Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ticking Arctic Carbon Bomb May Be Bigger Than Expected

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the who-invented-carbon-bombs-anyway dept.

Earth 339

sciencehabit writes "Scientists are expressing fresh concerns about the carbon locked in the Arctic's vast expanse of frozen soil. New field studies quantify the amount of soil carbon at 1.9 trillion metric tons, suggesting that previous estimates underestimated the climate risk if this carbon is liberated. Meanwhile, a new analysis of laboratory experiments that simulate carbon release by thawed soil is bolstering worries that continued carbon emissions could unleash a massive Arctic carbon wallop."

cancel ×

339 comments

HEADLINE: Scientists fear for their jobs, want $$$ (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226071)

I don't see what's so bad about global warming, especially looking out my window right now and seeing snow on the roofs of the outbuildings. Even assuming the earth is warming (and we aren't confident we know why), the earth has been through many warm spells. Hell, civilization exists because we're in an interglacial period. This is nothing other than egghead research "scientists" trying to keep the gravy train going and looking for more of our (yours and mine) money to sit on their asses and debate the issue. Better to spend the money trying to figure out ways to live and thrive in a warmer climate. The sooner we realize this, the better off we'll be. Think China and India might stop using coal? Think they'll stop building coal-fire power plants? Think again. We need to get real about this. NOW.

Re:HEADLINE: Scientists fear for their jobs, want (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226137)

So first what's so bad about global warming. The we don't even know why. China and India are producing carbon anyway. Also global warming is good. Also scientist are greedy/lazy. And it's better spend money and ways to live in a warmer climate. What the hell is your position anyway? You seem to give several moving and contradictory points. And what's somehow worse, you were modded insightful.

Aw, geez, not this shit again. (5, Insightful)

L. J. Beauregard (111334) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226159)

This is nothing other than egghead research "scientists" trying to keep the gravy train going and looking for more of our (yours and mine) money to sit on their asses and debate the issue.

Roight, guv. Basic scientific research is so much more profitable than shilling for Big Oil. The National Science Foundation has so much more money and so much less to spend it on than ExxonMobil, the Koch Brothers and Fox Izvestia.

(You forgot to mention AAAAALLLLL GOOOOORRRRRE!)

Re:Aw, geez, not this shit again. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226315)

Gravy! Gravy! Gravy! Follow the dollars, L.J. Modern science is horribly corrupt since gov't got involved. The "climate scientists" don't want to end up like NASA scientists.

Re:Aw, geez, not this shit again. (2, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226667)

This is nothing other than egghead research "scientists" trying to keep the gravy train going and looking for more of our (yours and mine) money to sit on their asses and debate the issue.

Roight, guv. Basic scientific research is so much more profitable than shilling for Big Oil. The National Science Foundation has so much more money and so much less to spend it on than ExxonMobil, the Koch Brothers and Fox Izvestia.

I wonder if the people that make that argument are aware of how little a slice of those "big" NSF grants actually go into the scientists' own pockets. For typical university scientisst, a $10,000,000 grant means that several of them earn 1-3 months of summer salary for 3-5 years, at they same monthly that they get paid during the school year, which is to say between "somewhat" and "a lot" less than the pay rate of scientists in industry.

(You forgot to mention AAAAALLLLL GOOOOORRRRRE!)

And United Nations, New World Order, Liberal Plot to Destroy capitalism, etc.

Re:Aw, geez, not this shit again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226871)

1-3 months salary is better than nosalary... without the fearmongering they would be unemployed

Re:Aw, geez, not this shit again. (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226879)

Americans complaining about the NSF...
In my country you're happy if you can get 200k funding for 3-year project.

Oh Noes! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226769)

Quick! Raise taxes on something! Anything will do, just get more money to the government!

Re:HEADLINE: Scientists fear for their jobs, want (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226181)

People like you discuss me , you must have some investment in oil to be talking non sense like that , or the CO2 is life ads really messed your brain functions.

The earth has survived super volcanos , meteorites , it will still be here after global warming has hit, the problem is that 95% of life form die , now unless your a member of a southern church where the cult tend to think destroying the planet is a good thing because Jesus version will come and save them nutto case you really got no advantage to not be disgusted.

Re:HEADLINE: Scientists fear for their jobs, want (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226385)

Relax. Nobody is talking about you. But, some of the ACs on here and the original poster, just disgust me.

Re:HEADLINE: Scientists fear for their jobs, want (3, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226387)

Discussing you disgusts me.

Re:HEADLINE: Scientists fear for their jobs, want (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226529)

You're a nutcase. Super volcanoes killed by blocking out the sun, preventing heat from the sun getting to us, sending us into an ice age, and wiping out most plant life. Meteorites were big nuclear hits that killed in an instant, and then sent up dust clouds that blocked out the sun, preventing heat from the sun getting to us, sending us into an ice age, and wiping out most plant life.

Global warming is reflecting the light from sun back, allowing more heat to remain trapped, sending us into a heat wave, and allowing most plant life to flourish. People that think that global warming is going to wipe us out don't know the difference between no food sources and abundant food sources.

Re:HEADLINE: Scientists fear for their jobs, want (2)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226197)

Global warming is bad because the result is ultimately less habitable land, for both people and food production.

Re:HEADLINE: Scientists fear for their jobs, want (1, Insightful)

A bsd fool (2667567) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226321)

Nonsense.

I don't get how so many otherwise smart people think we're living on a world that has the absolutely perfect climate, and that any change warmer or cooler results in disaster for mankind. The fact is a warmer climate such as that found during the Cretaceous(~ +4C) is beneficial to life.

On the other hand, just a tiny bit cooler than now and you're back in an ice age, decidedly unfriendly to life.

For the record, we are *currently* in an interglacial period of the ice age that started 2.6M years ago. When/as we exit the current ice age, it's going to warm up, period.

Re:HEADLINE: Scientists fear for their jobs, want (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226375)

Yeah, it does support life, but keep in mind, that 3km underwater also supports life; just not *human* life.

Re:HEADLINE: Scientists fear for their jobs, want (3, Informative)

A bsd fool (2667567) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226443)

I will "keep that in mind" as I point out that during the Paleogene, when the average global temperature was the same or higher as during the Cretaceous, mammals flourished and came to dominate. The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum was indeed very good for mammals. Were it not for that time period, Plesiadapis would probably not have come to be so successful, and humans today would not exist as a result.

Re:HEADLINE: Scientists fear for their jobs, want (5, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226897)

If you are just concerned about 'life' flourishing, then it doesn't really matter what the climate is or will be. Life will find a way. If, however, you are concerned about keeping the majority of human beings, and especially 'first world' human beings safe and snug in their high tech cocoons, then you should be very concerned about any abrupt change in any one of a number of critical environmental variables - climate, water, air, fossil fuels, food.

If you haven't noticed, our current civilization doesn't like abrupt change. One little hurricane causes significant damage. A multi year drought causes food prices to rise which causes food riots. A modest rise in fuel costs slows the economy down to much rending of garments and gnashing of teeth.

And those are tiny little disruptions in the grand scheme of things. Now, dramatically change how and where crops are grown, change how and where water falls and rivers rise and fall. Change major weather patterns. Displace a billion people, And add that to the stresses the system is under.

No, it's not the end of the world, however it may be the end of the world as we know it. The US can't even effectively deal with two large cities (New York, New Orleans) getting inundated in the space of a decade. Now, imagine doubling or tripling the problem. Doesn't look pretty. So yes, the planet has survived larger climate shifts. You, on the other hand, might not be so lucky.

Re:HEADLINE: Scientists fear for their jobs, want (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226405)

"For the record, we are *currently* in an interglacial period of the ice age that started 2.6M years ago. When/as we exit the current ice age, it's going to warm up, period."

Vast majority of climate scientists or anonymous untrained slashdot poster? Vast majority of climate scientists or anonymous untrained slashdot poster? HELP, I DON'T KNOW WHO TO BELIEVE!

Re:HEADLINE: Scientists fear for their jobs, want (1)

A bsd fool (2667567) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226597)

You can believe every single climate scientist. All of them say the same thing : we are currently in an ice age. There is no debate on this topic, certainly not as much as there is on the topic of AGW or on the subject of AGW being "good" or "bad" in the long run.

Re:HEADLINE: Scientists fear for their jobs, want (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226429)

Relevant username, you are acting like a fool. The issue with global warming is due to the melting of polar ice, and the rise of sea levels. The majority of the population of the world is situated in coastal areas; areas that will be underwater if polar ice melts.

None of this is about temperature reducing or increasing viability for life - it is about widespread destruction (and death) if our sea boards are inundated with water.

Re:HEADLINE: Scientists fear for their jobs, want (5, Insightful)

A bsd fool (2667567) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226639)

I recognize that global climate is going to warm up no matter *what* we do, and suggest that we should prepare for it (while debunking the claim that it's bad for "life" or farmland), and that makes me a fool? Sorry, but no. The fools are the ones that think anything we do can *stop* the coastlines from being put underwater. It's going to happen, and it does not matter if mankind causes it or not. We should be spending our limited time and resources preparing for something that is inevitable rather than trying to prevent something that is inevitable.

Re:HEADLINE: Scientists fear for their jobs, want (4, Insightful)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226219)

If they wanted money, they would be medical researchers. Environmental science doesn't pay well and doesn't generally involve very large grants.

Re:HEADLINE: Scientists fear for their jobs, want (5, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226469)

Amen. But these kinds of people assume everyone else must be as equally self-serving as themselves, so they can't accept that someone might be motivated by something other than money.

Re:HEADLINE: Scientists fear for their jobs, want (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226535)

They're like the gollum, they stopped being people long ago. It's "my precious" all the time.

Global warming is their lava pool...

Re:HEADLINE: Scientists fear for their jobs, want (0)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226867)

An interesting question: what if Global Warming, as a scientific phenomenon, required the entire world to adopt right-wing solutions to problems? How would the science be different, then?

Just kind of funny that because Global Warming requires us to adopt many far-left solutions, many long left in the wings due to lack of any sort of evidence that they actually work in the real world, that suddenly human nature changes and becomes incorruptible when faced with any other option.

Mod parent up (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226253)

I completely disagree with OP, but he's on topic and posting a lot of arguments we hear from the right. Let's give him airtime on /. and get his arguments out in the open.

Anonymous postings (1)

catchblue22 (1004569) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226573)

Why don't we just admit it. Because we can't actually meet the people who post here, because we know almost nothing about their REAL background or history, we have no real way of knowing whether the poster is (a) a paid shill who makes his living posting well crafted propaganda, (b) a gullible idiot who reads and believes said propaganda or (c) a well meaning citizen who actually cares about scientific truth.

At least when I actually know someone, then they are accountable for what they say. If they say something idiotic, it will have consequences, both in personal and in professional relationships.

Re:HEADLINE: Scientists fear for their jobs, want (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226317)

The way you're talking you seem to have a spare Earth, can I come too?

Talking points (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226363)

I don't see what's so bad about global warming, especially looking out my window right now and seeing snow on the roofs of the outbuildings.

And when we have record breaking Summer temperatures that "disproves" what you say?

Even assuming the earth is warming (and we aren't confident we know why), the earth has been through many warm spells.

Yes. And? Were they as dramatic as they are now? And what was the result? Extinctions for one.

Better to spend the money trying to figure out ways to live and thrive in a warmer climate.

Yep. Fuel prices will go through the roof. Cities will flood. Crop yields will plummet, Poor people will starve - not a problem for some: they're poor for a "reason" after all and deserve it!

The sooner we realize this, the better off we'll be.

We already realize it but nobody is willing to do anything or they bury their heads in the sand. Nothing will be done until it's too late, I'm afraid.

Think China and India might stop using coal? Think they'll stop building coal-fire power plants?

Actually yes, they will. You see, the Chinese leadership made up of scientists and engineers (and I think one "lowly" economist) and they see the writing on the wall. And as it is now, they are concerned about pollution and air quality.

We need to get real about this. NOW.

Yes we do. Folks need to stop listening to the pundits who have no science background let alone one in climatology and who offer no counter evidence or data and only offer ad homminem attacks on the climatologists. If one has a real criticism about human caused climate change or global warming, I wish they'd offer evidence with data to counter the claims.

Re:HEADLINE: Scientists fear for their jobs, want (0)

nomadic (141991) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226457)

"I don't see what's so bad about global warming"

Because you've acquired a very poor and shoddy education.

"the earth has been through many warm spells."

Irrelevant. Modern humanity has not.

"This is nothing other than egghead research "scientists" trying to keep the gravy train going and looking for more of our (yours and mine) money to sit on their asses and debate the issue."

Based on your lack of education I think we can safely assume your productivity and thus income is significantly small that you receive more in government money than you pay in taxes.

Re:HEADLINE: Scientists fear for their jobs, want (1)

no-body (127863) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226579)

I don't see what's so bad about global warming ...

Right - absolutely nothing wrong - look at Mars - still exists, total desert. Who cares in an universal scale. On a more local scale, not the first civilization messing up - Easter Islands, Maya, Ancestral Puebloans and what else there is. Only difference here is that it's much more massive as well as the amount of idiocy of some people. Even Gorillas know not to totally raid leaf trees for food so they can regrow.

Ancestral Puebloans (miss-named Anasazi) vanished = moved elsewhere during little ice age - same (climate fluctuations) goes for South American and other civilizations, often accelerated by non-sustainable practices and wars.

If one could drop the idea that all the coal and oil underground was not created by a neural pattern of a god concept in one's head but got underground in millions of years and is now burnt in a couple of centuries that this "could" have some impact on climate, it could be another step in evolution. Pretty hopeless when looking from further away - moon perhaps.

Re:HEADLINE: Scientists fear for their jobs, want (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226623)

We need to get real about this. NOW.

At least you got one thing right.

Re:HEADLINE: Scientists fear for their jobs, want (3, Interesting)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226737)

I don't see what's so bad about global warming, especially looking out my window right now and seeing snow on the roofs of the outbuildings.

The eastern USA and NW Europe may be in for another snow-intensive winter because of global warming. If you'd like to take a break from your knee-jerk denialism and actually learn something interesting, pick up a copy of the current Scientific American and read about the mechanism.

Let's just get this out of the way now... (5, Insightful)

Maow (620678) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226075)

Sitting at my personal computer, with another in my pocket, both connected to a world-wide network that allows formerly unimaginable near instantaneous communication, let me say that, "Scientists don't know nuthin' - they're just shills in it for the big bucks and I don't believe a word that they say!!!11!"

/end sad, perplexed, and thoroughly disgusted mode

it's a media game (3, Interesting)

teslabox (2790587) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226191)

the methane in the oceans is much more of a threat. but we could harvest that and burn it off, which would solve two birds with one stone. It is much better to fear-monger over things we can't do anything about.

Re:it's a media game (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226341)

Erh... hate to break it to you, but the fact that we're burning carbon hydrates is part of the problem in the first place, so I guess your cure is about as good as the disease.

Re:it's a media game (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226355)

Well, *if* we could harness it (it's pretty spread out and working on the ocean bottom isn't exactly easy) burning it off *might* be an improvement over letting it escape, if only because CO2 is a weaker greenhouse gas than methane. On the other hand it might actually make things much worse in the long term since methane has a very short lifetime in the atmosphere, while CO2 remains there for several decades, probably far longer now that the uptake cycles have been saturated.

You fail at chemistry (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226461)

What the fuck do you think the methane will break down into?

Re:it's a media game (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226477)

Methane has a short lifetime because it turns INTO carbon dioxide. Burning it makes that happen a lot faster.

It's preferable to leave the methane in the clathrate or underground, but if it is coming out and you can't stop it, then it's better to oxidize it right away.

Fuzz you (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226383)

Regular, logical and honest scientists know lots of useful stuff. So called "climate scientists" only know how to drum up hysteria and add more false information for the left wing liberal hoax that is global warming in order to line their own pockets with lot more government tax dollars. There's a reason why big government types and global warming types are usually one and the same.

Fixed that for you. Dumbass.

Re:Let's just get this out of the way now... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226413)

Sitting at my personal computer, with another in my pocket, both connected to a world-wide network that allows formerly unimaginable near instantaneous communication, let me say that, "Scientists don't know nuthin' - they're just shills in it for the big bucks and I don't believe a word that they say!!!11!"

/end sad, perplexed, and thoroughly disgusted mode

Or, you know...we could believe the scientists and still not care.

From the article: " Over 50 years, she concludes, thawed permafrost could release 20% of its available carbon, a figure she called "a conservative estimate." That could amount to a carbon pulse larger than 2 years' worth of global humanmade emissions."

Ok...so over 50 years, the melting of that permafrost is going to add what we add now over 2 years. And that's a ticking bomb. I'm quaking in my boots.

Re:Let's just get this out of the way now... (1)

jbmartin6 (1232050) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226479)

Engineers did all that stuff not scientists. (that's humor)

Re:Let's just get this out of the way now... (1)

CanadianRealist (1258974) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226917)

Am I just not picking up on the sarcasm? (It's not in your mode specification.) Maybe I'm trying to over explain the joke.

connected to a world-wide network that allows formerly unimaginable near instantaneous communication

Unfortunately it allows both good and bad communication. There's plenty of information out there, and there's also plenty of garbage and misinformation out there. And sometimes it can be hard to know which is which.

I remember some popular web site running this story about NASA finding what looked like plastic beads on Mars. And I would not be at all surprised to hear that somewhere on the internet there would have been something saying they couldn't be of natural origin and drawing any number of crazy conclusions from that idea and people believing that's the truth.

The internet is a tool which can allow you access to information from and maybe communication with some of the smartest people on the planet. Unfortunately it also allows you to connect with some of the dumbest people on the planet,

one solution, always the same solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226077)

Adopt, adapt, improve.

Ha ha, captcha word, "flexible"

Oooh! The boogie man gonna getcha ! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226097)

That big scary carbon boogie man ! Oooh. I'm shaking in my boots !

IDGAF.

I'm ready... (5, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226121)

There's just no chance that the people with money who pay the people with guns will be able to see beyond their lust for more power and more money. This means things will go to hell with large amounts of certainty.

If there were profit in saving the world [from those who put us there] then they would be interested in saving the world. They have no interest in that. They might entertain the notion if they were guaranteed to come out on top and in control once the crisis was averted, of course, because this is all about giving up power and control.

I am an army of one. I cannot make a difference. But if I saw an army of many marching down the street, I would be inclined to join.

And beyond this, the denial is STILL out there being preached. First they said "it's not real!" Then they said "it's not our fault! It's nature!" Yet in any of this none are willing to make changes or do anything about it. But I don't blame the businesses entirely. It reminds me of the economy of slavery.

There was a town near New Orleans which abolished slavery before Lincoln did. The surrounding areas, of course, did not. Before long, local business could not compete with outside business. This town was forced into allowing slavery once again. Lincoln was successful because it was a unilateral decision. Individuals cannot make an effective change. Small groups cannot make an effective change. It takes unilateral change in order to work.

So even if the whole US stopped CO2 and other emissions today, it wouldn't matter because China and others are simply not going to change.

So you see, the kind of change we require is simply impossible without world war. And that kind of war is simply not going to happen.

And so I say, I'm ready for things to go to hell. I can't imagine a way out that is likely.

Re:I'm ready... (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226359)

See, the country I'm in is well above the sea level, so I guess I should just sit back, relax and enjoy the show.

Problem is that the rats tend to crawl upwards when the ship is sinking.

Re:I'm ready... (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226693)

See, the country I'm in is well above the sea level, so I guess I should just sit back, relax and enjoy the show.

Problem is that the rats tend to crawl upwards when the ship is sinking.

Also, shifts in the weather zones is going to cause a lot of the agricultural Haves to become Have-Nots, and vice versa.

I suggest that you do your sitting back in a bomb shelter.

Re:I'm ready... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226771)

"See, the country I'm in is well above the sea level, so I guess I should just sit back, relax and enjoy the show."

They thought that in New York and New Jersey too, a puny storm made a bit of 80 billion damage and it's only the first one in a long line of storms to come.

When they will finally move to Buttfuck, Mountainstate, all of the South-Americans will be waiting for them there.

Re:I'm ready... (3, Insightful)

Khashishi (775369) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226423)

The people in US who don't deny the existence of climate change will keep on blaming China and India as a scapegoat. Meanwhile, it's US, Canada, New Zealand, Russia, and a few other countries which are holding up any kind of international progress from taking place.
China leads the world in renewable energy investment.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jackperkowski/2012/07/27/china-leads-the-world-in-renewable-energy-investment/ [forbes.com]
I think it's time to get your head out of the sand and admit that you are part of the problem.

Re:I'm ready... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226485)

The US and Germany are the ONLY countries reducing carbon emissions year over year.

Not sure what your point is. The ones you are complaining about are the only ones appearing to do anything while the ones you give a free pass to increase carbon emissions by 10% year over year. Its statements like yours that prove it is a hoax and reality or truth have no bearing in what you say. Lets add that the "scientists" are deathly afraid of peer review and tend to delete data before publicly releasing it and suddenly I'm the one who looks at things honestly and you are the one who appears bat shit crazy.

Re:I'm ready... (2)

xehonk (930376) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226643)

Citation please? As far as I know there's no reason to believe that the US reduces its carbon emissions at all. The only reduction seems to be from the economic problems in 2008 - which should hardly count as successful energy policy.

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/12/07/the-myth-of-u-s-carbon-dioxide-emissions-reductions/picture-41/ [cleantechnica.com]

Yes, China and others are increasing their emissions a lot faster, but their excuse for not joining any climate treaties right now is that the US doesn't reduce its emissions either.

Re:I'm ready... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226593)

China and India also happen to lead the world in CO2 emissions [moneycontrol.com] , so they will continue being a scapegoat for as long as they continue to make the problem worse. Right now, at this time, there is only one country in the world [slashdot.org] that gets to claim they're not part of the problem, wherever you are, suck it up and admit that you too need to get your head out of your ass and out of the sand and admit you're part of the problem.

Re:I'm ready... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42227003)

Energy production, is a small part of the problem. Besides, it's only investments. If you really wanted to point to countries with a better handle on renewable energy, then look at some European countries, where protecting the environment doesn't involve just throwing lots of money at a problem, but actually doing things.

What you should have said, is, China and India ARE the biggest poluters on the planet, but they only hold the top places in a very long list.

Oh, and another thing. China is a dictatorship, meaning the top few are the really important ones in the country, so things won't change for a long time. India, has a very high poverty, and that pretty much says the same about their leadership as well.

Re:I'm ready... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226539)

So even if the whole US stopped CO2 and other emissions today, it wouldn't matter because China and others are simply not going to change.

Right. So when oil hits $200/bbl, we'll just go bitching how China and India and the rest are using all "our" oil. Must easier than actually planning being energy independent and all that jazz. Over the cliff the clowncar goes!

The War Will Happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226567)

That kind of war will happen. We just have to start running out of resources first.

The depletion of resources from careless consumption and the changing climate will pit us against each other, and eventually will consume us in global war. Then as resources to conduct distant combat disappear; regional war, national war, city war, and finally neighbor war. The last war will be fought with sticks and stones over decaying rat carcasses.

Re:The War Will Happen (1)

erroneus (253617) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226691)

The resource we will run out of is useful land. Climate change is weather change. Weather change directly affects the land which affects the food supply.

The fun part is that we get a lof of our food from places like Mexico. Farming in the US has become too screwed up.

The costs of resources is a problem in that perhaps the price of non-renewables is too low. I smell a little strategy in that. The price of natural gas, a fossil fuel and non-renewable and emitting greenhouse exhaust is lower than getting a nuclear plant going which doesn't put ANYTHING into the air.

Until other power sources become available, we should be going full bore nuclear. We're not. People freak out at the demand of the media which, incidentally, is controlled by who again?

So... I'm ready...

Re:I'm ready... (1, Troll)

DarkOx (621550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226569)

My problem with the entire AGW issue is that people don't seem to look at it from the economic perspective. The costs of cutting emissions enough to make even a little difference is huge, and not enough to save us. Even without the thawing methane issue many of the models say we are on course for a 4+ degree rise, and doing enough to slow that by 2 degrees could consume almost our entire GDP! Meanwhile the models also indicate the geo-polictical situation as we know it won't tolerate more than 2 degrees. Finally add in feedback issues like this one and the evidence we might have already crossed the tipping point where even if we became carbon neutral today we are still doomed!

So it seems to me curbing emissions is a waste of resources that should be either going into savings (private and public) so we can afford to implement an actual solution when one becomes apparent or to R&D of said solution.

Maybe that is carbon scrubber large enough and cheap enough to lower the carbon content in the atmosphere. Once we have something like that we would know the unit cost of removing carbon, and could target emissions goals based on cut emissions until the costs of reduction per unit exceeds operating the scrubber.

Perhaps its some other geo-engineering solution; there are benefits to higher atmospheric carbon for agriculture, perhaps if we can control temperatures another way the CO2 might not even be such a problem (yes I am aware there are acidity issues with the ocean etc that complicate things as well).

As it stands right now the situation looks like this to me:

Guy goes to the doctor

Doctor: Well your heart is failing and you have two years to live
Guy: Is there anything we can do?
Doctor: I could amputate your legs, it will lower you body mass and make things easier for your heart.
Guy: That sounds awful; but it will save me right?
Doctor (chuckles): Oh my no, your heart is already way to damaged, it will be incredibly painful come with its own complications and probably only extend your life a couple weeks. Shall I get my hack saw?
Guy: ....

Re:I'm ready... (3, Informative)

erroneus (253617) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226745)

The global warming discussion started a VERY long time ago. Concern over emissions and pollution have been an issue for as long as I can remember... so just over 40 years. Things could have been done... should have been done. Not much has actually been done.

What stupid things have been done? Like "taxing" polution. Seriously. And the rate of taxation was lower than the cost of fixing the problem so guess which way business went? And what was done with the money? It went back into the "enconomy" and by that I mean the major players who are also major polluters.

Taxing was a stupid idea. Making them ineligible for government contracts would have been the way to go.

Re:I'm ready... (1)

LandDolphin (1202876) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226973)

Side note (Because of your sig)

Why would you want to repeal the 17th Amendment? I don't see the benefit to the American Government by becoming LESS democratic.

Re:I'm ready... (2)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about a year and a half ago | (#42227007)

My problem with the entire AGW issue is that people don't seem to look at it from the economic perspective. The costs of cutting emissions enough to make even a little difference is huge, and not enough to save us.
That is your perception. But it is not true. On the other hand: the perception is always the truth in the eye of the perceptee ... so dream on.

Re:I'm ready... (0)

blindseer (891256) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226901)

The problem I have with the global warming scaremongers is the so called "solutions" most of them propose to fix it. Almost every solution proposed involves more government, more taxes, and less freedom. These people are "watermelons", they claim to be all green environmentalists on the outside but on the inside they are red communists. They don't care about saving the world as much as they are in transferring money from my pocket to theirs by government mandate.

People talk about the harm that "big oil" causes to the environment. Those evil evil people want to sell the dirty yucky oil just because they are greedy. I say we should be thankful these people are willing to provide such a necessary service, one that is often dangerous to their own life, limb, and livelihood, and such an affordable price. Oil prices have gone up considerably over the years but we continue to use it because it is much safer, cheaper, and more convenient than the alternatives.

On the other hand we have "big wind", an industry that relies on government mandates to remain profitable. Very few people would buy windmills if it wasn't for the large tax incentives to do so. These people are willing to play along with the lie that windmills will save us from evil oil so long as it allows them to profit from it. Windmills alone do not save on carbon emissions since the wind is unreliable. It takes hours to adjust the output of a large boiler, like those used in coal, nuclear, or combined cycle power plants. When the wind blows the boilers still consume fuel because they need to be kept hot or the power goes out when the wind stops. Wind generated electricity also costs twice as much as traditional power sources.

Solar power has similar problems to wind except the subsidies are higher, meaning more taxes are dumped down that black hole per watt-hour produced. The unreliability of wind and solar can be addressed by using turbines to fill in the times that the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine but those cost just as much to operate as the windmills do. For every watt of generating power on the name plate of a solar power station or windmill we have to add a similar sized turbine to provide backup, or we have to idle the more efficient boilers. Either way we gain nothing from these alternative power sources in net power produced or in CO2 produced. Some calculations show we actually go backwards, more CO2 produced for less energy output. Our electricity costs also go up.

These people are not trying to save the world, they are taking advantage of a crisis to enrich themselves. If these people really wanted to save the world they'd be working on solutions that people would be willing to buy out of their own free will, not because of a government mandate. These people would be interested in driving the oil companies out of business in a free market, not using the armed thugs of the government to make people buy their products.

The United Nations is the worst violator here. They release these "scientific" reports to show that unless we transfer vast amounts of money from the wealthy countries to the poor countries that we are all going to die. Closer to the truth is that the dictators of poor countries of the world are jealous of the wealth of the freer parts of the world and they are willing to lie, cheat, and steal, to get some of it. Go listen to some of the speeches given at these UN "climate change" events, they talk little about building nuclear power plants (the only electric power source proven to be both cheaper and lower carbon output than any fossil fuel) but a lot about taxation. These taxes then go to "big wind" and "big solar" to make electricity that is unreliable, expensive, and not very "green" or to dictators in impoverished nations so that they can continue to kill and enslave their subjects.

I'll go now to your comment on a way out. You see this vicious cycle ending only in war. I see another way. It can end in freedom. If we demand the freedom to choose what we eat, what we drive, and how much water our toilet can use per flush then the issues of carbon output and global warming will fix themselves. (I'm not saying I believe in man made global warming just that for the sake of argument I'll assume it is true.) I say this because using less resources is more profitable than using more. Instead of fighting the greed of "big oil" and "big wind" we need to allow them the freedom to compete in an open market for my money. Doing otherwise means the continued government mandates that transfer money from your pockets to governments and corporations.

We can save the planet ourselves. We don't need the government to do it for us. We need the government to stop picking losers on our behalf so we have the resources to pick the winners on our own.

Re:I'm ready... (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226977)

So even if the whole US stopped CO2 and other emissions today, it wouldn't matter because China and others are simply not going to change.
It would matte. As 1/3rd of the CO2 emissions would be gone.
Also you are wrong in the assumption that others are simply not going to change.

Right now only the USA are not changing, all over the world countries try to limit or reduce their CO2 output.

After a cursory read of article (sucker) (4, Interesting)

blind biker (1066130) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226125)

I'm recovering with a flu so I might have missed something when reading TFA, but this CO2 release seems to be in addition to the expected massive release of methane from frozen Siberian permafrost.

If so, we're fucked^2 I see no way we can avoid the positive feedback loops of AGW. Sandy will be a pleasant memory from the past, to the citizens of NYC.

Re:After a cursory read of article (sucker) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226235)

The thing being, if we Human all co-operated it is a really small and simple issue to fix. We know how to make co2 scrubbers, and we could make literally millions of them in months if we so chose. We don't so choose and probably never will, large corporations can only dream of the day they get to sell us masks and other devices to keep us alive. I think large corporation actually have a vested interest in bringing the earth to it's knees.

greed, lust, narcissism and whatever else rules over all....sigh

Re:After a cursory read of article (sucker) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226411)

Our current warm spell is the coldest warm spell so far during our current interglacial (the Holocene).

Why should this warm spell cause doom when none of the other, warmer, warm spells did?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene [wikipedia.org]

Re:After a cursory read of article (sucker) (1)

rknop (240417) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226417)

That's more or less it.

I don't think we've yet found enough carbon for the positive feedback loop to take Earth all the way to being like Venus, however.... On the other hand, there's lots of room to be screwed long before you get to Venus status.

oh god not co2 a trace gas (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226143)

vital for life.

co2 people should do the world a favour and just kill themselves.

We gotta do somthing now (1)

Sla$hPot (1189603) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226149)

Oh lets develop cars that runs on CO2 and emits oxygine
and perhaps invent some new financial instruments so that we can not only trade CO2 quotes but speculate in them too,
uhm like we already do now, but in a more sophisticated way.
Who wants to trade some CO2 futures with some offshore methane leaking options?

"Scientists are expressing fresh concerns about the carbon locked in the Arctic's vast expanse of frozen soil."
Fresh concerns.. WTF!!!

"thawed soil is bolstering worries that continued carbon emissions could unleash a massive Arctic carbon wallop."
Lets bet on it. Put your money where your mouth is. That will be short bet, i bet.

None of these hypothesis are new. Just a way to attract more funding..Scare scare scare.

Re:We gotta do somthing now (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226227)

Oh lets develop cars that runs on CO2 and emits oxygine
and perhaps invent some new financial instruments so that we can not only trade CO2 quotes but speculate in them too,
uhm like we already do now, but in a more sophisticated way.
Who wants to trade some CO2 futures with some offshore methane leaking options?

"Scientists are expressing fresh concerns about the carbon locked in the Arctic's vast expanse of frozen soil."
Fresh concerns.. WTF!!!

"thawed soil is bolstering worries that continued carbon emissions could unleash a massive Arctic carbon wallop."
Lets bet on it. Put your money where your mouth is. That will be short bet, i bet.

None of these hypothesis are new. Just a way to attract more funding..Scare scare scare.

Slashdot (or TrashSnot) is so fucked up!!! There was nothing in this comment that was inflammatory or inappropriate. It simply represents an alternate opinion from the group think at TrashSnot... So, the small minded sensors are in full force on this web site!!! I guess it is wonderful for them to live in the dark ages instead of considering alternative points of view.

Come on TrashSnot... Mod this down too...

By the way, I find TrashSnot more informative by loading all comments then sliding the bar so no messages are hidden and then doing a search for :-1 Then I can get both sides of an argument instead of the technically incompetent programming that permeates this site!

Re:We gotta do somthing now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226433)

Not all opinions are equally valid. Nothing specific was even mentioned in the above comment. Just mindless attacks on science. It is justly modded down for lacking anything of value.

Re:We gotta do somthing now (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226399)

Well, I would but ... what good is money if there's nothing left to buy? I mean, real estate sure ain't what it used to be once it's submerged in water.

Re:We gotta do somthing now (1)

Sabriel (134364) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226681)

Um, bet on it? That's sort of a reverse Pascal's Wager, isn't it? I mean, look at the decision/outcome matrix:

AGW Severity: Nonexistant, Minor, Major, Runaway.
Action Taken: Too Much, Enough, Not Enough, Don't Bother.
Outcomes: Nicer Planet, Same Old Planet, Worse Planet, Nightmare Planet, Humanity Extinct.

Write up the table. Which option gives us the best odds of a positive outcome?

Re:We gotta do somthing now (1)

Sla$hPot (1189603) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226773)

Let me see..My guess is:

AGW Severity: Runaway + Action Taken: Don't Bother = Outcomes: Same Old Planet ~ Nightmare Planet
Humans will party all over no matter what happens, as always :)

A tech solution in three words (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226177)

"Genetically engineered predators"

Re:A tech solution in three words (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226407)

We got an economy solution way before you had your idea for that tech solution. We called them "corporations".

Re:A tech solution in three words (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226635)

I hate niggers too.

If we could convert metric tons into dollars (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226215)

The United States would still be in debt about $15 trillion.

time to invest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226245)

.... in more air conditioning stocks~!!!

Ticking Arctic Carbon Bomb (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226273)

Oooooohhhhhhhhhhhh Ticking Arctic Carbon Bomb, doo dah, doo dah...

Global warming is politics, not science. (-1, Troll)

hessian (467078) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226281)

Problem: the number of humans grows constantly on a world of finite space.

Conclusion: eventually, resources will run out, and we will commit ecocide as we try to use technology to provide enough food, water, medicine, air, etc. for our population.

However, people don't want to hear about this. It requires too much thinking.

Solution: invent a symbol for it all called "global warming."

The problem with this is that it's the same strategy anti-drug workshops use. "You better not smoke pot, or you'll end up a homeless bum with a criminal record!"

First time they smoke and that does not happen, they'll assume it's safe.

Global warming proponents have been howling about imminent apocalypse for years, and so have desensitized their audience. This is because their main point is a political symbol, not a reasoned scientific view.

Re:Global warming is politics, not science. (5, Informative)

rknop (240417) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226401)

You confuse "global warming proponents" (by which I assume you mean lobbyist and such who are trying to convince the world that global warming is real) with "climate researchers".

The latter have reached an overwhelming consensus that anthrogenic global warming is real, and to deny that that is a "reasoned scienctific view" is right up there with denying evolution or the germ theory of disease, saying they're all just political movements.

It is true that there are some in the political area who have cried wolf or who have oversold things. But to deny the utter and overwhelming reality of the results of vast quantities of climate scientists (including some who came in skeptical when they started, but realized that, hey, the data say what the data say) is simply wrong.

Re:Global warming is politics, not science. (-1, Flamebait)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226489)

The solution for the "too many human" problem is far simpler: More guns. Hand a lot of people who don't like each other more weapons and the "too many humans" problem solves itself fairly quickly.

So, frankly, I don't get why we're so against Ahmedingbats getting his nuke. But I digress.

What I don't get is that "we want proof" cry every time someone points to the development of global climate and gives us a quite likely estimate. Yes, it's just an estimate. It could be real, or it could be wrong, but, well, IF it is real, we're FUCKED. There's no shrugging your shoulders, saying "well, who would've thought" and going on with your life. WE'RE FUCKED. Game over, Earth done. It's like some chain smoker going "Oh, if those anti-tobacco loonies are right and I get cancer I can still stop smoking". No, idiot, then you are fucked already and it's too friggin' late. The only thing left for you to do is to pick the wood for your coffin!

But we go apeshit every time some middle east looney sneezes. A terrorist might attack and it could kill HUNDREDS of us, so let's inconvenience and bother the population to the point where they WISH the Earth would come to an end.

Humanity is stupid. Maybe it's for the better of the planet we keep ignoring global warming. It's for the greater good.

What about carbonated beverages? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226455)

Honestly. I am _ALWAYS_ buried into oblivion when this topic comes up without receiving a single honest response. I worked at a small soda bottler for a while and we had multiple semi tankers FULL of carbon dioxide delivered every week. If carbon dioxide is so damaging what about all of it that we're pumping into sodas? "Save the Planet but don't touch my cola"?

Re:What about carbonated beverages? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226637)

We're not meant to burp it up. Clear now?

Re:What about carbonated beverages? (4, Informative)

jfengel (409917) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226883)

Those tankers contain, what, a half-dozen tons of CO2? Probably less than that; the truck can only carry a few dozen tons and the containers themselves far outweigh the mass of the CO2.

The worldwide CO2 output is on the order of 30 BILLION tons of CO2. All the soda bottlers in the entire world don't add up to a rounding error.

There, you have an answer. Which you could probably have figured out all by yourself, but I'm sure you enjoy the fact that anonymity means you can ask this all over in the next CO2 thread and pretending nobody ever gives you an answer.

We're fucked, the earth isn't (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226515)

We'll do a fine job of wiping ourselves off the globe. That's nature's way of restoring balance. Once we're gone, earth will again find equilibrium, and it doesn't care how long it takes. The dinosaurs were around for far longer than the human race has been, and I seriously doubt we'll be missed by whatever comes in another few million years. I take some comfort in that.

Liberating the carbon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226577)

Listen guys, why thaw away all that ice? Just to look at dirt? It's the same ol dirt you have in your back yard. Seen one, seen em all. Sure add your dog's doo-doo in there, and you won't be able to spot the difference. Why stir up some ancient (probably alien, even) burial grounds of some woolly mammoths? You've seen what happens. Cept Liam Neeson won't be there to save you. And Bruce Willis is booked solid thru 2013.

Honestly, wait for winter. Then you'd have it all, right there in your own backyard! No need for costly airfare. It's a no-brainer.

I'm not worried about CO2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226615)

The real game changer would be all the methane that gets generated when all that organic starts to decompose

Inherently unstable system prone to extremes (3, Interesting)

Mal-2 (675116) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226629)

One thing that's readily apparent and not disputed is that our planet's temperature takes wild swings [wikipedia.org] . It's seldom stable, which it seems to have been for several thousand years now. Perhaps our resolution isn't good enough or there's too much noise in the historical data, but it would seem that we live in exceptional times. For the whole system to be able to oscillate that widely, and on relatively short timescales, it MUST be sensitive to positive feedback loops. Runaway processes are apparently the rule rather than the exception.

This is not to say anything one way or the other about the forcing mechanism. I do believe humans have had an awful lot to do with it this time around. What we didn't realize is that it's like Sisyphus rolling the stone uphill. Either he's rolling it slowly and steadily upward, or it's inexorably moving downhill when he loses control. It may start slowly at first, but once it gets going it's nearly impossible to stop.

I don't think we as a species are totally fucked, but I do think a whole lot of people are going to die before this all settles out.

Re:Inherently unstable system prone to extremes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226881)

I completely agree with this post. It's not the planet that is in trouble, it's the people living on it. More specifically coastal regions away from the equator, ergo the most densely populated first world regions. I'm sure humanity will easily survive everything that comes at us, but people will die.

There are also plenty of short term solutions to extreme CO2 distribution, but these mostly chemical solutions will most likely increase the problem.

The worst thing you can do is panic and do something stupid. Start changing using smart solutions, such as moving to Thorium-powered nuclear energy. Safe (shuts down the reaction without outside input, unlike Uranium), cheap (once you have one central up), and there's enough of the stuff to last us hundreds of years. Or green energy if we can get batteries that can store the energy more efficiently (the largest problem with solar power at the moment).

Re:Inherently unstable system prone to extremes (1)

Botia (855350) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226887)

I'm just glad we're out of that ice age we had in the 80's and 90's.

Re:Inherently unstable system prone to extremes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226941)

The thing to keep in mind is that that chart is measured in logarithmic scale. The further into the past you stretch, each stretch represents an exponentially longer period of time. Nobody's denying that the climate varies over time. But you need to notice that the "anomalous stability" of the last ten thousand years is placed right next to the total temperature variations over the last 500 thousand years. What is important is to put the current warming into perspective. What we're looking at is something similar to that spike at around 100,000 years ago -- but whereas that spike occurred over a span of about 5-10,000 years and declined over a period of about 5-10,000 years, what we're looking at it something as dramatic, if not moreso, over a span of about 200 years. If all of this were placed onto the same time scale, what we're looking at might not historically be an unprecedented peak, but it's the slope of the curve that's really worrying -- whereas human societies and ecosystems in the past have had thousands of years to adjust to change on a gradual basis, the changes we are laying the groundwork for are going to unfold in a matter of a couple hundred years. That's a problem.

I have no carbon footprint; I drive everywhere... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226651)

I'll start acting like there's a global climate crisis when the elite types start acting like there's a crisis. They're banning banning light bulbs and putting together a tax on energy collected by wall street (carbon credits), yet at the same time they're also flying around in private jets to get to their conferences and summits, spewing more CO2 into the air in one flight than the average american joe emits in a year...

If these concerned environmentalists are to be our leaders out of this "crisis", they must LEAD THE WAY in making sacrifices and exercising restraint, setting an example. If they don't personally believe in self-restraint, why the hell should we? The same rules should apply to all of us.

I'd rather risk living with some shitty climate change than further harden social class barriers (every solution to climate change I've heard of involves massive costs to the middle and lower classes).

There's a debate on climate change here with some pretty good arguments from both sides, for those interested. Video and a text transcript are available: http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/559-global-warming-is-not-a-crisis [intelligen...aredus.org]

worse: methane in the permafrost, methane caltrate (5, Insightful)

SuperBanana (662181) | about a year and a half ago | (#42226687)

Even worse still, there's a lot of methane trapped in permafrost, which is starting to thaw and release it. Methane's something like 20 times worse than carbon dioxide for global warming effects.

Katey Walter has been doing demonstrations for 5+ years to try and get it to sink in with people:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa3M4ou3kvw [youtube.com]

Then there are the gigatons of frozen methane caltrate which are destabilizing: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/24/14670511-climate-changing-methane-rapidly-destabilizing-off-east-coast-study-finds?lite [nbcnews.com]

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that we've long since fucked ourselves over - and the explosion of industrialization in China and India is just sealing the deal. Even if you ignore China and India, we appear to have built up so much momentum that even if we drastically curtailed our carbon and methane outputs (like from the cattle industry) instantly, we're still screwed.

Time to start planning for the worst.

Any chance this will go off on 12/21? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226803)

Go go mayans

Carbon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226845)

Funny how politicians have got us carbon based lifeforms thinking that carbon is bad. I for one support our new corporate and governmental overlords.

All this climate change nonsense.. BAH! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226943)

I wanna know how we're gonna stop continental drift!

THIS IS SERIOUS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42226965)

http://youtu.be/HOwWfns4qqw?t=33s

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...