The HORROR of The Warning To Humanity Statement!!

World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity
From the Union of Concerned Scientists

We are on a collision course to disaster if we continue to damage the planet.

Editor’s Note: Some 1,700 of the world’s leading scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in the sciences, issued this appeal in November 1992. Their message is still valid today.
Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about.

The environment is suffering critical stress:

A rather prestigous bunch of scientists proclaiming ecological disaster, but i`m sure all consumer heavy Governments are taking the required corrective action, lol.

Two swift comments:

1 - An Arthur C Clarke Law comments about the tendency of established scientific figures to get things wrong - they tend to be establishment figures rather than practicing scientists, with an interest in maintaining the status quo.

2 - a useful site with some references:


Global warming is an established scientific fact, that some scientists disagree is irrelevant, throughout history there has never been scientific consensus, and in an age of Global economies which by there very design demand CONSTANT RESOURCE EXTRACTION TO GROW THE SHARE MARKET AND ACQUIESCE THE EXPANSION MENTALITY OF BUSINESS, GOVERNMENT AND UNINFORMED PUBLIC

Here’s some curious data.
1-the world is a half degree C warmer than a century ago.
2-Mountain glaciers have receded nearly all over the world, and many disappearing at a rapid rate.
3-And see levels have risen 10-20cm.

All consistent with warming.
In fact HISTORICAL RECORDS convince us that the last 2 decades were the Warmest in a 1000yrs

Stephen Schneider[Climatologist] is an advisor to The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change,this panel was set up by the World Meterological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program, to reach global concensus on warming.

More than 2000, not 11—, 2000 scientists contributed and reviewed 20 000, that’s 20 000 scientific papers on weather and climate, the conclusion was that there is overwhelming EVIDENCE that HUMAN ACTIVITY IS THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING.

Plus, Bill Mckibbens research reveals similar, that 1000s of scientists have produced airplane hangars full of reports, studies, charts and graphs.

So there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that it HAS GLOBALLY WARMED.

1998 was the warmest yr{as of 99} and makes 9 of the warmest yrs on record in the last decade.


If you disbelieve, thats ok…if it is true, we’ll break all weather records next decade as well, and then we’ll have a approx 20-30yrs of record breaking weather.

I drive a Taxi part time, and constantly pick up Biologists and Environmental Scientists from The Land Centre,Vulture St…CSIRO,BSA Sugar, and The Department of Primary industries at Myers RD, Indooroopilly{Brisbane}, and by haranguing them, i get some real world feedback…the majority of them{70% approx} agree with the veracity of TWTHS, and many of them voice their disappoinment that Government bodies who they advise…IGNORE their recommendations, their recommendations usually being to implement a systems approach to land management, instead of a reductionist method.

David Wilson.

From yesterday…

HONG KONG, China – A dense blanket of pollution, dubbed the “Asian Brown Cloud,” is hovering over South Asia, with scientists warning it could kill millions of people in the region, and pose a global threat.

In the biggest-ever study of the phenomenon, 200 scientists warned that the cloud, estimated to be two miles (three kilometers) thick, is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths a year from respiratory disease.

By slashing the sunlight that reaches the ground by 10 to 15 percent, the choking smog has also altered the region’s climate, cooling the ground while heating the atmosphere, scientists said on Monday.

I placed an excerpt in case people were to lazy to click.

I guess in China, the Government don’t mind a few dead.

We as a Global community need to take this stuff seriously, or are the XBOX sales too important!!

Consumerism and the ecologically unfriendly manner in which we produce and transport goods are the main factors in the global Horror thats occuring and escalating.

Natural Capitalism and Biomimicry are solutions that need immediate implementaion…its a farce to accept insurgency as the key to change.

For any person with a developed conscience…one of the worst things you can do is buy a 4 Wheel drive, these trendy buckets are ecological nightmares, both on raw material demands and fossil fuel usage.I believe those naughty folk in the USA buy half of new cars as 4 wheel drives…

:smack: :mad: :smack: :mad:

How do you reconcile your claims with the following?

This site seems to indicate that fluctuations of as many as 3 degrees F increase over the last 1000 years should be about normal

This page seems to indicate there’s more debate on the subject than you let on, and that far wilder temperature fluctuations are within the norm, not to mention questioning your assertation that “there is overwhelming EVIDENCE that HUMAN ACTIVITY IS THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING” – It says there is an inconsistency to this warming trend:

And that current warming trends are pretty mild in comparison to some other periods:

You obviously disagree with these reports. Why?

Another web site for those unconvinced by reports of global warming:

Particularly good is Daly’s destruction of the “hockey stick” model of global warming.

The trouble with environmentalists is that they don’t believe their own warnings. If the world is really going to be destroyed by global warming, then switching to 2-wheel drive vehicles won’t save us. Holding the high rate of CO2 growth to a slightly lower level of growth won’t save us. A world government won’t save us.

Human beings will continue to use more resources and to produce more waste, as our number increases and as we become more prosperous. The only hope to prevent global environmental disaster is a massive reduction in world’s human population.

So, if you’re serious about saving the world, you ought to support sending out the H-bombs now. Killing, say, 90% of the world’s population ought to make some real improvement in the wrold’s biosystem.

Let’s see…which nations should we keep?

On the whole, I think Swift’s proposal was more intelligent.

This David Wilson fellow is making some rather broad and sweeping comments, there are so many ideas in his posts that really he would want to break them down into different threads to get a thorough discussion here. Take for instance this:

That’s quite a mouthful, and there are alot of ideas there that aren’t really connected in a clear manner.

First, what is the ecological state of the planet. Secondly, what are the solutions. That would be a good division of ideas if you want to tackle the problem. You will probably find that some people here are a long way from just conceding the global warming point.

Also, and I’m not a big fan of this, but causal connections like you try to make in that section usually draw a “cite, please?” from the GD regulars. You did provide a couple cites, but not supporting those connections. References to works don’t do much for some people here, people (again, this doesn’t include myself necessarily) who like to see the works for themselves online without having to buy the books or look up the studies in a university library.

Myself, I don’t particularly care for .org websites as source material, especially ones with “action” in their title. Anyway, perhaps some of our scientifically-minded denizens can flesh this out a little if the thread continues.

An interesting statment. Would you mind ellaborating a bit? More fundamentally, I will off that the environment is the basis of life. I’m not sure how wealth enters into it.

Ummm, cite? (sorry, RexDart :D)

Last time I checked, a “fact” did indeed constitute a consensus of scientific minds. Isn’t it easy to dismiss opposing views rather than look at them? Here, let me try:
…that some scientists agree [with the idea of global warming] is irrelevant
Convincing, eh?

How long have we been recording global temperature exactly? Is there any evidence at all that this isn’t normal?

Ok, I definetly need a cite for that. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think thermometers have only been around since about the early 1600’s. Did they find carvings on a wall somewhere about a cave man’s perception of increasing ambient temperature?

Global warming is an established fact.

The contention that it is caused by humans is not proven, but cannot be dismissed with any assurance. The whole fabric of change in the Earth in the last century, not just limited to temperature also shows that the ecology of the planet is being changed, and human activity is the primary, although perhaps not only cause.

But the clamor of doom criers does little to make likely the implementation of any broad change in human activity. Auto use is not decreasing. Energy use from all sources is increasing, and “alternative” sources are not replacing traditional ones, they are just encouraging more energy use, and more energy dependence.

The likely outcome is probably less immediately cataclysmic than what some contend; but it certainly is not entirely wrong to predict that crisis is an inevitable part of the trends we can all see. Sadly, that process of crisis, and response is never going to be implemented in a world wide and effective manner. Profits are going to be protected, far more effectively than habitats. It is inherent in the capitalist system that individuals who profit the most from the status quo will have the most ability to protect that status quo.

And they will be the most able to protect themselves from the consequences of their own shortsightedness and greed.

But the only real strategy to change those trends is for all people to voluntarily reduce their use of resources, at all levels. Voluntary resource thrift and birth control on a nearly universal basis could change the trends. But I do not believe that is likely under any circumstances. Wealth is power, and the powerful have no incentive within the capitalist system to accept less power, nor have the powerless any incentive to decline to take power if it is abandoned.

The tragedy of the commons is not just a historic event. It continues to its inevitable conclusion because of the nature of man.


“We have met the enemy and it is us.” ~ Walt Kelly, Pogo ~

Well, to be fair, there are methods of ascertaining temperature in the ast. However, this only records temperatures at a few locations, such as in the antarctic ice. And I’m not at all sure it could detect a 1/2 C change.


To answer a few of your questions -

I think we’ve been making direct and accurate records of the temperature for a little over a hundred years.

As far as temperature measurements prior to that, I know that scientists can get accurate temperature readings from tree rings, and there are other ways as well. Basically, it’s (supposedly) possible to get pretty reliable measurements stretching back thousands of years.

On the topic of “Global Warming: Fact or Fiction?”, regardless of what scientists say, there’s far from a consensus on the matter. Even if there was, that wouldn’t prove anything, other than that either everyone was right or everyone was wrong. “Everybody” used to think that the earth was flat, that the earth floated around in the ether, that we were going to run out of natural resources by 1970, that man was going to cause an ice age, that we’d have a cure for the common cold by now, and that the hole in the ozone was going to give everybody cancer. Scientists are wrong almost as often as they’re right, but that’s not a sleight against scientists - it goes with the territory. What’s dangerous is when people refuse to question their own sacred cows. Right now global warming is one of those sacred cows - it may be right, it may be wrong, but if you question it, then you’re evil/ignorant/delusional/stupid.

Anecdote: I once lived with two ecology majors. The topic of global warming happened to come up with each of them, at different times. One of them stated that she’d heard from a professor that the entire argument against globall warming comes from one guy, and that his reason is that God says it’s not happening. She actually believed this, and refused to discuss it, even though I told her I could demonstrate that this was flat-out ridiculous. The other roommate, upon hearing me mention that I was skeptical, told me, “Wow, I thought you were intelligent and well-educated”, and was perfectly serious. She asked me why I didn’t believe it was true, and when I started to give some answers that actually made some sense, she said, “Well, we’re not going to change each others’ minds, and I don’t have time for this”, and left the room. Global warming isn’t just a science to some people - it’s a religion. It’s not to be questioned. And that is a very dangerous attitude to have. I was always told it is the duty of the scientist to be skeptical, to question everything. I guess that’s just a story you’re told when you’re a kid, though.

Anyway, here a few random factoids to add to the discussion:

  • The temperature has, in fact, increased by about a degree or so in the past century. Also, “greenhouse gas” emissions have increased over the same period. What’s interesting, though, is that the period of peak emissions was between about 1940 and 1970. During this same time, global temperatures cooled. The warming that occured between 1900 and 1940 occured during a time when global emissions weren’t all that impressive.

  • The cooling between 1940-1970 has sometimes been explained away by the high level of volcanic activity during that time. The existence of soot in the air provided a cooling effect, supposedly. However, it was discovered last year that soot in the air acts as a “greenhouse gas” as well, with a warming effect second only to CO2 in potency. How soot was able to simultaneously warm and cool the air is left as an exercise for the reader.

  • Temperature measurements are made in three ways: ground measurements, balloon measurements, and satellite measurements. According to global warmiing theory, temperatures are supposed to have increased most significantly in the lower atmosphere. However, since measurements of the lower atmosphere have been available (since about 1970), no warming in that region has occured. All warming has occured near the ground. One possible explanation for this is the “urban heat island” effect - as cities grow, they put off more heat, which causes an upward bias in temperature. I have never seen a global warming proponent attempt to reconcile these problems with temperature data, but I would love to see them try. Any links would be appreciated.

  • The models that climate scientists use to predict future temperatures are brilliant from a programming standpoint, but extremely unreliable. Whenever scientists use them to ascertain temperatures in the past - which they can check for accuracy, since past temperatures can be measured in other ways - they’re typically off by anywhere from 5 to 30 degrees. They then add compensation factors into their programs to make them more accurate. Then they test them again, find they’re off by 10 degrees still, and so on. These models that are routinely off by such huge margins are the ones telling us the temperature will rise by 2-14 degrees in the next century.

  • According to the IPCC, the temperature will rise by between 1C and 5C in the coming century. According to the experts, 1C would be normal and perfectly in line with what could be expected without any anthropogenic causes. 5C would be “catastrophic”. So according to the experts, the temperature rise in the next century will be somewhere between disastrous and not a problem at all. Gee, thanks guys, for that stunning insight!
    I don’t know for certain if global warming theory is right or not. However, there are far too many internal inconsistencies for anyone in good consicence to be able to say it is “certain”, and I hold little respect for those scientists who tell us that.


Add me to those who find the OP all over the map, subject-wise. Also, Mr. Wilson, there’s no need to shout; we can read you just fine.

Global warming may or may not be proven, and the primary cause, if it exists, may or may not be human activity. I have yet to be convinced that, with the exception of potentially rising sea levels, “global warming” alone is inevitably a Very Bad Thing.

In any event, if human activity is the primary cause of “global warming”, there is a simple yet effective self-regulating mechanism: the fossil fuels which make up the majority of current energy usage are likely to become unusably scarce within a few hundred years. To me, this is as good a reason as any to conserve our supply of these fuels, but to claim that “global warming” is the primary danger to mankind is, to my mind, a bit dishonest.

The amount of carbon locked in fossil fuels is miniscule compared to the amount locked into carbonate rocks. In my reading, I have seen little or no scientific opinion in support of the idea that the burning of all available fossil fuels within, say, a five hundred year time span could trigger a runaway greenhouse effect and turn the planet into another Venus. Thus the “global warming” effect, if it exists, is likely to be a very transient condition on the geologic timescale.

The geologic record shows Earth apparently has recovered, and fairly quickly (in geologic terms), from massive climatic changes far more traumatic than those wrought by a couple of hundred years of human technological activity. To claim that global warming is an “irreversable effect” is simply incorrect, but beyond that it probably is nowhere near the most important effect of human activity. How about the release of heavy metals into the surface environment? What of heavy dosing of fertilizers in agriculture, with the residue eventually running off into water supplies? I agree that we are in the midst of a massive species die-off, such as apparently happened in the Cretaceous; is this entirely due to human activity and can anything be done about this?

Another approach to this subject may be to start a discussion as to the four or five most critical environmental issues, and what specific benefits of civilization we might be willing to give up to reverse their effects in the short term. I’d be happy to show up for that discussion.

I also want to mention that the title of the OP sounds like an H.P. Lovecraft story. Maybe Cthulhu is behind all that warming. :smiley:


Does this mean we actually have half-decent data on the amount of CO[sub]2[/sub] and other greenhouse gases produced by human activity over the last century?

If so, I’d love to see these data. I’ve been dyin’ to get some actual numbers to refer to.


I find your tone offensive…your profile indicates you are both young and studing law, who’d figure you as arrogant huh.

*Originally posted by RexDart *
**This David Wilson fellow is making some rather broad and sweeping comments, there are so many ideas in his posts that really he would want to break them down into different threads to get a thorough discussion here.


Above we have critical comments.

And here we have the solution…asking questions…Bravo there champ, lol.

Yes, more offensive comments in a serious debate section of a quality BB, including whinging and whining, followed by a viruoso performance of dumbfoundedness.

If you chose to read my post with the intent to understand and debate, with the intent of improving your knowledge, you would have perked up on Natural Capitalism and Biomimicry.

Neither of these concepts are difficult to comprehend, but i don`t believe in making enormous posts which bombard the reader with too much New info, i build my threads overtime, and anticipate intelligent considerations…You have failed to comprehend every damn thing.

Yep, and one of my 70 000 000 word posts will convert them right???

Most of the info came from David Suzukis…Apes to Superspecies, 1999.

Aren`t you just precious Counsellor, LOL.

Ladies and Gentlemen…the purpose of this thread to Rex was to highlight my intolerance of morons who think rudeness and abrasiveness qualifiy as wisdom.

I take this section of the message board quite seriously, and will be ignoring any further nonsense.I’m looking to communicate with intelligent, sensitive people who recognize the problems that are occuring, i’m more than happy to debate those who openly dispute my knowledge{i hardly know it all]…but any ad hominens and you can talk to yourself.

I’m pressed for time at the moment, but will answer all your questions as best i can, and look forward to your own views.

Bye for now.

David Wilson.

Hmmm…David Wilson, I really want to give you the benefit of the doubt. I really want to avoid taking you to the Pit. I want to remain civil. So let’s see how I do.

Since you have a grand total of EIGHT, that’s 8, or eight, posts as of right now…well, I was suggesting to you that you ought to change your style of posting. Doing so would yield far better results in this discussion forum. I was attempting to do you a favor, no matter how you interpreted my tone of post, so to speak. I was civil in the utmost in my reply.

Let me illustrate things you did, David Wilson, that are little tolerated on the General Debates forum.

1.) The oh-so-clever stylizing of my handle as “RexDork.” Personal insults are not tolerated on GD.


Those are vague ideas, not at all familiar to most visitors and readers of this forum. Even if we knew what they were defined as, your mention of them is so brief as to leave doubt as to how you use those terms. You have alot of ideas, and those ideas are all over the map and unconnected in your posts.


I don’t know what your experience at other message boards has been. Here at the Straight Dope, people in GD simply will not debate a person who presents 20 ideas at once, handwavingly asserts that they’re connected, and expects everyone else to sift through and find the debatable single-issues.


Well, you implied that I was nonsensical, unintelligent and insensitive. Let me remind you that if you voice that opinion about me directly, you will be breaking a board rule against direct personal insult. I didn’t attack you with “ad hominens” [sic], I was trying to help you out. I advise you alter your tone before you ruffle the wrong feathers around here.

If you want to debate the solutions to global warming, with the presumption that global warming exists, then you will need to state so clearly in your original post. You may find that few people wish to debate with you on those temrs.

Anybody with a post count from 100 to 10,000 would give you this same advice, I was trying to find a way for you to get the kind of response to your issues you wanted. You simply will not get many people to debate you if you persist in the manner you have so far presented your ideas. I am trying to help you and you are insulting me, so you aren’t off to much of a start. I suggest you check the rules for posting to Great Debates, lurk for awhile and watch how issues are debated, then reformat your ideas into digestable chunks. Otherwise you’ll be shouting into the wind so long as you’re here.

Well, get to debating already. Several people have come in to challenge your claims, and point out that you’re OP was less than crystal clear with regard to subject matter. What is your response?

If you want to call out RexDart we have a forum for that.

So, greed is inherent in the human condition, and we will never be able to voluntarily resolve the environmental issues? If so, what resolution is possible other than mandatory birth control and strictly enforced economical limits? And how is any such measure practical?