
Richard Lindzen is one of the world's leading atmospheric physicists and is the head of the meteorology department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books on the topic. He has written several articles that say that the AGW alarmists are completely overstating the role that CO2 plays in causing any global warming. He states that the rise of CO2 is more likely the result of a warming world rather than the cause of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
I'm all for cleaning up the planet and reducing pollution, but to do it in the name of 100% junk science can really foul up our efforts and create a great misallocation of resources. A great example of the waste created by the AGW scam is the millions sunk into CO2 sequestration. This is one of the greatest wastes of energy, money and effort. Al Gore and the whole AGW crowd need to be fully exposed for the frauds and scam artists that they are. Unfortunately, they've done such a good job at hoodwinking the media (ZH included!) that junk science has now become a "fact" in the MSM.
I love ZH, but to see that "Tyler" and the crew have fallen for the AGW scam knocks them down a notch in my book.
http://citizensagainstco2sequestration.blogspot.com/
http://www.gigatonthrowdown.org/
The Gigaton Throwdown Study is a collaboration of academics and industry experts who evaluated the challenges and feasibility of scaling nine different technologies to avoid 1 gigaton of carbon dioxide equivalent per year by 2020. The study published in 2009 can be found here on this site.
Were GAAP to be the real deal, the environmental costs properlty accounted for dilute the global warming conversation to an observation of the secular event it has been for thousands of centuries. Bad accounting creates moral hazard; like HFT hides the old PPT in the skunk works.
These aren't even the biggest risks. The far more serious ones are overpopulation and peak oil.
I thought this was a fitting final post, I pull a quote from T. Curtis:
Nice. I came across this:
“I’m sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see.” – John R. Christy
John R. Christy, B.A. Mathematics, California State University (1973), M.S. Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois (1984), Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois (1987), NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991), American Meteorological Society’s Special Award (1996), Member, Committee on Earth Studies, Space Studies Board (1998-2001), Alabama State Climatologist (2000-Present), Fellow, American Meteorological Society (2002), Panel Member, Official Statement on Climate Change, American Geophysical Union (2003), Member, Committee on Environmental Satellite Data Utilization, Space Studies Board (2003-2004), Member, Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the last 2,000 years, National Research Council (2006), Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville (1991-Present), Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2000-Present), Contributor, IPCC (1992, 1994, 1996, 2007), Lead Author, IPCC (2001)
Unlike your tendency to provide bullshit generic quotes and made up resumes I provide specifics (and links to where I got them: http://sppiblog.org/news/2835 ) with the resume of the quoted expert. By the way, you might want to take a gander at the method of listing his credentials. A bit more easily verified than that cut and paste job of yours.
Came across this... couldn't resist
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937801100104X
Here is the abstract and highlights
AbstractWe examine whether conservative white males are more likely than are other adults in the U.S. general public to endorse climate change denial. We draw theoretical and analytical guidance from the identity-protective cognition thesis explaining the white male effect and from recent political psychology scholarship documenting the heightened system-justification tendencies of political conservatives. We utilize public opinion data from ten Gallup surveys from 2001 to 2010, focusing specifically on five indicators of climate change denial. We find that conservative white males are significantly more likely than are other Americans to endorse denialist views on all five items, and that these differences are even greater for those conservative white males who self-report understanding global warming very well. Furthermore, the results of our multivariate logistic regression models reveal that the conservative white male effect remains significant when controlling for the direct effects of political ideology, race, and gender as well as the effects of nine control variables. We thus conclude that the unique views of conservative white males contribute significantly to the high level of climate change denial in the United States.
Highlights? Conservative white males are more likely than other Americans to report climate change denial. ? Conservative white males who self-report understanding global warming very well are even more likely. ? Climate change denial is an example of identity-protective cognition. ? System-justifying tendencies lead to climate change denial. ? Climate change denial increased from 2001 to 2010
----
(If the shoe fits...)
Personally I like the fact that in order to actually look at the references used to compile that bogus study one has to pony up the $$$...
(yeah, try to hit the reference link and this is where it goes: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937801100104X#bibl001 ).
Great way to fund your farce Flaky, really carries a lot of weight.
Hmmm, let me guess, if we are skeptical of AGW, that makes us racist, sexist and anti-gay. And let me guess, your next link will prove that anyone denying AGW is also, wait for it!!!, anti-semitic.
I also have a link that I just cannot resist:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/08/19/aliens-could-attack-earth-to-e...
How fucking pathetic!
Ya gotta love it! "...the thought provoking study conducted by Penn State..." And yet another great use of taxpayer $$$. Yea, global warming, excuse me... climate change... is real. So is the government desire to cut the budget (if they actually passed one that is) with only the most essential items remaining like: "the $440,000 spent annually to have attendants push buttons on the fully automated Capitol Hill elevators used by Representatives and Senators" (full text here: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/most-outrageous-government-waste/ ) Yep. AGW = Science, Hope, Inalienable Truths.
easier to think about the end of the world than about the end of capitalism as we know it huh.
Daily Kos: Global Warming is real say the Koch Brothers
www.dailykos.com/.../-Global-Warming-is-real-say-the-Koch-Broth... - Cached You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Apr 4, 2011 – Global Warming is real say the Koch Brothers. The Climate Change Denier Scientist the Koch Brothers paid to debunk Global Warming has come ...
?
The Koch Brothers' Vast Right-Wing Media Conspiracy | Mother Jones
motherjones.com/.../2011/02/koch-brothers-media-beck-greenpeace - Cached You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Feb 4, 2011 – The Koch brothers are outraged—outraged!—that people were tricked into believing they care about global warming. ...
Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine ...
www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/.../global-warming-and.../koch-industri... - Cached You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Charles and David Koch have quietly funneled over $55 million to ... that are working to delay policies and regulations aimed at stopping global warming. ... The Koch brothers, their family members, and their employees direct a web of ...
Koch Industries multibillionaire Koch brothers bankroll attacks on ...
www.climatesciencewatch.org/.../koch-industries-multibillionaire-ko... - CachedSimilar You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Mar 18, 2010 – The Koch brothers have stepped forward with deep pockets to bankroll ... Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud and ...
New Yorker exposes Koch brothers along with their greenwashing and ...
thinkprogress.org/.../new-yorker-koch-brothers-smithsonian-tea-par... - Cached You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Aug 24, 2010 – TRENDING: Global Warming · Climate Change Deniers · Election 2012 · Science ... Koch Brothers Fund Bogus Study Bashing Offshore Wind ...
Billionaire Koch brothers back suspension of California climate ...
latimesblogs.latimes.com/.../koch-brothers-global-warming-prop-23... - CachedSimilar You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Sep 2, 2010 – A company owned by oil billionaires Charles and David Koch has contributed $1 million to Proposition 23, a November ballot initiative to ...