It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Earth Might Become Unlivable By 2100

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 10:41 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69

Okay, hang on, let us look at that statement:

The Earth will become "unlivable" by either 2050 to 2100, due to global warming.

Now, think about this Slayer: you've done how many threads on ancient civilizations? You know research, and it shows in your threads.

Go back further in the historical record, then go back to times where no records where kept. In other words: how long have humans been on this planet?

Then look at the paleoclimate data during that period, and look at what not only humans, but all living things have endured on this planet as far as the climate changes are concerned.

Then take a look at the Permian-Triassic Extinction Event in which over 96% of life on the Earth was wiped out, but no one is exactly sure what caused it, or if it was even one thing that did so (mainly because more recent research has show that the extinction event may have been dragged out over a very long period of time, etc.).

The Permian extinction was one hell of a event....and even then it did not make the Earth "unlivable".

posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 10:41 PM
reply to post by jhn7537

AlphaHawk and SLAYER are here for reason... just get that itchy feeling last half year or more.... ok never mind. for those who want some intelligent fun in this intelligent and planed nonsense here is one lovely educational vid...

posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 10:52 PM
reply to post by AlphaHawk

A power plant that also manufactures salt and fresh water. It seems easily enough done with concave mirrors, the sun, metal, rails, turbine a desert near an ocean.

posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 10:57 PM
reply to post by ZakOlongapo

I'm here for a reason?

I think this is the first 'Global Warming/Climate change' thread I've posted in.

Guess I'm playing the long, long, long, long game?

And if you notice, I'm not denying or confirming global warming/climate change, I'm saying its irrelevant...the doom-mongerers of global warming/climate change vs the denialists is all just noise to me.

posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 10:58 PM
reply to post by Auricom

please do not try educate people here. cos U are not the one who can do it. cos U know nothing about weather after reading Your opinion. those two folks i mention before are always in the same posts on ATS, that made me suspicious... and i know its forum man(or woman). one follow the other one or they work together. conspiracy in conspiracy

by the way guys, did any one have real data that earth is cooling or just fake data that we are warming

posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 11:09 PM
Al Gore Caught lying!! Denies that Ken Lay, Goldman Sachs CEOs Helped Develop C02 Trading 'Scheme'

posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 11:24 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69

If they had a better track record, I might be concerned. Considering the many lies and misrepresentations GW people have been caught at, and the abominable track record of "gloom and doom" predictions for decades now, I am not losing sleep over yet another one. In my lifetime alone, various sorts of groups have predicted, among other things, that we would be eating people, crowded to standing room only, forced to live in space, and on and on and on. Of course, we were also promised holographic TVs and phones and gaming systems, public space travel for all, and jet packs for daily travel!

I am all for common sense, and not needlessly polluting the planet, but too often, the people pushing most for change go WAY too far.

posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 11:39 PM
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

By all my threads and research on the topic of methane, you'll see that I'm not pushing anything. IMO, there's nothing to push because the damage may already be done.

posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 11:44 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69

You use a blog from iOpedNews by Dahr Jamail as a source?
I know 1%-er Jamail, and his .5%-er father.
He is an activist and op-ed writer, not a scientist or journalist! This isn't even a peer-reviewed (as if that really matters, anymore) journal.

I call fraud and alarmism.

Try to find a real news story, and try again.


posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 11:55 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69

posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 11:56 PM
Oh I remember this!
It was the same speech like that guy who came to our school to talk about the new Ecology future with that funky green and white us flag that had a symbol instead of the stars back in the 70s.
His focus year was 2000.

posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 12:00 AM
Well, to answer Slayer's question in the OP? Scare tactics. 100% pure scare tactics. When solutions don't include making billionaires out of losers like Albert Gore? I'll buy they may have a sincere bone in their body and not just a wallet trying to get fatter.

Having said that, I'd love to see some effort on the real and TRUE problems our planet and local areas face. One person listed Superfund sites. Very good start. How about Newtown Creek?

Currently, factories and facilities still operate along the creek. Various contaminated sites along the creek have contributed to the contamination at Newtown Creek. Today, as a result of its industrial history, including countless spills, Newtown Creek is one of the nation’s most polluted waterways.

That actually sits IN New York City. Not a remote site that people can easily lose track of as out of site and out of mind, but inside one of the busiest cities in the world. How many folks in New York work tirelessly to help build carbon exchanges and the rest of the trappings of the "solutions" to climate change....while making whatever excuses to accept THAT being within miles of them?

When I was growing up the motto was "Think Globally, Act Locally". That made sense. If everyone DID that, the big problems would take care of themselves, since everything is "local" to someone. As it is, I think it's flipped to "Act Globally, Screw Locally".

Well.. Dandy.. So people can FEEL real good about themselves while things like that creek remain a dire hazard to anyone coming in contact with it.

Add to this, the Pacific plastic patch, Radioactive dump sites in the worlds oceans dating back decades and so well known, they are mapped and indexed for view if one cares to look ...and that doesn't include whole vessel reactor units the Soviets deep sixed. The gift that keeps on giving, indeed!

No matter tho... all that local stuff shouldn't mean anything, because we have a planet to save! (huh? this is where the logic just kinda pops like a birthday balloon for me)

posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 12:04 AM
Hey Slay,

I've been checking out Guy Mcpherson's (Professor Emeritus of Natural Resources and Ecology & Evolutionary Biology) website related to this issue.

He thinks it'll be sooner than 2100, and even 2050. I think it's 2033 in the northern hemisphere, and 2047 in the southern hemisphere.

Here's a link to his summary on the current events related to climate change:

Climate Change Summary and Updates

On a planet 4 C hotter than baseline, all we can prepare for is human extinction (from Oliver Tickell’s 2008 synthesis in the Guardian). Tickell is taking a conservative approach, considering humans have not been present at 3.5 C above baseline (i.e., the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, commonly accepted as 1750). According to the World Bank’s 2012 report, “Turn down the heat: why a 4°C warmer world must be avoided” and an informed assessment of “BP Energy Outlook 2030” put together by Barry Saxifrage for the Vancouver Observer, our path leads directly to the 4 C mark. The 19th Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 19), held in November 2013 in Warsaw, Poland, was warned by professor of climatology Mark Maslin: “We are already planning for a 4°C world because that is where we are heading. I do not know of any scientists who do not believe that.”
I’m not sure what it means to plan for 4 C (aka extinction). I’m not impressed that civilized scientists claim to be planning for it, either.

All of the above information fails to include the excellent work by Tim Garrett, which points out that only complete collapse avoids runaway greenhouse. Garrett reached the conclusion in a paper submitted in 2007 (personal communication) and published online by Climatic Change in November 2009 (outcry from civilized scientists delayed formal publication until February 2011). The paper remains largely ignored by the scientific community, having been cited fewer than ten times since its publication.
According to Yvo de Boer, who was executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 2009, when attempts to reach a deal at a summit in Copenhagen crumbled with a rift between industrialized and developing nations, “the only way that a 2015 agreement can achieve a 2-degree goal is to shut down the whole global economy.” Politicians finally have caught up with Tim Garrett’s excellent paper in Climatic Change.
Writing for the Arctic Methane Emergency Group, John Davies concludes: “The world is probably at the start of a runaway Greenhouse Event which will end most human life on Earth before 2040.” He considers only atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, not the many self-reinforcing feedback loops described below. Tacking on only one feedback loop, and writing on 28 November 2013 — methane release from the Arctic Ocean — Sam Carana expects global temperature anomalies up to 20 C 2050 (and I’d be willing to bet most of the anomaly is upward). Small wonder atmospheric methane can cause such global catastrophe considering its dramatic rise during the last few years, as elucidated by Carana on 5 December 2013 in the figure below.

edit on 28-12-2013 by webedoomed because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 01:14 AM

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

By all my threads and research on the topic of methane, you'll see that I'm not pushing anything. IMO, there's nothing to push because the damage may already be done.

Oh, I know you aren't! I was referring to groups that go all alarmist about anything and everything, and even talk about people as though we were "pollutants" ourselves. Most of the stuff that's pushed so hard is done to control people, through fear and control measures, anyway.

posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 01:17 AM
reply to post by ZakOlongapo

If I shouldn't be trying to promote a healthier and greener way of living, judging by your writing you shouldn't even be on a forum. And guess what? You're no more right than I am when it comes to our opinions. So please, do us a favor and quit while you're somewhat ahead. Your inane writing style and discussion tactics irk me beyond belief, so this will be the last time I address you.

On topic, I think Eric The Awful (awesome avatar by the way!) is right. I doubt the earth will ever be "unlivable" when you think about just how long the earth has existed contra what we put in it like nuclear waste. (Even that stuff expires.) Eventually, the earth will heal itself and life will spring anew without us here.

But even at the rate we're going, I doubt we'll go into extinction. Sure, I believe eventually many, many people will die, but the human species will continue.

So to summarize my belief (and my final participation in this thread): I don't believe global warming is man made. I believe the earth is going through cycles as it has always done. I do however believe that we as a human species are our own worst enemy as we're extremely wasteful and arrogant towards not only ourselves, or earth, but everything. One day, our way of life will catch up to us. It will be a horrible day but human life will go on, even if it means at only a very small fraction of us.

So while we work towards a greener tomorrow, let's deny ignorance and deny these doom porn warnings that will unlikely ever come to fruition.


posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 01:20 AM
And in the year 2100 The Priests of the Temple of Syrinx will rein with an iron fist, but in time their rule will be challenged by a young man who finds a guitar beneath a waterfall.

"What could this strange device be? When I touch it, it gives forth a sound".

posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 01:37 AM

reply to post by SLAYER69

Forget all the rhetoric.

Fact remains we should strive for sustainable, clean energy.

Global warming, climate change...whatever, we're polluting this place and that needs to stop.

You'd have to be insane to not agree with this.

Unfortunately, sanity isn't something the human species is known for. Hell, I'll give an example;

How are we going to stop it? Need to make more rules. Laws? Yes, laws. More cops? Yeah, more cops. More fines and imprisonment? Yup.


Why do people do that? Because those enforcing the laws become corrupt. Often, they become corrupt. Let them go too far and next thing you know you have execution vans making the rounds like the ice cream men of old. Whatever happened to those ice cream trucks....OH...creepy how they didn't change the music. Nothing funner than dying to "It's A Small World After All" in jingle on a smooth 10 mph death cruise in the old Happy Clown Ice Cream express.

The insane ramblings above make a point, then nullifies it, and then makes it again but of one thing I can be sure...

I think Earth will get rid of us before we make this place "unlivable." And what's unlivable mean? What's the time frame we're really looking at? Let us double this expectancy and say 2210 is the century of doom.

So about 200 years of constant pollution, add a couple c-notes and that makes 400...or there abouts.

I think Earth can recover. Just fine. With plenty of life attached to it. So which is it, the species or the actual planet you're concerned with?...because if it's "people" then read my original point, that was nullified and then made again. Maybe nullified again, I dunno...who's got time to check?

So what are we willing to do to see these changes through? And what are we willing to do to prevent them from being seen through?

That answer always gets scary, and both sides usually finally agree on that answer and next thing you know you're either dying in war or laying in the rubble of your own home when you were just trying to watch Late night with Mohammed before you rolled over and went to sleep.

So what can we do? Not worry about it. We're all going to die, and that includes the collective species. It was a good run. Remember that time we crossed the Rubicon and all Hell broke loose? Yeah, good times...good times!

The only thing fragile on Earth is the species that live on it, but even those can be reborn, perhaps in different forms. We trade some triceratops for some rhinos And some sabertoothes for some bengals. This planet has survived some pretty wicked storms if any theories we've ever had on the formation of the solar system and previous ELEs are correct...I think it can survive a case of parasites.

posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 03:48 AM
reply to post by SLAYER69

I find it funny when people call climate change a hoax or a conspiracy. I personally think it is very real, but that should be irrelevant. Because even if global warming turned out to be nonsense, and we spent all this time developing technology that is sustainable and doesn't pollute the environment, who benefits? Everyone! It's a win-win situation to treat global warming as undeniably real.

posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 05:04 AM
reply to post by AlphaHawk

l Concur...I believe we can be in balance with nature with clean cheap renewable enviromemntally friendly energy, as well access to minerals through mining responsibly not prohibitally. There is no reason to not do it responsibly. If people in this world would stop trying to f#$& everyone over for a profit on everything we would be waning ourselves off of current fuels to clean sources, and believe it or not even feed all the people on earth.

I don't believe however life will end in 30-75 years, but do believe we all need to be good stewards to our planet.

edit on 28/12/2013 by Grimmley because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 05:30 AM
reply to post by SLAYER69

Thought you might find this of interest Slayer. Frank Capra's "The Unchained Goddess" from 1958...

Also, considering people such as John Tyndall, and Svante August Arrhenius, among others, were talking about this in the 1800's, it's obviously not a new idea. The whole subject often wreaks of a controlled argument to me. One source feeding both sides of the debate. There's a lot of fear and drama surrounding this topic, which I suspect, is intentional to some extent.

In my opinion. Yet again, the public is given a steady diet of partial truths, and lots of lies.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in