11 Thousand Scientists Warn Of Global Ecocatastrophe.

[Death_is_Escape]

It was in the news a few days ago: Seems like a good enough reason to CTB .

 

[SinisterKid]

Climate crisis: 11,000 scientists warn of ‘untold suffering’

Statement sets out ‘vital signs’ as indicators of magnitude of the climate emergency

www.theguardian.com

 

[Death_is_Escape]

I was just reading that article: who wants to live on a planet with soooooo many Apathists? Pfft!!! --- earthfirst.org & globalgreens.org

 

[Lethe]

I mean yeah, everyone is aware of this. If not, they're not paying enough attention. Unfortunately, the government typically never does anything about conservation until after the effects are already seen. And by then it's too late.

 

[Life+me=error]

That's good news in my book.

 

[Dazedandconfused32]

For me what came to mind is when they said the world needs to be less populated in order to save earth. I certainly volunteer to sacrifice myself for the good of the earth not so much humanity.

 

[Heart of Ice]

Global warming is not a good reason to commit suicide. What if it's proven wrong? You''d look like a complete idiot...

 

[Dazedandconfused32]

Global warming is not a good reason to commit suicide. What if it's proven wrong? You''d look like a complete idiot...

Lol I'm not committing suicide for global warming. The thought makes me chuckle though

 

[KiraLittleOwl]

It's gonna be slow enough.
People will be like that frog slowly boiling to death, they will notice economical effects of global warming but won't connect the dots anyway.
Governments will blame immigrants, rival countries, opposition, LGBT, whatever...
It will be really bad. It's already emerging.

 

[Death_is_Escape]

That's good news in my book.

Ever hear George Carlin's take on saving the planet?

For me what came to mind is when they said the world needs to be less populated in order to save earth. I certainly volunteer to sacrifice myself for the good of the earth not so much humanity.

I wonder if any of the pro-choice groups like Death With Dignity has asked that group of scientists if they have an official opinion related to CTB?

Global warming is not a good reason to commit suicide. What if it's proven wrong? You''d look like a complete idiot...

The planet is getting warmer: the Ocean's surface is rising ( and there is a sixth mass extinction).--'- nature.com

It's gonna be slow enough.
People will be like that frog slowly boiling to death, they will notice economical effects of global warming but won't connect the dots anyway.
Governments will blame immigrants, rival countries, opposition, LGBT, whatever...
It will be really bad. It's already emerging.

I read actual scientific studies showing We're near a tipping point which will accelerate the rate of heating due to amplification of the Global Climate-Regulating Feedback System: methane in both the Ocean and in permafrost is a more powerful greenhouse gas. There's a lot of it .

 

[NoDream]

Yes, and our collective SI are going to make sure there will be nothing left.

 

[Mr2005]

When I think about how I did nothing to help myself until it was too late my thoughts turn to this. It's human nature

 

[Corraled]

It was in the news a few days ago: Seems like a good enough reason to CTB .

When i was a kid and up until 10 years ago, scientists used to take pride in going against the current, and thought it was a noble thing a-la-Galileo. Once the nazis published a book called "100 authors against Einstein", and he countered by saying "Why 100 authors, if i was wrong only one would suffice". This was supposed to be "funny smart quirky" and everybody was supposed to marvel at his genius retort..The history of science has many examples of lone scientists going against the current, and it was drilled to us in school that science was not a democracy. How times have changed.

For me, the worst is the shameless abandonment of the scientific method, which is supposed to settle scientific disputes. Its a damn shame you cant conduct actual experiments with the climate and get some statistics, because you cant just take a bunch of earths, pump their atmospheres with CO2 and record what happens. Which is the only way to actually test a scientific theory, with experiments. This idea of warming due to CO2 cannot be formally tested, so its still a hypothesis. The fact that is really hard or impossible to test does not waiver the need to do experiments, if one is to actually follow the scientific method.

The alternative to the scientific method is endless speculation, thinking and running of calculations, which is more something a philosopher would do than a scientist.

 

[Final Escape]

It's probably going to be a global economic catastrophe but highly unlikely that it's because of climate change lol!

 

[Deleted member 1465]

When I think about how I did nothing to help myself until it was too late my thoughts turn to this. It's human nature

Exactly. I knew but I still screwed my life up. Same with humanity. As above so below. It's part of a natural process. Doesn't mean it's anything less than horrific.

 

[Crystal Labeija]

This is exactly what the world deserves. This is 100% humanity's doing.

Global warming is not a good reason to commit suicide. What if it's proven wrong? You''d look like a complete idiot...

Proven wrong? 11,000 SCIENTISTS are saying it's a problem. It's like going to a hospital and telling doctors that they don't know their stuff.

 

[Conker]

When I think about how I did nothing to help myself until it was too late my thoughts turn to this. It's human nature

Imagine if instead of schools we had places (academy) that actually taught us well about human nature so we wouldn't fall victim to it. School is also a curse word unbeknowst to most people, it means hell and to bless somebody means to consecrate or mark them via the spillage of blood.

The normal curse words aren't actually curses, it's actually "Bless you", "Kids", and school that should be widespread knowledge of how they're the real curses.. This world is so upside down & backwards.

 

[Wayfaerer]

I deeply regret I won't be alive to witness it.

 

[Lethe]

I deeply regret I won't be alive to witness it.

The effects will likely be slow and insidious, not some big catastrophic spectacle like in a disaster movie (unfortunately...).

 

[Corraled]

This is exactly what the world deserves. This is 100% humanity's doing.


Proven wrong? 11,000 SCIENTISTS are saying it's a problem. It's like going to a hospital and telling doctors that they don't know their stuff.

Which 11.000? There are milions of scientists in the world, you can find 11.000 people to agree on anything

 

[Divine Trinity]

When i was a kid and up until 10 years ago, scientists used to take pride in going against the current, and thought it was a noble thing a-la-Galileo. Once the nazis published a book called "100 authors against Einstein", and he countered by saying "Why 100 authors, if i was wrong only one would suffice". This was supposed to be "funny smart quirky" and everybody was supposed to marvel at his genius retort..The history of science has many examples of lone scientists going against the current, and it was drilled to us in school that science was not a democracy. How times have changed.

For me, the worst is the shameless abandonment of the scientific method, which is supposed to settle scientific disputes. Its a damn shame you cant conduct actual experiments with the climate and get some statistics, because you cant just take a bunch of earths, pump their atmospheres with CO2 and record what happens. Which is the only way to actually test a scientific theory, with experiments. This idea of warming due to CO2 cannot be formally tested, so its still a hypothesis. The fact that is really hard or impossible to test does not waiver the need to do experiments, if one is to actually follow the scientific method.

The alternative to the scientific method is endless speculation, thinking and running of calculations, which is more something a philosopher would do than a scientist.

It's called astronomy. What's the difference between the atmospheric composition of Earth and Venus? You can compare Mercury to Venus, or Earth to Mars, distance from the Sun is irrelevant.

It's a well-founded theory not a hypothesis. The only topics up for debate on climate change is the rate of warming, which is practically impossible to confidently estimate in scientific journals. There's also the question of which molecules is accelerating warming the most, we mostly hear about CO2, but hardly anyone talks about methane or any other gases that are much more potent than CO2.

Simply put, couple billion or so years ago the Earth was comparable to Venus, 100s of millions years later organisms terraformed the planet by extracting green house gases out of the atmosphere and into the ground. Fast forward to the late 19th century, humans begin to extract those fossils and reserves out of the ground and release back into the atmosphere.

Does it take a genius to guess what will happen?

 

[BipolarExpat]

 

[Divine Trinity]

The effects will likely be slow and insidious, not some big catastrophic spectacle like in a disaster movie (unfortunately...).

There's a possibility of a feedback loop being triggered, which can exponentionally accelerate warming. When permafrost from arctic regions begins to melt (which has already showed early signs of happening) scenarios that are predicted to happen 60-100 years from now could happen in as little as 5-10 years.

While not exactly a 2012 blockbuster, it would be hell on Earth for billions of people.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

The feedback loop is already happening. And yes it is a slow insidious process. There's no IF just when. Our intelligence has allowed us to use technology to manipulate our environment. Everything from stone tools to artificial intelligence has been used to accelerate what we think of as a natural rate of change.
But that distinction is nonsense. We are part of nature and the technological increase in the rate of change of our environment that we cause is part of the negative homeostatic feedback loop that ensures balance. The only way to circumvent it would be to choose not to advance and that's just something that never would have happened.

 

[WilliamKline]

The feedback loop is already happening. And yes it is a slow insidious process. There's no IF just when. Our intelligence has allowed us to use technology to manipulate our environment. Everything from stone tools to artificial intelligence has been used to accelerate what we think of as a natural rate of change.
But that distinction is nonsense. We are part of nature and the technological increase in the rate of change of our environment that we cause is part of the negative homeostatic feedback loop that ensures balance. The only way to circumvent it would be to choose not to advance and that's just something that never would have happened.

There's already enormous holes in Siberia that were created by methane gas expanding / escaping, it's being said methane has a 25x larger impact on trapping heat than C02 does. There's some interesting stuff to watch on this on YT:

 

[Corraled]

It's called astronomy. What's the difference between the atmospheric composition of Earth and Venus? You can compare Mercury to Venus, or Earth to Mars, distance from the Sun is irrelevant.

It's a well-founded theory not a hypothesis. The only topics up for debate on climate change is the rate of warming, which is practically impossible to confidently estimate in scientific journals. There's also the question of which molecules is accelerating warming the most, we mostly hear about CO2, but hardly anyone talks about methane or any other gases that are much more potent than CO2.

Simply put, couple billion or so years ago the Earth was comparable to Venus, 100s of millions years later organisms terraformed the planet by extracting green house gases out of the atmosphere and into the ground. Fast forward to the late 19th century, humans begin to extract those fossils and reserves out of the ground and release back into the atmosphere.

Does it take a genius to guess what will happen?

What experiments can you conduct to prove a correlation between CO2 and global warming? None! Because its impossible. So you cant follow the scientific method. It doest matter how smart your argument sounds, without an experiment you are not following the scientific method.

BTW, most of astronomy and almost all of astrophysics is not science, for the exact same reason. Its cool to theorize about the inner structure of the sun but nobody will ever "prove it".

 

[Deleted member 1465]

What experiments can you conduct to prove a correlation between CO2 and global warming? None! Because its impossible. So you cant follow the scientific method.

BTW, most of astronomy and almost all of astrophysics is not science, for the exact same reason.

Neither can you prove the earth is flat. I kinda think it is though.

 

[Corraled]

Neither can you prove the earth is flat. I kinda think it is though.

Its easy to prove it is not flat, with multiple experiments. The easiest of which is just taking a look at it from a rocket. You cant test that easily the global warming hypothesis. I mean, if it was technically possible to do so you could briefly pump the atmosphere with CO2 for a few hours just to see what happens, and then take back the CO2. As an experiment, to see the effect. But you cant.

 

[Brick In The Wall]

The reset button needs to be pushed on this planet anyways. I don't think this will be the first time it's happened and it assuredly won't be the last. Far too many things are out of balance.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

So you can test the earth is flat by observation. So could you not observe the insulating effects of co2 in an experimental setting and then correlate cause and effect with historically rising co2 measurements from the atmosphere?