CERN: New evidence for Global Warming

[WilD_CaT]

"New, convincing evidence indicates global warming is caused by cosmic rays and the sun — not humans (ED: I dispute this...I think its a sensational headline and drawing too many conclusions..still interesting)

The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere.

In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.

The hypothesis that cosmic rays and the sun hold the key to the global warming debate has been Enemy No. 1 to the global warming establishment ever since it was first proposed by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a 1996 scientific conference in the U.K. Within one day, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, “I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.” He then set about discrediting the theory, any journalist that gave the theory cre dence, and most of all the Danes presenting the theory — they soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials.

The mobilization to rally the press against the Danes worked brilliantly, with one notable exception. Nigel Calder, a former editor of The New Scientist who attended that 1996 conference, would not be cowed. Himself a physicist, Mr. Calder became convinced of the merits of the argument and a year later, following a lecture he gave at a CERN conference, so too did Jasper Kirkby, a CERN scientist in attendance. Mr. Kirkby then convinced the CERN bureaucracy of the theory’s importance and developed a plan to create a cloud chamber — he called it CLOUD, for “Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets.”

But Mr. Kirkby made the same tactical error that the Danes had — not realizing how politicized the global warming issue was, he candidly shared his views with the scientific community.

“The theory will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century,” Mr. Kirkby told the scientific press in 1998, explaining that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth’s temperature.

The global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Mr. Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Danes’ groundbreaking theory.

Yet this spectacular success will be largely unrecognized by the general public for years — this column will be the first that most readers have heard of it — because CERN remains too afraid of offending its government masters to admit its success. Weeks ago, CERN formerly decided to muzzle Mr. Kirby and other members of his team to avoid “the highly political arena of the climate change debate,” telling them “to present the results clearly but not interpret them” and to downplay the results by “mak[ing] clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.” The CERN study and press release is written in bureaucratese and the version of Mr. Kirkby’s study that appears in the print edition of Nature censored the most eye-popping graph — only those who know where to look in an online supplement will see the striking potency of cosmic rays in creating the conditions for seeding clouds.

CERN, and the Danes, have in all likelihood found the path to the Holy Grail of climate science. But the religion of climate science won’t yet permit a celebration of the find."

To see the striking graph that the journal Nature withheld from its print edition, click http://probeinternational.org/library/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/CERN-graph.doc

To see the article on CERN's website click http://public.web.cern.ch/public/

CERN’s CLOUD experiment provides unprecedented insight into cloud formation

Geneva, 25 August 2011. In a paper published in the journal Nature today, the CLOUD1 experiment at CERN2 has reported its first results. The CLOUD experiment has been designed to study the effect of cosmic rays on the formation of atmospheric aerosols - tiny liquid or solid particles suspended in the atmosphere - under controlled laboratory conditions. Atmospheric aerosols are thought to be responsible for a large fraction of the seeds that form cloud droplets. Understanding the process of aerosol formation is therefore important for understanding the climate.

The CLOUD results show that trace vapours assumed until now to account for aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere can explain only a tiny fraction of the observed atmospheric aerosol production. The results also show that ionisation from cosmic rays significantly enhances aerosol formation. Precise measurements such as these are important in achieving a quantitative understanding of cloud formation, and will contribute to a better assessment of the effects of clouds in climate models.

“These new results from CLOUD are important because we’ve made a number of first observations of some very important atmospheric processes,” said the experiment’s spokesperson, Jasper Kirkby. “We’ve found that cosmic rays significantly enhance the formation of aerosol particles in the mid troposphere and above. These aerosols can eventually grow into the seeds for clouds. However, we’ve found that the vapours previously thought to account for all aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere can only account for a small fraction of the observations - even with the enhancement of cosmic rays."

Atmospheric aerosols play an important role in the climate. Aerosols reflect sunlight and produce cloud droplets. Additional aerosols would therefore brighten clouds and extend their lifetime. By current estimates, about half of all cloud droplets begin with the clustering of molecules that are present in the atmosphere only in minute amounts. Some of these embryonic clusters eventually grow large enough to become the seeds for cloud droplets. Trace sulphuric acid and ammonia vapours are thought to be important, and are used in all atmospheric models, but the mechanism and rate by which they form clusters together with water molecules have remained poorly understood until now.

The CLOUD results show that a few kilometres up in the atmosphere sulphuric acid and water vapour can rapidly form clusters, and that cosmic rays enhance the formation rate by up to ten-fold or more. However, in the lowest layer of the atmosphere, within about a kilometre of Earth's surface, the CLOUD results show that additional vapours such as ammonia are required. Crucially, however, the CLOUD results show that sulphuric acid, water and ammonia alone – even with the enhancement of cosmic rays - are not sufficient to explain atmospheric observations of aerosol formation. Additional vapours must therefore be involved, and finding out their identity will be the next step for CLOUD.

“It was a big surprise to find that aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere isn’t due to sulphuric acid, water and ammonia alone,” said Kirkby. “Now it’s vitally important to discover which additional vapours are involved, whether they are largely natural or of human origin, and how they influence clouds. This will be our next job.”

I still have no doubt that humans contribute to global warming, but I have always doubted the significance of it, considering that many factors play a role in the climate. I also always doubted whether or not any political policy or economic policy put forth would change anything.

I expect to see in the coming weeks, and months and years, numerous and numerous scientists trying to debunk and refute the about EVIDENCE obtained by CERN and the scientists in this experiment. I guess the reputation of the scientific establishement will be tested.

Hopefully they will reproduce the results and try and build this in to climate models. As far as I am aware no scientists have said the sun doesn't play an important role in cloud formation and cloud formation in heating the atmosphere, however the effect of specific radiation on cloud formation as well as the actual effect of cloud formation on heating is still in dispute, meaning most scientists doubt the effect is significant enough to explain the heating levels we have seen.

It is interesting though.

 

[WilD_CaT]

In summary, current AGW and tests prove the sun has not been responsible for the current warming affect directly, meaning the sun has not increased the heat it sends our way. However, because of this, it has also not been sending certain radiation our way, which the above experiment demonstrate significantly improves cloud formation and thus cooling of the atmosphere. The fact the sun is not "hot" enough (In radioactive terms) means it could potentially be partially responsible for the warming effect we have seen, due to the lack of cloud formation.

This is what the above experiment shows, potentially. We still have to understand the effect of clouds in temperature etc.

In current AGW, a short period of warming, melts ice and sends more CO2 into the atmosphere which creates more warming which melts more ice which sends more CO2 into the atmosphere etc. I.E. Once any heat causes enough CO2 forming, a positive feedback mechanism takes place which feeds itself.

Current AGW says that mankind, created enough heat to start the positive feedback loop. The heat we created, sent enough CO2 into the atmosphere, which created more heat and more CO2 etc. I've always had a bug about this in relation to economic and politics as if this were true and we've already started the feedback loop, then I don't believe there is anything we can do change the process. Perhaps slow it down a little, but if the feedback loop has started then thats it.

Since we know the sun hasn't increased in temperature, enough to start the feedback loop, the sun was discounted as the cause of the current warming. However, the new evidence that without the sun sending certain radiation our way, we would have less cloud formation and thus significantly less cooling. Ironically, the evidence suggest it might be beneficial for global warmists, for the sun to get a bitter hotter and send the right kind of radition our way, which in addition to all the aerosol pollution we send up in the atmosphere, might allow for more cloud formation and hence more cooling.

 

[WilD_CaT]

...waits for Ghoti's response...come on give us a positive one...

 

[The_Assimilator]

Now it’s vitally important to discover which additional vapours are involved, whether they are largely natural or of human origin, and how they influence clouds. This will be our next job.

They have demonstrated that cosmic rays are a more important factor than has been traditionally thought, yes, but they have not necessarily proven that mankind (via CO2) doesn't contibute to cloud formation and hence climate change.

Important research nonetheless, because climatologists will have to rework their assessments to account for the effect of cosmic rays, and that may well paint a very different picture of how responsible (or not) mankind is (or is not) for climate change.

With all that said, I have to ask: what will happen if the current scientifically-accepted theory of climate change is proven wrong? Will humankind go back to merrily polluting the planet in the same way we have since the beginning of the industrial age? Even if you don't agree with the theory of climate change, you have to agree that it has brought the issue of what we are doing to our planet into the public's consciousness, with a result that people and corporations have started making efforts to lower their carbon footprints - something that can only benefit us all in the long run. It would be a shame if all the progress we have made in this regard were to evaporate.

 

[Wimbo]

The global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Mr. Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Danes’ groundbreaking theory

Right. We're talking about science here, not religion, aren't we? Burn the witches!

I find the AGW argument less than compelling, not least because the AGW climate models only seem to account for the man-made effects. They're anthopogenic models, after all.

Most of them seem to ignore changes in the Sun's radiation reaching the Earth. How can that be important? It's only the source of >99% of the heat we're talking about.

All of them ignore the effect of water vapour - we don't affect that, they say. Anyway, it's too hard to calculate, and the half-life is only 10 days. Really?

Water vapour in the atmosphere is far and away the single largest contributor to the Greenhouse Effect:
The IPC says so here: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf

Water vapour is the most abundant and important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. However, human activities have only a small direct influence on the amount of atmospheric water vapour.

Right. Ever heard of irrigation? Ever seen a cooling tower at a power station? Not only do these two uses of water dwarf all other water uses, but in the USA they have increased by 50% and 500% respectively between 1950 and 2005.

Consider also that half of agricultural water is "lost" by evaporation, transpiration and leaking pipes. That's right, folks, nearly half goes straight into the atmosphere. Similarly, almost all water used in power generation is used in single pass evaporative cooling - straight into the atmosphere. Thermoelectric power uses 96% of saline water withdrawals and 52% of fresh surface water withdrawals. Irrigation uses half of the rest.

A good graph here: http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/totrendbar.html

Cloud cover is another huge factor that's conventionally ignored - too hard to calculate. The CERN search starts to address that.

Mankind may well be affecting the climate to some small extent, but I doubt it's due to the "evil poison" Carbon Dioxide.

We'll never know, until the messianic zeal is dropped in favour of some real science.

 

[Wimbo]

Even if you don't agree with the theory of climate change, you have to agree that it has brought the issue of what we are doing to our planet into the public's consciousness, with a result that people and corporations have started making efforts to lower their carbon footprints - something that can only benefit us all in the long run. It would be a shame if all the progress we have made in this regard were to evaporate.

Yes, it's good that people are polluting and wasting less. It's not new, though. I remember my parents being concerned about that in the 70's.

The Carbon Dioxide stuff is a red herring. Indeed, there's an argument that we're helping to stave off the next phase of the current Ice Age.

HINT: Who benefits from trading in Carbon Credits?

 

[The_Assimilator]

Yes, it's good that people are polluting and wasting less. It's not new, though. I remember my parents being concerned about that in the 70's.

Not new, but the concern is now far more widespread throughout society, and hence companies are forced to improve their environmental friendliness because if they don't, people will buy from their more eco-friendly competitors.

HINT: Who benefits from trading in Carbon Credits?

Al Gore and everyone else who sees carbon credits as another way to make a profit.

 

[killadoob]

Not new, but the concern is now far more widespread throughout society, and hence companies are forced to improve their environmental friendliness because if they don't, people will buy from their more eco-friendly competitors.



Al Gore and everyone else who sees carbon credits as another way to make a profit.

How much does al gore make trying to improve our planet?

Stupid greedy man, he should just let us destroy our planet, idiot. Why do we tolerate people who want to help save our planet i wonder?

 

[Arthur]

Makes sense to me. I've never denied the possibility of warming (it's after all happened many times before), but always questioned the A in AGW. More and more the AGWers are looking like a cult. They certainly behave like one - just look at their highly defensive behaviour and the way they stigmatise detractors. Fanatics.

 

[WilD_CaT]

Makes sense to me. I've never denied the possibility of warming (it's after all happened many times before), but always questioned the A in AGW. More and more the AGWers are looking like a cult. They certainly behave like one - just look at their highly defensive behaviour and the way they stigmatise detractors. Fanatics.

I thought the "deniers" were the cultists (As has been argued on here many times)... (But I agree, the scientific mind is supposed to be open to new or different ideas and simply get on with it regardless of the opinions of others. To have a political movement against those with different/non-maintream ideas is not science)

I've always been against any political idea being used to benefit special interests, so AGW irritated me because I knew it was overblown but I didn't know and still don't know exactly how much.

Whats the bet this won't have any impact on climate change policy.

 

[The_Assimilator]

How much does al gore make trying to improve our planet?

Stupid greedy man, he should just let us destroy our planet, idiot. Why do we tolerate people who want to help save our planet i wonder?

I suggest you investigate how Mr. Gore has used environmentalism to enrich himself, e.g. http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...-denies-he-is-carbon-billionaire-1814199.html , before you make such accusations. Always look where the money leads, particularly if there's a politician involved.

 

[Wimbo]

Who's making money from Carbon Trading?

Never mind Al Gore.

The Financial Services industry (and a whole bunch of scammers), fresh from wrecking the world economy with CDOs and "toxic mortgages", are drooling at the chops about trading in carbon offsets.

And here’s the great thing about it. Unlike traditional commodities markets, which will eventually involve delivery to someone in physical form, the carbon market is based on lack of delivery of an invisible substance to no-one.

We're looking at an "industry" (I use the term with caution, since it creates no real wealth, just charges fees, which is by no means the same thing) worth trillions of dollars a year.

NOW do you understand the emphasis on Carbon Dioxide?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/financ...51/here-comes-the-next-bubble-carbon-trading/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/financ...51/here-comes-the-next-bubble-carbon-trading/
http://webmasterworld-money.blogspot.com/2011/02/carbon-trading-worlds-next-biggest.html
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/files/Conning-the-Climate.pdf
And for scams, you'll love this one:
http://www.carbonventures.net/

 

[killadoob]

I suggest you investigate how Mr. Gore has used environmentalism to enrich himself, e.g. http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...-denies-he-is-carbon-billionaire-1814199.html , before you make such accusations. Always look where the money leads, particularly if there's a politician involved.

I don't care how much money he has made, if he is helping drive on a green world give the man a trillion dollars. Seems better than blowing 5 trillion fighting for oil and resources. People are taking aim at him because he is taking profits from the dirty companies who only care about money and don't care if their products are destroying our planet. Personally i don't give a crap if people believe in global warming but we can all see with our own eyes the pollution we are creating, whether this causes the planet to warm well who knows but one thing is for sure we are polluting the planet and a man trying to stop that is the bad guy. If more people like al gore ran the world perhaps we might have a chance. I am glad green is big business because if it wasn't well we would not be improving our situation.

How much money do you think the oil giants make? I don't see you giving them crap for knowingly destroying our planet. You seem happy for people to make billions while they destroy our planet but take aim at someone making billions trying to save it or help save it.

 

[Alan]

With all that said, I have to ask: what will happen if the current scientifically-accepted theory of climate change is proven wrong? Will humankind go back to merrily polluting the planet in the same way we have since the beginning of the industrial age? Even if you don't agree with the theory of climate change, you have to agree that it has brought the issue of what we are doing to our planet into the public's consciousness, with a result that people and corporations have started making efforts to lower their carbon footprints - something that can only benefit us all in the long run. It would be a shame if all the progress we have made in this regard were to evaporate.

It's also done a lot of harm to people. For example the Obama administration has poured billions of tax payers money into the black hole that is "green jobs". That's cost the most hard pressed people jobs and made a few well connected individuals very wealthy. But hey it makes affluent suburbanites feel better about themselves....

Industrial Policy: The fact that President Obama's "green jobs" campaign has been an enormously expensive failure is now so glaringly obvious even the New York Times can't ignore it any longer.

In a surprisingly candid article headlined "Number of Green Jobs Fails to Live Up to Promises," the Times' Aaron Glantz reports that "federal and state efforts to stimulate creation of green jobs have largely failed, government records show," and that Obama's goal of 5 million new green jobs in 10 years is a "pipe dream."

Glantz notes, for example, that Obama's much-heralded weatherization program "never caught on."

California still has spent only about half its $186 million in federal weatherization funds, creating a grand total of 538 full-time jobs. He also points to the $59 million spent in California on green job training that resulted in just 719 placements.

Glantz isn't the first mainstream reporter to discover this. Earlier in the year, Politico reported that "nearly three years into Obama's presidency, the White House can't point to much solid evidence that significant numbers of Americans are scoring the green jobs the president has been touting."

And even some Democrats are growing weary of the administration's relentless green jobs blather.

"Of course, we want to be part of the new innovation and green jobs," Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., said recently. "But you know, the green jobs have been about a lot of talk, and not a lot has been happening on that."

For anyone who's followed this story, these failures shouldn't be news. The weatherization program, for example, has long been plagued by scandal and needless red tape.

And as we've pointed out in this space, the landscape is increasingly littered with failed "green" companies unable to survive in the marketplace even with huge government subsidies.

But the Obama administration still has its head buried under a pile of solar panels, with the president endlessly touring "clean" factories, pushing electric cars consumers don't want and talking about politically correct "jobs of the future."

Then again, if the Times can see the light, there might still be hope for Obama.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/582154/201108191845/Green-Jobs-Red-Faces.aspx

 

[killadoob]

Billions i only see a couple hundred million alan, that is what two weeks in iraq? No issue with the 5 trillion spent on war alan? but money spent on green gets your wrath . Pocket change

I wonder how society works when spending 5 trillion on war is acceptable but 1 trillion on a health care program is the biggest failure and a couple hundreds million or even a billion spent on green is even worse.

Spending money trying to do good is worse than spending money doing bad, i guess that how life has transformed.

 

[Pitbull]

How much does al gore make trying to improve our planet?

Stupid greedy man, he should just let us destroy our planet, idiot. Why do we tolerate people who want to help save our planet i wonder?

I very highly doubt that anyone would say fk it let earth die. Everyone is more than willing to live greener. The problem is that taxing people is not doing anything apart from making people rich. They are going about it the wrong way. Why is everything "green" so much more expensive? If you want people to start saving the planet incentivize it, don't penalize it.

 

[killadoob]

I very highly doubt that anyone would say fk it let earth die. Everyone is more than willing to live greener. The problem is that taxing people is not doing anything apart from making people rich. They are going about it the wrong way. Why is everything "green" so much more expensive? If you want people to start saving the planet incentivize it, don't penalize it.

Well the technology is very young and you don't have the billion dollar oil industry backing it so how can it be cheap? You have to tax the people who pollute the worst or why will they change?

How would you go about forcing car manufacturers to make a cheap electric car and don't tell me we cannot make an electric car, we put a man on the moon in the 60's i am fairly certain the car makers could easily make an electric car that is cheap but i would imagine the oil companies would not be pleased with that.

Oil is big business for countries, take oil away from the arab countries and what have they got? Take oil off the market and think about the amount of money that will be lost. Do you really think countries that are oil rich want to go green? So how do you force the people of this planet who are addicted to oil to change their ways? you need to start with the governments and that won't happen. The sad reality is money runs the world, the people in power could care less when this planet is destroyed 100 or so years from now. If this green thing was not forced on us it would not go anywhere.

 

[agerbon]

I very highly doubt that anyone would say fk it let earth die. Everyone is more than willing to live greener. The problem is that taxing people is not doing anything apart from making people rich. They are going about it the wrong way. Why is everything "green" so much more expensive? If you want people to start saving the planet incentivize it, don't penalize it.

Earth dying? The earth as been around for billions of years and as been through things that would make our minds tremble. It's sheer human arrogance to think we could kill it off. Sure we could make life more uncomfortable for all life. However Earth would just correct it self over a period of time like it as before and we would most probably by that time joined the dinosaurs.

George Carlin said it best imo;

We’re so self-important. So self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these ****ing people kidding me? Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven’t learned how to care for one another, we’re gonna save the ****ing planet?

I’m getting tired of that ****. Tired of that ****. I’m tired of ****ing Earth Day, I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world save for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don’t give a **** about the planet. They don’t care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.

Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are ****ed. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We’ve been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we’ve only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we’re a threat? That somehow we’re gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that’s just a-floatin’ around the sun?

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles…hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages…And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet…the planet…the planet isn’t going anywhere. WE ARE!

We’re going away. Pack your ****, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.

You wanna know how the planet’s doing? Ask those people at Pompeii, who are frozen into position from volcanic ash, how the planet’s doing. You wanna know if the planet’s all right, ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble, if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. Or how about those people in Kilowaia, Hawaii, who built their homes right next to an active volcano, and then wonder why they have lava in the living room.

The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new pardigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?” Plastic…*******.

So, the plastic is here, our job is done, we can be phased out now. And I think that’s begun. Don’t you think that’s already started? I think, to be fair, the planet sees us as a mild threat. Something to be dealt with. And the planet can defend itself in an organized, collective way, the way a beehive or an ant colony can. A collective defense mechanism. The planet will think of something. What would you do if you were the planet? How would you defend yourself against this troublesome, pesky species? Let’s see… Viruses. Viruses might be good. They seem vulnerable to viruses. And, uh…viruses are tricky, always mutating and forming new strains whenever a vaccine is developed. Perhaps, this first virus could be one that compromises the immune system of these creatures. Perhaps a human immunodeficiency virus, making them vulnerable to all sorts of other diseases and infections that might come along. And maybe it could be spread sexually, making them a little reluctant to engage in the act of reproduction.

Well, that’s a poetic note. And it’s a start. And I can dream, can’t I? See I don’t worry about the little things: bees, trees, whales, snails. I think we’re part of a greater wisdom than we will ever understand. A higher order. Call it what you want. Know what I call it? The Big Electron. The Big Electron…whoooa. Whoooa. Whoooa. It doesn’t punish, it doesn’t reward, it doesn’t judge at all. It just is. And so are we. For a little while.

Hehe one of my all time favorites.

 

[Pitbull]

Earth dying? The earth as been around for billions of years and as been through things that would make our minds tremble. It's sheer human arrogance to think we could kill it off. Sure we could make life more uncomfortable for all life. However Earth would just correct it self over a period of time like it as before and we would most probably by that time joined the dinosaurs.

George Carlin said it best imo;



Hehe one of my all time favorites.

If humans wanted to they can kill earth off so that nothing ever lives on it again. Are you saying it's not possible?

Yes I'm sure earth will recover once humans have left. But if we where to make everything extinct then nothing can come to life again.

 

[Palimino]

Oil is big business for countries, take oil away from the arab countries and what have they got? Take oil off the market and think about the amount of money that will be lost. Do you really think countries that are oil rich want to go green? So how do you force the people of this planet who are addicted to oil to change their ways? you need to start with the governments and that won't happen. The sad reality is money runs the world, the people in power could care less when this planet is destroyed 100 or so years from now. If this green thing was not forced on us it would not go anywhere.

Well said. The fossil fuel proponents are taking such a short-term, profit-driven view. Can’t they see that in a few years their profits would be moot?