4 Years to Save Earth!

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by madanthonywayne, Jan 19, 2009.

  1. Lori_7 Go to church? I am the church! Registered Senior Member

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Kernl Sandrs Registered Senior Member


    So? that still doesn't make us any less fucked. Whether it's our fault or a natural process we're still headed down a bad road. And it wouldn't hurt to cut back on CO2 emissions, even if it's not our fault...
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Emil Valued Senior Member


    I propose to make our energy supply,that we can get warm when the sun will cool.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bert Registered Member



    the end is nigh. :scratchin:
  8. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    12 or 13 years prior to 2001 would be in the 88-90 area. He asked what things would look like in 20 years. 20 years from 88-90 would be 2008-2010.
    I don't see a whole lot of uncertainty about what he said.
    Moreover, I just wanted to provide some evidence for what I said about predictions, since (and I may be misunderstanding you) you seemed to imply that people were either misquoting him or making stuff up.

    I don't think my memory failed me on that. And my point was to provide evidence that my memory indeed served correctly.
    And calling people who bring that kind of stuff up the "Foxnews crowd" is, uh... yeah.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Either we got lucky, or his prospects at being a prophet are not that good.
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    You weren't quoting him, or making stuff up: you were describing what he said - as an "asinine prediction".

    So I wasn't accusing you of misquoting or making stuff up - misunderstanding is also covered, uncertain memory, a prediction that in the original form was not "asinine", and so forth.
    It's a handy description - allows the reader to predict opinions and political stances with better than fair accuracy.

    We see that Hansen's predictions are "asinine", but not quite nailed down in key detail. Now Hansen is polemical, strident, a guy who has gone out on many limbs - much more so than the general run of AGW alarmists - and one of the likeliest sources for an asinine prediction, but the conversation as reported is secondhand and from memory, the date is vague, the words are not actually coming to us from Hansen, and the key description of context is missing important features; meanwhile, we know that reporters in general have a very poor track record dealing with scientific topics and assertions, the conversational statements of scientists are famously vulnerable to mishap on the way to journalist recounting in print. Maybe this one is different.
  10. Shadow1 Valued Senior Member


    we wan't make it!
    does it mean, bye bye tv a,d internet?
  11. keith1 Guest

    Science creates technology creates problem creates solution:

    Orbital and sub-orbital solar-blocking tech

    This solution leaves no blame to technology, or other human, natural/solar causes. It only conveys a solution.
  12. Shadow1 Valued Senior Member


    i don't agree, do you want a bigger disaster to happen to our planet, as the link says, we should apply it only when we get desepered and no other solution
    but i'd hate the red weather, or the permanant eclipse.
  13. Shadow1 Valued Senior Member


    but i do agree on the sun blockers thing, and those can be also used to generate solar power from space, and do 2 jobs, give us power, and protect us,

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    and it wouldnt like it to live in an eclipse-like the rest of my life, hehehehehe, i think it would be a good choise to save earth when things go mad, and deseperd.
  14. keith1 Guest

    Its good to have a backup plan.

Share This Page