Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Earth
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Roughly 10,000 years ago, the great sheets of ice that had covered much of the planet receded, triggering a wave of extinctions, ecological changes and, ultimately, the rise of human civilization. All those changes came about as roughly 30 percent of the planet's surface went from ice-covered to ice-free.
Since then, humans have transformed roughly 43 percent of the planet's surface to suit our need for food and shelter. Think: agriculture and cities.
Now scientists suggest that our ongoing population growth, natural resource consumption and climate-changing fossil fuel burning may precipitate a global environmental shift like the end of the last Ice Age. Such a "critical transition" or "tipping point" could bring about an entirely different planet, from a biological perspective. The paper is in the journal Nature. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.)
The scientists suggest that we strive to restrain our influence on planet-wide alteration. But they also say we should prepare for the consequences, whether they be a mass extinction event or the collapse of critical ecosystem services like clean water or fertile soils. They also suggest that we might want to look into methods to forecast when such a tipping point might occur. If it hasn't already.
—David Biello
[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]
See what we're tweeting about
51 Comments
Add Commentredundancy is part of the problem, and redundant articles don't improve it:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-earth-nearing-environmental-tipping-point
now environmet is uncontrollable..we should take care now itself,otherwise loss of habitats,nature will uncontrollable....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@jyctyler,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is a transcript of a podcast.
I have to disagree with the last comment. The average person does not recycle. Even those that do could do more. Almost every store you go to places your items/s in a plastic bag. Very few people bring their own bags when they do grocery shopping. Clearly we could write a law banning all plastic bags. So how big a deal would that be?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell consider, plastic is essentially a petrochemical product. How much fossil fuel is used each year producing plastic bags?
And once you make them they never go away----EVER!
Most Europeans countries have been carrying their own sacks to and from stores for forever. Is there some reason we can't do the same.?
It's a small thing that overtime can become a big thing.
This is only one small idea. There are a million more just as simple to change our carbon footprint.
"Since then, humans have transformed roughly 43 percent of the planet's surface to suit our need for food and shelter."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf 70% of the earth is covered with water (according to the EPA, among many sources), should we assume the 13% discrepancy here represents all the oil wells, etc under water? Perhaps, but 13% sound high.
Anyone game for some clarification here? Otherwise, it's hard to give this article credence.
The "tipping point" is a metaphor -- an egg on a table can be static if on its "side", as opposed to balancing on one end; the latter case in which it is presumably more susceptible to falling.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, if the table is tilted, the "stable" egg becomes unstable; if the carefully balanced egg-on-end is placed in a weightless environment, it will be always stable - at any inclination.
The tipping point for the Earth's environment is that point of advancing civilization at which accumlated change is inevitable and exponential has ALREADY been reached - if anything to correct the rate of change COULD have been done, it WOULD have been done. Since we, as an aggregate of people of all countries, have NOT been able to make the case for required change, no change is possible: Therefore, we have PASSED the "tipping point".
redundancy may be annoying, but it is never the problem. "Don't text while driving" may be repeated, but it does not cause car accidents - ignoring the message causes problems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am always curious about people who say like Shortie that we have already passed the tipping point. Does that mean we should stop worrying about climate drivers? Should we burn as much fossil fuel as we like because it no longer makes any difference? Should all our efforts now go to mitigation and adaptation? You don't often hear the answers to those questions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah, how about if we say 43% of land mass? Land being land, water being not land. Would that work for you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have a pessimistic comment regarding a population crash, would the survivors want to burn fossil fuels to recover and rebuild? What WILL it take for us to get serious about sustainable lifestyles?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistrent, yep, still, it's only more of the same - a short notice in "news" would have been sufficient - as is it could attract the usual trolls and they use every strategic advantage they can get = simply waiting for us not to comment and have the field to themselves. (Yes, I see myself in a campaign against them. Too much at stake, things like opinions and votes and all that.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hate it when this comment board turns into a political forum. There are plenty of political stories on Yahoo to make inane comments about. Yeah, yeah, I know: Republicans are evil environmental rapists and Democrats, if only left alone, would bring about world utopia where things appear by magic and transportation needs revive the environment and make plants greener.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood Gravy, James, you're usually good for concerned comments that are at least on the right side of the issue. We all seem to be smart enough to realize that they are ALL crooks and charlatans and the road we're traveling is a dead-end street.
Nothing happens that is not God's will.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe real issue is the MAGNITUDE of the necessary changes people need to make. Read the Brundtland Report for instance, which suggests that in order to both become sustainable and give the whole population a standard of living that was designated 'acceptable' (something a decent chunk less than what we have in the developed world, but better than half as good) would require an increase in output vs impact of THIRTY SIX TIMES. That is we need to reduce the environmental impact of this standard of living by an order of magnitude.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThings like recycling and not using plastic bags are perfectly good actions, but they're like a drop in the bucket. We need to go so far beyond that that clearly only a completely different style of living is going to get us there. Imagine using 1/36th as many products, electricity, gasoline, etc as you do now. THAT is what we need to do. Of course a bunch of that will come in the form of overall higher efficiency in providing goods and services, but clearly people will also have to restructure their lives such that a LOT more is done with a LOT less.
Well, it is an error, the original number was 43% of the LAND surface.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeing two-thirds water, with life clinging to ocean vents, this planet will easily survive the human infestation. Question is, do those who are adept enough to communicate in this manner possess the wisdom to insure their own survival?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs long as humans continue to plunder the earth's resources, destroy and strip its arable land, send untold tons of pollutants into the atmosphere, the answer remains 'no.' Now that the continent with the largest human population has begun its transformation to the 'first world,' that resounding 'no' grows louder by the day.
While it is both valueless and incorrect to point to one group, like Republicans for example, as the sole destroyers of our ecosystem, the business or corporate mindset is the one that has not only allowed this destruction, but also actively promotes its continuance. It is the continuation of this wanton destruction that politicians twist to make palatable to the ill- or uninformed. Protection of corporations [they're people, too!] is generally considered the provenance of Repubs, and, deserving or not, they should bear the brunt of human anger.
But all the anger in the world is not going to restore the natural balance that existed for tens or hundreds of thousands of years before the onset of the Industrial Revolution. Instead of using our brains to become pollinators of the earth, we chose to become its destroyers.
Meanwhile, I'll continue to put gasoline in my car, use recently fracked natural gas to light my fireplace, eat an apple from New Zealand, and very likely other negative contributions - often without a single thought to the problems that I have helped to continue. We, as individuals, can deny ourselves the goods that most people take for granted. It's the 'for granted' part that needs scrutiny, or changing, but I have just signaled that I am unwilling to sacrifice what has become routine for me until or unless that sacrifice is shared by all.
A time will come when sacrifices will not be voluntary. None of us will be alive then, but our 'contributions' will be. How do you want your legacy to appear?
There is only one problem right now on planet earth! One species is using up the planet like a fat man or woman at a eating contest!!Rapid and hungry, eating, digging, building like tomorrow won't exist. It now, just might be true. It is estimated that there are about 8-12 million total species on planet Earth and some say up to 100 million(http://search.asu.edu.)and one species, homo erectus, doesn't seem to care about the rest. As of June 10, 2012 the world human population is estimated to be 7.019 billion by the United States Census Bureau,[3] and over 7 billion by the United Nations.[4][5][6] Most estimates for the carrying capacity of the Earth are between 4 billion and 16 billion. The recent rapid increase in human population over the past two centuries has raised concerns that the planet may not be able to sustain present or larger numbers of inhabitants. Steve Jones, head of the biology department at University College London, has said, "Humans are 10,000 times more common than we should be".[11] The thing is that most populations that grow in massive numbers end up having a massive die off of the species all at once, actually putting in jeopardy, the survival of the species. A minute example is one of red tide. When there is pleanty of food they reproduce sexually and asexually; this creates an enormous population size quickly. They then consume all the excess food and suddenly there is little to no food left and they die off drastically. Take the Incas as a larger example; many scientists believe their population size grew too big to be sustainable in the niche they chose to live in which resulted in massive die off of the population. There are plenty of studies on the internet to check out what I am exhibiting here. We have many choices to level this out without restricting the birth rate but if we don't start now it will definately end up with restrictions on birth rate as China is implementing now or the worst, mass extinction of not just us but of the majority of species. Yes, species return but who is to say that the one species, homo erectus, will be one of them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this4.^ "Population seven billion: UN sets out challenges". BBC. 26 October 2011. Retrieved 27 October 2011.
5.^ "World's 'seven billionth baby' is born". The Guardian. 31 October 2011. Retrieved 31 October 2011.
6.^ "7 billion people is a 'serious challenge'". UPI, 31 October 2011. Retrieved 9 November 2011.
11.^ Leading geneticist Steve Jones says human evolution is over, The Times, 7 October 2008
We are most assuredly pushing the planet to ruin, all for the benefit of a few fat, greedy, crackpot billionaires who've bought the Republican Party, lock, stock and barrel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbamw:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<The average person does not recycle.>
In Western Europe a vast majority of people recycle, generally because their commune has put anti-waste rules in place and provides the containers to go with it. And I'd say that over 80% make an effort even when they don't have to.
<Almost every store you go to places your items/s in a plastic bag.>
Where I am now (Western Europe) there are no plastic bags in ANY store.
<Very few people bring their own bags when they do grocery shopping.>
Here everybody does. It's become an habit to have a bag or a net in your car.
<Clearly we could write a law banning all plastic bags.>
Africa is litterally defaced with small black plastic bags. In Senegal 10 mio bags are used PER DAY. A HUGE problem. Non-bio-degradable plastic was banned a few years ago if I remember correctly but the law was never inforced (as I was told, because one of the President's sons owns the factory (which of course holds the national monopoly)). OTOH Kenya did the right thing and banned them.
<So how big a deal would that be?>
No big deal at all. When plastic bags were banned it was never an issue and about three months after the ban everybody had cotton bags. Also, most supermarkets still keep a pile of empty used cartons near the checkout for those who forgot their bags or "overshopped".
<Most Europeans countries have been carrying their own sacks to and from stores for forever.>
It's how you shopped at markets and neighbourhood stores but supermarkets had free plastic bags until the early 1990s. Then there was a transitional period where supermarkets charged for them and by the mid-1990s the bags were banned.
<Is there some reason we can't do the same?>
Because it makes the 1% rich USamericans and the chemical polluters richer? Maybe USamericans believe all bags are part of plastic art? Hey, they mistake a junkfood trough for a restaurant. <g>
OK, so, 10,000 years ago, the earth was covered in ice. And then the earth thawed. So, the thaw must have been caused by man, right? We must have been burning a lot of oil and fossil fuels then, right? As was pointed out, it seems that man has "controlled" 40% of the earth since then with cities and farms. And, the ice has not returned. So, we must be doing something right!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this47% of the earth's surface? Surely Mr. Biello has misspo4ke...he probably meant 47% of land surface. I knew he misspoke because I finished 8th grade. What disappoints me is that most of our 4 year degree graduates believe this crap. What disappoints me more is some of the comments about this podcast. You know, awhile back there was a movement in Europe that blamed all the trouble in the world on the Jews. They had scientific proof. They had economic proof. They convinced a lot of people in the enlightened countries by simply lying and insisting that there was something to be afraid of. These people gained political power. They took over the education system and the economy. They grew stronger. This movement was convinced of it's moral and intellectual superiority. Within one generation they outlawed debate. If you didn't believed what they believed you were a denier and a capitalist and/or communist pig. You were not part of society because you were thinking for yourself and not for the Common Good. They called themselves Socialists because they claimed they were looking out for us all. Today this same kind of narcissist movement is called Environmentalism. When you ask for proof and want to debate, they turn to name calling and fear mongering. Being an Environmentalist has nothing to do with science or the pursuit of truth. An Environmentalist is a political narcissist that lives on lies and feeds on fear. It's that simple. Elmo
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would take the time to explain the freeze-thaw cycle to you, and humanity's lack of a role in it, but since you are stuck on the benefit of an ice-free planet, while overlooking methodology, have yourself a sno-cone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis, however, is a more outlandish comment than witchrunner's. To equate environmentalism with anti-semitism is the height of absurdity. The polluters did take the repetition of lies into their repertoire, but have eschewed intellectual advancement, instead to proudly proclaim their ignorance. You, Ellmo, [and which is it - one 'l' or two?] are a prime example. The only narcissists in this planetary destruction are those who defile the earth for personal gain, aided by those who know the least, but nevertheless shout the loudest as cover for the destroyers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen does his mean that "we", were the initial problem, which caused that ice age 10,000 years ago, then created such a mess, that "we" caused the temperature to rise, melting the ice, creating a tropical rain forest, that fed the dinosaurs, until "we" messed that up causing the temperature to..........
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA)I didn't know that "we" were around for that long....
B)I didn't know that "we" were that powerful.....
There is no God, get over it - your comment shows you understand nothing whatsoever about science. Your , intellectually, way out of your depth on this site.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's not necessary for humans to push the planet over the tipping point where the planet and solar system are quite capable of doing that without our help. Multiple extinction episodes have caused life on earth to revert to simple life forms and if we want our families to survive in perpetuity, we must stop adding manmade insults to ecosystems in order to prepare for those natural extinction events that will prevent intelligent life from ever developing on this planet. Every link we knock out of the food chain will make it that much more likely that events like super-volcanoes, expansive lava traps, asteroids, magnetic field shifts or severe solar anomalies will extinguish all but the most resilient bacteria. It took us 4.5 billion years to evolve and I doubt conditions on earth will remain favorable long enough to re-evolve anything close to homo sapiens, so don't screw up this beautiful experiment called life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPardon me, I made a mistake, it was 43% not 47%. It's one "I", had to use two to register. I also forgot to mention control of the media in my post. The Socialist movement did start out with the Jews. Before long it was everyone who disagreed with them. The Environmentalist started out with those "big capitalist polluters". Now everyone and everything that exhales a breath or farts is a "planet destroyer". That's what I call absurdity. There is a glimmer of hope now, if we can keep the internet free. We have equal access now. Men of truth and ethics are exposing these lies of fear. I enjoy reading posts on articles like these and see the difference, liberals are losing power. I wasn't trying to equate the Socialist movement to the Environmentalist, I didn't mention Nazism or Hitler. I was analogizing the tactics of a authoritarian movement to the Environmentalist movement. They are exactly the same. Truth and ethics are always absurd to a liberal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisElmo.....just a covering planet destroyer.
In a related note Republican lawmaker says the term "sea level rise" is a "left wing term" and censors the offending item out of a science report to the Virginia state legislature:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVirginia's dying marshes and climate change denial: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17915958
Lawmakers avoid buzzwords on climate change bills
http://hamptonroads.com/2012/06/lawmakers-avoid-buzzwords-climate-change-bills?page=1#comments
So much for Republican ethics, eh?
Ellmo Says:Now everyone and everything that exhales a breath or farts is a "planet destroyer"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: It must be so bracing to just write about a subject you have never put any effort into comprehending. Take that the above quote as exhibit A.
You seem blissfully unaware of the carbon cycle and as such can not distinguish between inhaling oxygen (a plant by product)and exhaling CO2; and the act of excavating and burning CO2 that has been sequestered in the ground for tens and hundreds of millions of years over the course of less than three centuries.
A perfect example of idiocy.
Mr. Biello, I think the "tipping point" is not coming. It already happened. We altered 43% of the earth's surface, increased CO2 to highest level in 400,000 years, highest increase in sea level in 7,000 years, and possibly the warmest temp. in 2,000 years, what more do you need to reach the tipping point?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisElmo, my funny friend:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<I knew he misspoke because I finished 8th grade.>
Yes, that's the trouble with the US educational system, luck out on the multiple choice tests and you can brag about your 8th grade.
<You know, awhile back there was a movement in Europe that blamed all the trouble in the world on the Jews.>
Yes, anti-semitism was rampant all over the world, not only in Europe. Little known fact for your info: one of Hitler's first and his by far biggest sponsor then was one Henry Ford, an openly fervent anti-semite. Did they tell you that in 8th grade?
<They had scientific proof.>
They didn't. What they presented was garbage made up to look scientific. The same strategy used these days by a number of US polluter-paid anti-environmental "institutes".
<They had economic proof.>
They didn't. In fact, Hitler owed his economical survival to a Jewish librarian who had agreed to help him sell his shitty postcards. The Jews were simply the most convenient scapegoats.
<These people gained political power.>
Happened and still happens all over the world. Political bullying, lying and cheating. It's how a recent US politician became president, took over a debt- and warfree country, bankrupted it and rode it into two wars that the US can't win. Shame you didn't make it to 9th grade, still, look at your own doorstep, it helps to avoid falling flat on your face.
<They took over the education system and the economy. They grew stronger.>
And what have we learned from that? That we should stay far away from creationists, Wall Street and hedge fund managers who ruined the US.
<If you didn't believed what they believed you were a denier and a capitalist and/or communist pig.>
In the absence of arguments that is the same tactic that people who don't understand climate science now use against climate scientists. So what's new?
<You were not part of society because you were thinking for yourself and not for the Common Good.>
The way you talk I wonder which side you would have been on if you had been German and living in Berlin in 1937... You don't understand science, you mistake your beliefs for facts, you are very full of yourself... reminds you of something?
./..
(Elmo, my funny friend ctd)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<They called themselves Socialists>
No, they called themselves Nationalsozialisten. It's the same abuse of vocabulary as in "the american dream" or "intelligent design" or "Galileo movement against carbon tax".
<Environmentalism... When you ask for proof and want to debate, they turn to name calling and fear mongering.>
Every denier who ever asked for proof got it, not a single denier I ever met anyhwere was in any way capable of proving why he refused the climate data from NASA, EPA, the US military, etc.
But ok then: give me ONE SINGLE PROOF that climate science is wrong, ONE SINGLE PROOF that AGW is a hoax, ONE SINGLE PROOF that present-day warming is not man-made.
ONE SINGLE PROOF.
And I don't mean any of that creationist, intelligent-design, chemical engineer turned climate scientist stuff or heartland institute PR, I mean ONE SINGLE PROOF THAT WILL WITHSTAND THE MOST MINIMAL SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY TEST.
<An Environmentalist is a political narcissist that lives on lies and feeds on fear. It's that simple. Elmo>
And you made it to 8th grade? Amazing.
Your governement better take a very close look at your education system. Of course, having an intelligent nation is not exactly good for your Henry Fords...
May I conclude that US 8th grade is a good excuse for not knowing history, not understanding science, but having the right to buy arms and shoot wildly around at the risk of seriously damaging one's own extremities?
Elmo, my funny 8th-graded friend:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, of course, how could I forget? You would have taken me for a climate denier if I didn't have proof. Will a single one suffice?
http://www.traces.org/henryford.html
Now here's a very funny question: how did Ford Motor company manage to avoid having their Cologne factories bombed by the Allied Forces when they had built war machinery?
See? Now you learned two major facts about the Fords that they didn't tell you in 8th grade. And it's the same with climate science. Eat healthy food, don't abuse alcohol, read and educate yourself and one day maybe your brain will switch on before your big mouth opens and makes you sound like a total idiot.
Thank you again Scientific American for the update; Are We Pushing the Planet to the Brink of Irreversible Environmental Change?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat I get from this article is the realization that "these are the Good Old Days" right NOW. Given all the destructive and far reaching adverse impact of the human species on our only habitat (earth) the Tipping point of drastic climate change has been past several decades ago.
So we will just continue on our present path to disaster and leave nature to the do the dirty work. Our greed and desire for comfort along with unchecked population growth are unstoppable by ourselves.
We should take advantage of these Good Old Days by learning to respect and love ourselves and all those around us. Knowing that our planet has a perfect "self cleaning cycle".
Yo, ELMO, have you read messages 31 e.a.?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWHERE IS YOUR PROOF? WHERE IS THE VALIDATION OF ALL THAT STUFF YOU ARE POSTING? I'M WAITING.
Or are you another one of those climate change deniers who pop up everyhwere, pretend a lot of hot air and never back it up, proving in the end that you are a climate retard only pursuing your own irresponsible ego and/or being a paid or voluntary shill for the polluting industry?
You pretended a lot of things, WHERE ARE YOUR PROOFS, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?
Or is your comment just another case of
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/821/kipstront.jpg/
?
Good morning Trent,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for your reply. I might know just a little bit about it. In the middle part of my working life I spent about 15 yrs. in the "environmental" field. I installed and monitored hundreds of solar powered weather stations. These were satellite linked back to DC(EPA,NOAA and such) and to my office.
This equipment was the best money could buy. The most expense occurred with the proper installation so we could get accurate data. About half of these installs were replacing existing stations. We've all heard the stories about thermometers being placed six feet from air conditioning exhausts or placed on black tar roofs.....you don't know how true that is. Terabytes of bad data over the yrs. Our stations polled(took a reading), recorded(on flash memory) and transmitted the results every five minutes. Each station also had either a LOS(line of site radio), phone line or cellphone link in case the satellite went down. I always had data from hundreds of stations all over this country every five minutes twenty four seven. It was quite impressive.
Cont.
I only monitored the US. We had thirty eight thousand installed
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisand operating units globally. Every five minutes. There are many more now
I'm sure. That’s a lot of data. And that's just from one company, there are
many other companies and a lot of agencies. One would think with that much
real time data, in only a few years we will know what's going on! Alas my
friend such is not the case. There are always interference, anomalies, and
unexplained events that skew and distort the data. I will give you one
example, there are many. My monitoring program would alarm me for any
anomaly because I was responsible for proper operation and accurate data.
Late one spring I got higher than normal temperature and CO2 readings on
twelve units in and around a large midwestern city. Being able to receive
data from these units every five minutes was pretty neat, but I could also
talk to any unit on the planet from my desk. I could turn off/on, run
diagnostics, calibrate sensors and manually poll from my desk. Nuyk nuyk.
Cont.
Couldn't find a darn thing wrong with those units, after all, I was the
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisperson who installed and setup those units. Got to looking at some maps and
saw all these units were along or close to secondary roads. Never install
close to stop and go traffic for obvious reasons. So I flew out there and
found massive road construction and detours along these roads. Stop and go
traffic. This lasted into the fall. Temperatures were up 5-6 degrees and CO2
was real high(can't recall, CO2 was not that concerning at that time). Every
month of every year I would write a detailed report of these anomalies and
send along with the data to our customers. Next spring when that years
report came out, they all showed above average temp and CO2 levels for that
city and a fifty mile area around it! Our in-house analysis show normal temp
and CO2. My reports were never considered for data analysis by our
customers. I also worked a few yrs. in water quality and soil monitoring,
same thing there.
OK now for exhibit A. Ethics are ethics period. Liberals don't have any.
Few Republicans do. Now for your story links. I'm not sure what
your point is, but I agree with the term flooding. Sea level rise won't
work. It's like global warming, it was wrong and didn't work. If I'm not
mistaken , the planet actually cooled during the last ten years. They had to
change it to climate change. If Liberals insist on the term sea level, it
will have to be sea level change. That area of the country clear up through
DC is swampland. That is the way swampland behaves. DC will always be a
swamp, in more ways than one.
Cont.
Now lets get back to this manmade global warming. The force behind this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfarce is self interest like everything else in this world. Self interest is
good, it comes from our survival instinct, it can only be killed due to a
mental condition( most common is depression) or spiritual enlightenment.
Many consider them the same(S). I don't. Nothing else can kill it until you die. (This S is a symbol for sarcasm. I see that I should use this to inform some readers. There is a post after this post I am replying to who believes that I quit school in the eight grade, thinks that I believe there is proof that Jews are subhuman, and that the Ford Motor Co. financed the rise of Hitler. He also thinks that I have to prove global warming doesn't exit. Typical Liberal tactic. I will not be replying to that man.) The most perverted self interest is the dictator. The second most perverted is the criminal. The third is the narcissus, actually these are criminals lacking evidence and hard to catch. We catch them once in a while....politicians, bureaucrats, CEOs and movie stars(S). The most selfish and destructive self interest is the politician and bureaucrat. These are parasitic to the citizenry. They have power and they are corrupt. They always want more power, money and size. These and the voters they buy are takers. The government gets it's justification and the voters get their bribe. Nearly 50% now pay no income tax and get the bribe. That's what I call unfair! The least selfish self interest is FREE CAPITALISM. If we can get it back, we can lift the world again. Capitalism has improved the Human Race more than anything in history. It has also prevented us from going in the dark several times. If left alone it can solve any problem in the least amount of time with an outcome better than expected. The life force behind this is competition. Competition gives us excellence(quality), efficiency(best price and time) and innovation(improvement and new solutions). But most of all it gives us Choice. And when we choose we Vote. It lets us Vote on every product and service(and thus solution) there is. We Vote hundreds of times every month. It is the only true real time democracy there is. That’s Freedom and Power for all.
Politicians, bureaucrats and Liberals(socialist, yes they are socialist, anyone who thinks the government can solve problems is a socialist!) know this and it scares them to death. Capitalism gives power and choice back to the citizenry. Then we need very little government. If the government would let true capitalism thrive, all we would need is 10% of our income to take care of the people who are unable. Back to the manmade global warming farce. The first big farce was back in the 70s. Back then we were going into an ice age. Then they called it warming. Now with the exposed hockey stick emails, they call it change. Anyone reading those emails can see they were inventing data to prove what they wanted. And it has cooled a little during the last few yrs. But the CO2 hasn't dropped, so I guess it's back to the ice age. It's all bunk. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisps...there are many studies right now using our tax dollars to monitor methane from domestic stock. There are proposed regulations in some countries to change animal diet. This is idiocy.
Elmo
yo, elmo, my funky little climate change denying friend, instead of replying to Trent, how about answering some of my questions about the validity of your statements? Who cares what you installed?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<In the middle part of my working life I spent about 15 yrs. in the "environmental" field. I installed and monitored hundreds of solar powered weather stations.>
Being a climate equipment installation technician does NOT qualify you as a climate scientist.
<Couldn't find a darn thing wrong with those units, after all, I was the person who installed and setup those units>
If you think hard about this sentence, maybe you consider that you might be a major reason why the darn things didn't work properly. Were you properly qualified bolt these things on?
Not that it would matter in the long term. Know what "averages" and "probabilities" mean? Yes, they mean that the average idiot who installs equipment may have in all probability done a lot of faulty installs, but that is not what I am driving at.
<that the Ford Motor Co. financed the rise of Hitler.>
Read my comment, stupid. I said "Henry Ford", not the Ford Cy or his children, I said very clearly "HENRY FORD". Should be clear reading even to an 8th grader, no?
<He also thinks that I have to prove global warming doesn't exit.>
No, I don't THINK that. I SAY that if you pretend that global MAN-MADE warming does not exist DESPITE all the scientific date to the contrary, then you HAVE TO PROVE IT or pass for an idiot. THAT is what I said.
<Typical Liberal tactic.>
Liberal my a..s! I want evidence, proof, integer data, objective conclusions, not some arch-reactionary 8th grader Limbaugh-soundalike. Who by the way is enormously overrated both in reach and influence.
(this is Elmo ctd)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<The most perverted self interest is the dictator.>
A dictator? Some guys (trying to) impose his personal views on the rest of the world without any regard for science, logic and social decency? You start to qualify.
<The second most perverted is the criminal.>
The person who wants to impose his views regardless of the misery on others. Like climate criminals who want to keep on wasting ressources even if millions of Africans and Asians die as a consequence?
<The third is the narcissus, actually these are criminals lacking evidence and hard to catch.>
Hehehe - and not so hard to catch either because
<We catch them once in a while....>
Yep, we caught one, his name is Elmo, and he believes that his statements which he can't back up except by equipment he doesn't understand is proof of his narcissistic belief in the cogitations of his peanut brain. Man, you must be a millipede by the number of feet you shoot yourself in.
<anyone who thinks the government can solve problems is a socialist!>
Everybody who goes into politics does so because he wants to govern and that he can change things if he is in charge of government. Meaning that George W. and Cheney for example are socialists? Even a millipede doesn't have that many.
<This is idiocy. Elmo>
Save space, retype the sentence and drop the third word.
---
What we want is that you prove what you say, that man-made climate change is a hoax.
WE WANT PROOF
WE WANT PROOF
WE WANT PROOF
WE WANT PROOF
WE WANT PROOF
WE WANT PROOF
WE WANT PROOF
WE WANT PROOF
WE WANT PROOF
WE WANT PROOF
WE WANT PROOF
WE WANT PROOF
WE WANT PROOF
WE WANT PROOF
WE WANT PROOF
WE WANT PROOF
or you shall be known as a climate denier idiot.
JC, your gregariousness, charm, wit and irrefutable logic has convinced me. You are right and I was wrong. We'll show those 1%ers. Let's go out and break some plate glass and defecate on some police cars. Come on, it will be fun!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisElmo
That was probably the worst written article I've ever seen come out of SA.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisComing out of the ice age cause massive extinction? That doesn't even make sense.
Mankind has altered 43% of the world's surface when land is only 30%? How can we alter the oceans' surface? Man has only developed about 6% of the land's surface. That means we've only altered about 1.8% of the world's surface.
Sure, we might be causing some environmental change, but Earth is all about change. Nothing remains static -- didn't evolution teach you that? Would you really want a world that didn't adapt?
Elmo, my dear little climate equipment technician:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<JC, your gregariousness, charm, wit and irrefutable logic has convinced me.>
Ah, you make my day.
<You are right and I was wrong.>
I am not right, I only prove what I say by using climate science data, although... you were wrong.
<We'll show those 1%ers.>
Not "we". You do your thing and why don't you start with 9th grade? And when you have proof that you finally understand stats and proper data, then "WE" can maybe show those who mess up the place.
<Let's go out and break some plate glass and defecate on some police cars. Come on, it will be fun!>
Your proposal is so ... typical. Being your usual 8th grader again. How many times do I have to tell you, grow up, study, keep your mouth shut about things you don't understand, study, do something USEFUL with your live. And LEARN the basics of climate science, THEN you can do the bear-on-the-hood thing for all I care. In the meantime:
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&tok=qHE6sKu__6GcIHkCwTm4tA&cp=21&gs_id=2l&xhr=t&q=climate+science+basics&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=climate+scienc+basics&aq=0l&aqi=g-l1g-blK1&aql=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=665ce31ffb57f9fc&biw=1355&bih=638
What’s academia’s response to a whistleblower who exposes fraudulent research and faked credentials on a panel of experts?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFire the whistleblower, of course.
That’s the allegation in a new complaint filed against the regents of the University of California by the American Center for Law and Justice on behalf of former professor James E. Enstrom.
The lawsuit explains that Enstrom was a UCLA research professor for decades – until he blew the whistle on “junk environmental science and scientific misconduct at the University of California” and was dismissed.
“The facts of this case are astounding,” said David French, senior counsel for the ACLJ. “UCLA terminated a professor after 35 years of service simply because he exposed the truth about an activist scientific agenda that was not only based in fraud but violated California law for the sake of imposing expensive new environmental regulations on California businesses.”
French said, “UCLA’s actions were so extreme that its own Academic Freedom Committee unanimously expressed its concern about the case.”
According to the ACLJ, Enstrom, a research professor in UCLA’s Department of Environmental Health Sciences, published peer-reviewed research showing that fine particulate matter does not kill Californians.
However, much of the “anti-pollution” research is based on the assumption that those fine particulates, like those that make up Denver’s infamous “Brown Cloud” during the winter, are injurious to all who breathe them.
Enstrom also assembled evidence that claimed powerful UC professors systematically exaggerated the adverse health effects of diesel particulate matter in California, “knowing full well that these exaggerations would be used by the California Air Resources Board to justify draconian diesel vehicle regulations.”
Further, a lead author of a report from the CARB didn’t earn a UC Davis Ph.D. as he claimed but had purchased a fake degree for $1,000, Enstrom documented.
Elmo, my entertaining axe-wielding weather station egghead:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisare you sure you got that right? Let's assume you are, then you can easily answer the following questions:
Was Enstrom fired because he had proven climate science to be a fraud or was he fired because he stood up against a fraudster or both or neither ?
If his department was researching the correlation between the environment and health, was he dismissed because of climate science at all?
About your belief in Enstrom's award-deserving research talent: How good is a researcher who pretends that diesel particles is not a cause for mortality when the WHO has just classified diesel as definitely carcinogenic on a level with asbestos?
Is it possible to be an idiot and yet blow the correct whistle? Is a thief who tells on his companions in crime innocent because he blows the whistle?
When you find out that the mechanic who fixed your brakes and your steering for years is an incapable twit and that he at the same time correctly identifies his boss as a mobster, will you keep driving your car?
UCLA needs to fire a handful of its top management for not having followed up on perfect proof that one of its brass was a fraud and the other one a profiteer. That departement of UCLA needs a serious shake-up and a number of people will have to go or the whole department has to be disbanded. Does this make Enstrom a good researcher?
Do you understand the difference?
Ocean acidity has increased by 30% in 100 years. Corals, shellfish and plankton are threatened if they cannot secrete calcite shells or skeletons. This is a very serious problem requiring rapid solutions, ie CCS.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe planet is an unstable system at its best, and mucking it up with all sorts of gases and trash is not going to help a bit. It is not nature that demands highly productive fertility, stability and lack of disruption, it is the human economy in an overpopulated world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd gentlemen, act your age.
Ah, come on Mark656515, let the boys duke it out. And thanks for an insight, you're right, nature doesn't demand fertility, stability or lack of disruption. And her timelines are awesome. To think that primates are newcomers on the block and if you peg "modern humans" to say 100,000 years, just a blip on the timeline. The spike of CO2 in the last 100 years... by burning half of the planet's petroleum and burning into the coal? (AND not even a reduction in their use for the foreseeable "future") I imagine it is about the same as the asteroid impact some 65 million years ago, like throwing a switch from off to on, on=rapid abrupt change. Will "modern humans" and our even more recent record keeping systems last long enough to record the other side of the "tipping point"? And I have to ask again, what's there to say that the remaining human population (assuming rapid depopulation due to major global climate changes) won't try to use fossil fuels to recover and rebuild? I doubt civilization will be thrown all the way back to hunter gatherers, but do imagine the survivors will use every post industrial technique toward some very intensive agriculture.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMark, if you mean me, I do act my age; I have learned over time that it's extremely counterproductive to leave the battle field to the AGW deniers as this leaves the impression with the general public that they "won" the debate; can't have that. See this like an election campaign. A US election campaign. And look at how much influence the mud-slingers gain when you let them have the run of the field. Think about it. And yes, I do mind certain people, quite a lot of them actually, not getting more actively involved in the fight as they deem this below them. As a primary result you have the heartland institute and fox tv pillocks dominating the public debate, as a secondary result respect for science drops and US scientists get ever less funding. I rather dislike that attitude so you want to think about it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisway2ec: yes, "duking it out" is what is required.