Evidence of Impending Tipping Point for Earth... Is it too late?

The grant money must be drying up. Time to scare the kids so the government will pony up the money.

Good source, but they have done this before. I was attending classes at a University when "they" decided that an Ice Age was going to wipe us out in thirty years and that was forty years ago. Then they switched to the new Bogey Man, Global Warming.

Let's see now if what I was taught as a fact were true:

Billions would have died from starvation years ago as they claimed all arable land was used up. Instead we have plenty of food and starvation is caused by governments and lack of a way to transport it where it's needed.

Oil was supposed to be gone entirely by now. We've barely put a dent in it though, so no gold stars here. (Really bad since I was a Geology Major and this came from a Tenured Professor.)

Nature is as good a source as there is, but I think their standards have been lowered.

Tree's were supposed to die off after a 3 degree lowering of global temperature. Problem here is there are more standing trees now than when they landed on Plymouth Rock and the climate change they insisted was coming never occurred.

I was cheated out of part of my education by activists masquerading as Professors. Now this generation will be cheated as well. Politics, money and science don't mix.

I saw this

it clearly outlines that CO2 is not the only impact humans are having.

it is too late

too late for human proactive intervention.

the only thing that can alter the course of our future is mother nature. either a supervolcano, meteor, some other way to balance things out

Originally posted by Blaine91555
The grant money must be drying up. Time to scare the kids so the government will pony up the money.

Good source, but they have done this before. I was attending classes at a University when "they" decided that an Ice Age was going to wipe us out in thirty years and that was forty years ago. Then they switched to the new Bogey Man, Global Warming.

Nice trick. But you dont get to pretend that the handful of scientists who discussed the 'ice age' you are referring to are the very same people who have been pointing out possible evidence for mmgw over the past several decades. So saying 'hey science is sometimes wrong' is not a good way to refute an entire body of work, nor does it even begin to address any of the data in this specific article.

You appear to have decided climate change is a fraud, and therefore dont actually look at the info with an open mind, just like the people who have decided, without a doubt, that man is the driving factor in the proven increase in temp over the past decade.


I'd suggest a more evidence-base approach to your understanding. One that actually addresses the data available, instead of blind refutation in favor of whatever you choose to believe.

Originally posted by Quauhtli
reply to post by jdub297

 

Sorry, but the Earth is neither overcrowded nor "over-stressed."

Please, tell us how you came to that conclusion. Have you put a lot of thought into that statement? I do not want to be rude, but maybe you should get out more. You may be able to fit all the humans into an 8 kilometer ball, but there is a pile of garbage floating in the pacific the size of texas. You could probably cover the continent of North America with all of the materials man has resurrected from the earth and used as building materials. The amount of forest that has been changed into cropland could probably cover twice that amount of land.

We have to stop using that argument for our children's sake or they are going to be in for a HELL of a ride.

edit on 12-6-2012 by Quauhtli because: made my ball a little smaller

You live in a land of make-believe.

As people progress and nations become more developed, they value and care more for their natural resources than those who have to take advantage of every scrap of usable material.

It is not the number of people that matters so much as their stewardship of what they have control over.
What would you prefer; abandon all development, or become more aware and capable of altering our patterns of use?

Your mindset reflects that of so many who decry "waste," et c., but ignore the fact that a productive culture ultimately values conservation. Do you even know that the amount of arboreal forest in the U.S. has increased over the past 100 years? Do you know that as societies "develop," their reliance upon stripping the land diminishes?

No. Join Holdren, et al and push for "de-industrialization" in the pursuit of a myth. The bottom line is that the more crude and uncivilized people are, the more wasteful of their resources they are. Is that really wjat you want?

deny ignorance

jw

reply to post by elevenaugust

How short-sighted and narrow-minded.
It is only through advancement that we can enhance our environment, not through regression and repression.

The truth is that while we mull green initiatives, approximately 900 million people remain malnourished, 1 billion lack clean drinking water, 2.6 billion lack adequate sanitation, and 1.6 billion are living without electricity. Every year roughly 15 million deaths—a quarter of the world’s total—are caused by diseases that are easily and cheaply curable.
What are the three most important environmental issues in developing nations? Most people in rich countries get the answer wrong, even with repeated tries. Global warming is not among them—not even if we look at all the deaths caused by flooding, droughts, heat waves, and storms. Since the early part of the 20th century, death rates from these causes have dropped 97 percent or more. Today, about 0.06 percent of all deaths in the developing world are the result of such extreme weather.
Instead, one of the biggest environmental killers in the developing world is a problem unfamiliar to most people in rich countries: indoor air pollution. We take for granted our access to heat, light, and convenience at the flick of a switch. But 3 billion people in developing nations have no choice but to use fuels like cardboard or dung to cook their food and try to warm their homes. The annual death toll from breathing the smoke of these fires is at least 1.4 million—probably closer to 2 million—and most victims are women and children. When you fuel your cooking fires with crop residues and wood, your indoor air quality can be 10 times worse than the air outside, even in the most polluted Third World cities. Not that you’re safe when you leave the house: outdoor air pollution is estimated to kill another 1 million people a year in the developing nations. Almost 7 percent of all deaths in the developing world come from air pollution. The figure is more than 100 times the toll from floods, droughts, heat waves, and storms.
The second problem is the lack of clean drinking water and sanitation. About 7 percent of all deaths in the developing world are associated with a lack of clean drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene. That’s almost 3 million deaths each year.
The third big environmental problem—and yes, it is an environmental one—is poverty. To the more than 1 billion people subsisting on less than $1.25 a day, worrying about environmental issues is a distant luxury. If your family is freezing, you will cut down the last tree for fuel; if they are starving, you will strip the land bare to feed them. And if you have no certainty about the future, you will provide for it in the only way possible: by having more children to care for you in your old age, regardless of how much they will add to humanity’s demands on the planet.
Poverty means entire disadvantaged communities have less to eat, get less education, and are more exposed to infectious disease. Allowing them to get richer enables them to satisfy their families’ immediate needs like food, clean water, and education. And then they can afford to start caring about the environment. Recent history suggests that when living standards go up, people and societies reduce their pollution, stop cutting down forests, and stop dying from dirty air and bad water.

www.thedailybeast.com...

Wake up, people. do any of you even live the lives you seek to impose on others?

jw

reply to post by Iamschist

The floating garbage problem, where are Greenpeace, The Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy etc.? So much money they collect............. The irony of saving a whale, so it can live in a toilet is not lost.

Funny isnt it. Americans scoff at risking their own lives for a fellow human being but they will talk about dying for a whale.....

Solution for the OP:
load plastic crusher machines on to the Crabbing vessels and on summer months Sierra Club pays them to pick up Plastic.

Come on Tree Huggers put your money where your Mouths are!!!!

THE REAL ANSWER Stop bottling water. The True World Crisis: Bottled Water

She says it better than I can, lest we forget the point.


The girl who silenced the world for 5 minutes

Originally posted by Quauhtli

Aww, give it a break buddy. Either his children are going to further his research and save the planet with their computers, or yours are going to be using them to play games. Either way the odds that your grand children are going to be using them is pretty slim...

Really? and what is your proof to all that you claim?... CLAIMS from the SAME PEOPLE who LIED about how fast the Himalayas were going to melt?...

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.

According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.

[size=]The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.

It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source.
The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.

Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’.
Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’
............

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Or what about the picture of the polar bear which was used by many environlunatics to claim "they are all going to die", and when the person who had actully taken the photos came forward he explained the polar bear was never in any danger, and that the environlunatics were lying and just using an out of context photo to further their agenda...

Then there are the email scandals which proved/prove once again the IPCC and the scientists behind the AGW lie were all lying about it and were eager to use any legal, and illegal means to just PUSH their agenda even if they had to lie, manufacture false data, and stop any research that contradicted their claims...

It is obvious that the goal of these people is for GLOBAL GOVERNANCE, under a SOCIALIST/FASCIST government to control every aspect of people's lives...

Yet you want to believe these people after they have been lying time, after time, after time?...

reply to post by Iamschist


Yeah, how easy it is to USE children with no knowledge whatsoever of what they talk about to further the agenda of certain people...

Let's see...what could be the reason for these AGW scientists to ONCE AGAIN proclaim "WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE UNLESS WE FORM A ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT"....

“The governments of Europe, the United States, and Japan are unlikely to negotiate a social-democratic pattern of globalization – unless their hands are forced by a popular movement or a catastrophe, such as another Great Depression or ecological disaster“

These governments would not accept a "social-democratic pattern of globalization" unless their hands are FORCED by a popular movement (Occupy and Anthropogenic Global Warming movements), another Great Depression (the current GLOBAL economic crisis), or an ecological disaster (Global Warming been blamed on humans)

Democratising Global Governance:

The Challenges of the World Social Forum

by

Francesca Beausang


ABSTRACT

This paper sums up the debate that took place during the two round tables organized by UNESCO within the first World Social Forum in Porto Alegre (25/30 January 2001). It starts with a discussion of national processes, by examining democracy and then governance at the national level. It first states a case for a "joint" governance based on a combination of stakeholder theory, which is derived from corporate governance, and of UNESCO's priorities in the field of governance. As an example, the paper investigates how governance can deviate from democracy in the East Asian model. Subsequently, the global dimension of the debate on democracy and governance is examined, first by identification of the characteristics and agents of democracy in the global setting, and then by allusion to the difficulties of transposing governance to the global level.

www.unesco.org...

The above paper is from 1991 from the UN. It, and the meetings these globalists have been having call for a GLOBAL SOCIALIST/FASCIST GOVERNMENT derived from CORPORATE GOVERNANCE...

Is this what you all want as well?... because this is the end goal for these claims that we need a global government to do these things INCLUDING start MURDERING people "for the good of the Earth"...

If any of you want this then I tell you to go ahead and off yourselves first so you can "help your one world socialist/fascist government in murdering people for the good of the Earth"...

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
I saw this

it clearly outlines that CO2 is not the only impact humans are having.

it is too late

too late for human proactive intervention.

the only thing that can alter the course of our future is mother nature. either a supervolcano, meteor, some other way to balance things out

Naaa, it is not too late, you can help "mother nature" by offing yourself since you believe "mankind is evil"...

Those scientists in that paper are calling for the MURDER of millions, if not billions of people, if you believe this then go ahead and be the first to off yourself. It's for a good cause...

There is no money in saving the environment/ planet Earth.

There is ONLY money in death. Not life.


The tipping point was passed then those Trillion Trillions of gallons of crude oil were pumped out of the Earth's crust. That oil sustained crust temperatures keeping a hyper ice age from ever happening.

This planet WILL freeze over. No if's ands or but's. Always remember, HOT water freezes faster than cold water.

reply to post by Blaine91555

The grant money must be drying up. Time to scare the kids so the government will pony up the money.

Good source, but they have done this before. I was attending classes at a University when "they" decided that an Ice Age was going to wipe us out in thirty years and that was forty years ago. Then they switched to the new Bogey Man, Global Warming.

Weird, I read the OP but didn't see anything about global warming. Maybe you missed that the focus was on biodiversity?

reply to post by Pervius

Always remember, HOT water freezes faster than cold water.

Not always. Under extremely odd conditions actually. And having nothing to do with the temperature of the earth's crust.

Source.

(Extremely boring read)

It Is indeed too late...

modern man is engaged in a self-fufilling prophecy. on a course with social/political/economic Entropy

the house of cards on the macro level is built on the greed/ego/hubris of the 99% who feel they are 'entitled' by virtue of just being born to have every self gratification device or piece of clothing or just plain pleasure handed to them without putting in any effort

some who are on the bottom rung of the living standard ladder, who seek better than just subsistence food & shelter are the 'poster children' of moral justification which each group on that ascending rung of the ladder uses to rationalize their own position or lack of material possessions....


the whole system needs to Re-Set is all i can say...
i will take care the best i can of my own family & circle of friends,
perhaps reason will overcome all the users & abusers of the Planet, i rather doubt it....
a planned retreat into self-reliance, with a small as possible carbon footprint, maintaining One's personal Intentional Earth-ship bio-sphere living space in a pre-WW1 landscape might be a good starting point in RE-Setting the global civilization

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Yeah, how easy it is to USE children with no knowledge whatsoever of what they talk about to further the agenda of certain people...

What makes you assume she does not know what she is talking about? She is articulate and seems educated so she can read, same as you.

Your the one with the agenda, to try and turn this thread into a rant about NWO, when it is about cleaning up our home.

reply to post by Iamschist

Your the one with the agenda, to try and turn this thread into a rant about NWO, when it is about cleaning up our home.

Only if "cleaning up our home" is defined as eliminating 50% of the people.

The OP and the "study" authors neglect to mention that more than 20,000 new species are discovered each year, most in the waters of the Earth.

Poverty and lack of access to resources threatens the people and biospere of the Earth more than just population. Raise their standards of living, and people become cleaner, not dirtier.

Is free energy possible? Is it proven that free energy has been shelved or fake?
Was free energy taken into account in this study?(even if shelved, if it exists it would change everything)
In the world as we know it The future is bleak. But if we can produce free energy and use it wisely deserts could hold green houses growing the best crops we've ever seen.
Was this taken into account? Is this technology possible? If it is possible, and was not taken into account I see this study as flawed.

reply to post by elevenaugust


Humanitys way past that tipping point already. Its a forgone conclusion for anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear. Only those with heads buried in the sand or up their own bums will say everything is fine, and a drastic shift is not impending.

Plastic build up, loss of biodiversity, etc is serious, but not the prime problem.

Frozen methane beginning to sublimate into a gaseous state was that tipping point. The process is unstoppable, and self-perpetuating. Temperatures will rise, fresh water ice will melt, disrupt the oceans density by lowering its salinity thus disrupting its currents and where it distributes heat (ex: England), shift where ideal farming climates are and cause crop failures in places where the climate becomes hostile to traditional crops thus causing food shortages worldwide. Starvation will be rampant in first world nations, devastating populations. Grocery stores will be empty. No holds bar wars will be fought over the last bits of farmable land, nuclear weapons will surely be used, creating large swaths of simply uninhabitable land for decades to centuries, perhaps causing nuclear winters further compromising what little farm land is left, most likely creating a global environment completely hostile and unsuitable to any normal crop that can be grown in large quantity. Forget about farming animals and slaughtering them; youll have nothing to feed them and they will die as well.

Earth will be fine, in time.

Humanity will be the #ed ones.

Perhaps the next iteration of humanity, if there will be another iteration, will learn from its fool predecessors mistakes, and build a sustainable civilization free from the corrupting things that doomed this one: pride and greed, hate and fear.