Warning to Humanity: 15,000 scientists say damage irreversible

a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

Do you even realize what that means, and what they would be implementing to "supposedly stop this irreversible damage"?...

First of all, numbers don't count. The "consensus" claim has been debunked many times in the past. As for the "15,000 scientists"... i am pretty certain the large majority of them don't investigate everything that affects climate change.

In case you, and others haven't noticed, the entire Earth and in fact the entire solar system is undergoing dramatic changes. The sun itself is also undergoing strange changes, and none of it, not even the changes on Earth, have anything to do with humanity.

In case you don't realize what the globalist plan is, it will include a Chinese "one child policy" type of draconian measure to "supposedly fight climate change...

Also, despite the false claims that CO2 "is bad" in fact it is good for plant life on Earth. By capturing CO2 from the atmosphere, it will mean that plants will have less CO2 to feed with which would mean less harvests, and that all plant life on Earth would need more water to sustain themselves. This leaves less water and less food for humans.

originally posted by: CB328

Finally! It's about time scientists spoke out about the biggest problem in the world.

Too bad people are too stupid and selfish to listen to scientists.

Naa, the stupid ones are the morons who claim mankind is affecting nature and those same morons want to try to control and tamper with nature...

With Nasa guesstimating what cities will be flooded 'when' the ice melts its quite clear we have already done enough damage to the Earth and probably a whole lot more on top of that. Man's greed to consume whatever makes him or her comfortable shows no loss of momentum, its possibly even accelerating with the "if we are going, lets go big" mentality.

Yet all this time we have had a place that is hardly explored here while we throw money at Space but seemingly only increasing the deadly array of crap orbiting the Earth.

We have the oceans yet we know little of them..

Can we escape earth before we screw it over too much, personally I doubt it, even though we are ripping the heart out of it I still see no real commitment in serious funding to attempt to leave here and will the old problem of making it political and then trying to build n the cheapest budget come back to destroy us.

All I see is a planet making loud noises about the abuse its getting, like it or not, the planet may 'protect' itself by removing us, it may not be a conscious being but nature has its own laws and I think its clear we have broken many of them, many times over.

a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

You are not getting it...

People cannot simply stock up for a month. Many people in the labour force, those who are accused of laziness and not doing enough, are working thirteen hour shifts back to back, in order to be able to live simply day to day. Stocking up for a month for some folk, on top of keeping their rent going, on top of keeping their energy bills going, is like saying, "Go ahead and spend £60 you have not got, on credit you cannot access, and risk your next pay check, your ability to feed your family next month too".

People cannot help thinking in the short term, when they have literally nothing to back them up with. People do not have savings man... In Britain alone more than sixteen million people, have less than one hundred pounds in the bank. What you are saying is possible, is in fact impossible for many, the very people who need protecting from the threat we are discussing here.

a reply to: proteus33

I can think of 3 groups of communities/people we can do without. that would cut down on quite a bit of population.

a reply to: Mclaneinc

Id love the idea of offworld colonies so that we can reduce the population on earth so that we damage it no further.

Reduce earths population to that of 500 million but send the rest into space to new worlds

I mean think about it , if we did raise the cash and had the support of private space agencies then , no one could stop you from going

a reply to: sapien82

Think about it...where are you going to find the 6.9 BILLION volunteers?????

That's a mighty big bus! Okay, so maybe it's more than (1) bus, right?

Okay, so let's see...say we were able to invent a rocket which would take 100 people into space (no one has done it yet, but we'll just pretend for a moment). And say we launched one of these rockets every single day. It would take 18,904 years...YEARS...to send em' all off to Mars (forget how long it takes to get there). Okay, so let's say we go kick those NASA guys in the pants and tell 'em they're not doing it fast enough, and they come back with a plan to launch a rocket every hour, 24 per day. Round the clock (no holidays, coffee breaks or vacation). Guess what? It's still gonna' take 787.6 YEARS to get everybody off to Mars.

Nope, I guess the only solution is, we gotta' start killin' folks. (sarcasm obviously)

Okay, any volunteers? Who's first?

Point is, this guy named Hey-soos was hangin' out, trippin' on some really righteous ganja, and tellin' some really cool stories just 2,017 years ago. The population back then was about negative 50. Today the population is 7.4 billion. What's the population going to be 787.6 years from now?

Kids are like Doritos...don't worry, they'll make more!

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Yeh because that is the most logical way to solve that problem by sending a single rocket on a daily basis!

What would need to be done is construct a large enough colony ship in space , the first of its kind. What else should be done is sending autonomous ships to mars already to start building, generating resources etc.

We build a big enough ship which would house enough people to start a colony and survive .

1000 people and whilst we send that ship off another is built and another etc so we can start colonising quicker

thing is if the world actually did embark on a project this big , we would be united in that project

every nation on earth could contribute and also could contribute volunteers etc
so the new colony would house a member from each country and would be technically the worlds first global colony.

Im sure many visionaries have came up with projects with the exact idea in mind

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

kids maybe like doritos but once we are gone we are gone !
All that would take is a super volcano an ice age or a big enough asteroid and humanity is no more.


When Raegan said we would unite against a common enemy, well what about extinction
why does the enemy have to be a living thing, why cant it just be a concept and that is extinction

originally posted by: TruthxIsxInxThexMist




I know someone is going to post in here that everyone can fit into Texas. That is a myth. That is bs. That will not solve the problems.

That is not a Myth, but that's no your point Right...?

a reply to: THEREDUNDANT1

everyone on earth can fit into texas ?

you can fit everyone in there, but you couldnt live in that amount of space !

its pointless to even suggest it, where are all the schools , hospitals, roads, utilities, power supply, maintenance , food industry etc
just because we can all fit into one state doesnt mean it that we can live there !

and it was said that you need 10 earths and 24 acres each for everyone to live like the average american.
maybe just the idea that is wrong, living like the average american in the lifestyle american dream of excess.

a reply to: sapien82

Look he said it was Myth, that everyone on earth could NOT FIT IN TEXAS...they could...didn't say it

Would be pleasant..... I'm not getting into this....I was just pointing ( too ) the fact that the population

Of the earth would fit in a quarter of the Great State Of Texas...

Irreversible?
Good, does that mean we can finally stop worrying about trying to do something about it?

a reply to: AnonymousCitizen

well nothing lasts forever

so yeh why worry about things which are completely outwith your control

a reply to: THEREDUNDANT1

I suppose the question then becomes , why would you want to fit into texas!

hahahah

a reply to: sapien82

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Yea, nothing going on....

Most big mammals are doing really bad, lions, orca's, most fish species.. the list is endless
www.theguardian.com...

Co2 is not only bad for a change in temperatures + when the Arctic permafrost melts and the ice in Siberia tons of methane gas will be released which is about 80x times worse then co2!
Just some random link on this issue:
abcnews.go.com...

When that happens you get an even faster temperature change which could be so extreme (+6 Celsius or more on average ( the great ice age was about -4 celcius on average) the Q is humans can live on this planet when this happens.

Also the co2 makes the oceans more acid (increase of ph), sure we had this many many millions years ago as well, but there weren't fish swimming in the oceans then (except allof of jellyfish and such).
Also look at all that plastic in the oceans, which we consume as well and tiny tiny plastic parts even can get in your bloodstream when eating fish and such!

But sure nothing really serious to combat these dangers (not only for us but most other living species) are underway.. you of course only will see more co2 each year for sure!, even when they change to wind power and sun power only... The meat industry is more co2 then all the traffic (for example)... they wont stop selling meat because simply it's really bad for the economy.
Less people as well = bad for the economy..

So don't worry nothing serious will be done... although you never know, when quantum computers get good enough for example who knows we come up with good solutions?

Just look at all the stuff 1 household buys and consumes each year (just 1!), for you or me it's just some trash you throw away later but before you buy it look how much material and energy is being used and it's got a big impact on this planet for sure!
We are like some really big elephant herd storming through everything, destroying everything in their path basically.

Europe once was just 1 big forest, trees was the fuel back then.. not much forest in Europe left... now we just use other means but how we do things today and with much much much more people it's even way more destructive, way way more.

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Yeh because that is the most logical way to solve that problem by sending a single rocket on a daily basis!

What would need to be done is construct a large enough colony ship in space , the first of its kind. What else should be done is sending autonomous ships to mars already to start building, generating resources etc.

We build a big enough ship which would house enough people to start a colony and survive .

1000 people and whilst we send that ship off another is built and another etc so we can start colonising quicker

thing is if the world actually did embark on a project this big , we would be united in that project

every nation on earth could contribute and also could contribute volunteers etc
so the new colony would house a member from each country and would be technically the worlds first global colony.

Im sure many visionaries have came up with projects with the exact idea in mind

A starship! Carry 7,000 people past the sun,
our babes will wander naked through the cities of the universe!
Gotta hijack, hijack the starship!

-Kantner

Full lyrics here. genius.com...

a reply to: sapien82

You apparently missed my point...completely.

The truly "hard" part about space travel for humans, for the foreseeable future, is getting to orbit. Travel once there is relatively easy (relatively speaking). This is why I specifically excluded how long it takes to get someplace in my previous post. The amount of energy it takes to lob even a couple tons of people/equipment into orbit is massive. For example, the Space Shuttle required nearly 3,900,000 lbs (or 1,950 tons) of fuel to boost the Shuttle to orbit. The Shuttle weighed 165,000 lbs (82.5 tons). So, just using rough math, the fuel (alone) required to get to orbit weighs 23x more than the object being put into orbit! So, it takes 23 tons of fuel to launch 1 ton of people/equipment into a stable orbit above Earth. Scale this up by an order of magnitude or so for what you're talking about and now we're talking about fuel requirements in the Biblical proportions (think like exhausting all fuels on the planet to accomplish it). ...and that's for every single launch...of which there will be many hundreds if not thousands. And if that wasn't bad enough, the above calculations don't even include the weight of the fuel tanks required to do it...which is that much again.

In other words, it's so far out of the realm of possibilities it's almost comical to discuss seriously.

Solve that "little" problem...and only then we can start talking about shipping people off to orbit.

edit...and just for grins, let's assume the average human weighs about 140 lbs +/-. And, let's say you're talking about launching 10,000 people at a time. So, there's 1,400,000 lbs of cargo. This would require 32,200,000 lbs of fuel + the weight of the bus + the weight of the fuel to launch bus (probably similar amounts) + the weight of the fuel tanks + the weight of the fuel to launch those as well. Add all that together and you're talking about staggering amounts of fuel...for just a single launch. And how many launches would it take? Well, ... only 690,000 launches!!!!

Do you see my point now?