We need to devote resources to getting off this planet in the not-so-distant future.

Better yet, we need to stop destroying this planet in the not-so-distant future. Better yet, now. We have the capability to turn it around if we just do it. Would probably start with a carbon tax issued by the UN or something of the like.

Hate to say it, but I agree that humanity will kill humanity before an asteroid will. However, if an asteroid goes undiscovered and falls in the ocean sending out a massive tsunami that wipes out coastlines around the world, we've still got a problem.

All depends which direction the asteroid is coming from. If it comes from the night side it'll be all lit up by the Sun and we should see it from afar. If it comes from the day side it'll be showing us it's black face and the first thing we'll know about it is when we're buggered. Still, for those of us keen to see more money spent looking for such things you shouldn't have to wait too long. One big enough to level a city hits Mother Earth a little more often than every 100 years or so. When the next one does (which will most likely be well within our lifetimes) I think governments will become suitably motivated to take them seriously.

"Keep pumping funds that way or we may be flattened someday. "

I don't know that the funds would keep us from being flattened. But it would certainly be nice to get a few weeks notice so we can have a proper end of the world party/riot/anarchy rather than being caught unawares.

Shoot a missile at an asteroid and use some random physics equation to shoot it in some other direction besides Earth... I'm sure they'd be thrilled to do that if life was at stake.

Only one way to settle this. I'll run a book...generous odds, put your money where your mouth is.

Humanity will distroy planet before an Asteroid distroys it 3/1
Asteroid will distroy planet before humanity distroys it 6/1
Asteroid and humanity distroy planet within the same 3 month window 22/1

Any takers?

I'm in. Give me $500 on all three. I should make my money back that way. After all, money is much more important than protecting our planet, right?

Well, the last one would be hard as the first one to destroy the planet would prevent from ever learning if the second one would have done the same within three months.

But I will put $500 down that *this* asteroid doesn't destroy the planet. IF it does, I'll send you my address to come and collect.

@bo - The UN has no authority to tax. Period. End of story. Until there is one global economy, there is no way to stop any damage done.

It's been discussed before. Not my original idea.

And cannot be done. Discussion is mute when the discussion is about things outside the realm of possibility in government. The UN charter cannot do that and would never be changed to allow it nor could it be enforced if they tried.

Crazier things have happened. If nations continue to elect to contribute to environmental problems in the name of money, we'll simply see disasters on levels that we haven't seen before, and that'll only make people look for more money as a counterbalance. It's not a pretty situation. A worldwide change would certainly help.

<rolls eyes...> what it must be like to like your life jumping from one manufactured fear to the next...

Hey, you roll your eyes all you want, at least mine are open.

OK bo-sox -- I wonder how much you *actually* live your open-eyed fear. Please describe to me how you do NOT waste electricity, how you recylce, use renewables, etc. Your constant presence here is obviously your first check mark against you, wasting electricity for personal indulgences as you contribute to the "destruction" of the earth.

Oh...haa ha ha...destruction of the earth. Every time I hear/read some moron say human beings are going to destroy the earth I *literally* have to laugh out loud. that is the *stupidest* concept in the world.

So what...even IF there is man-made global warming (which there isn't...even the environmental whoackos don't even push that phrase any more...they talk about "climate change"...which, to RATIONAL people is called "WEATHER"..)

But even if the earth heats up a fraction of a degree, PLEASE tell me is specific and provable (demonstrated by evidence) how this will, quote "DESTROY the planet".

And...PLEASE tell me **exactly** what your hypocritical self is doing to stop it.

Because...if you TRULY believe the planet is doooomed...then I would think you would be PRO-active about "saving" it. SO...TELL ME what noble things you give up to save the planet.

Do you grow your food? Or do you consume factory food that wastes electricity. Do you bike wherever possible? Do you watch TV at night and waste electricity or personal indulgence? What do you do?

Don't answer...I know the answer. It is teh same as everyone like you - telling OTHERS what to do. Nobody ever seems to want to describe their own behavior...proof in the pudding that you don't *really* believe what you espouse.

<chirp chirp...chirp chirp...>

Hear the crickets of the thundering silence? Another good lib who can't give examples of how he lives by his beliefs. Hell, Bo, it's the internet. You can lie and we won't now the difference....but as is typical, no "the sky is falling, the earth is doomed!" madman can ever tell me how he is saving the planet. It's very odd. And, frankly, very disappointing. I would think that, even if you hold bizarre beliefs, you would have the integrity to live by them....but, sadly, most don't.

Actually, I was following your instruction:

"Don't answer...I know the answer."

So you know the answer... I know it too. Nobody is ever going to get across to you; you're never going to get across to me.

I'm on mobile, Krellin, or else I'd try to find you some links to evidence, but A: I'm pretty sure you're mistaken about even the "whackos" abandoning the idea that global warming is man-made (or, at the very least, influenced. In fact I'm pretty sure most of the academic community has yet to abandon that idea. B: I recognize that you attacked the argument a bit before moving on to attack Bo Sox, but you're still depending pretty heavily on Ad Hominem. Even if Bo Sox is a pirate hooker Nazi, his argument may still be completely reasonable. Focus on attacking the argument, not the man.

I think you misrepresent his argument a bit, too. He's not advocating that people stop watching TV. He's mostly noting that some sort of international effort, like a universal carbon tax, would, however impractical to apply, be a step in the right direction.

Well a huge meteor has just hit Russia, close to the Kazak border..

Not huge, by any stretch of the imagination. Ones around that size hit the Earth quite often. It's only by the fluke of it hitting a city that we even noticed it. Still, makes you think.

Octavious apparently it was around 10 tonnes in mass, but it fragmented and thus appeared to be a lot smaller

"universal carbon tax," HAs one of two purposes:

1. Either it is simple class warfare (most likely) because the wealthy use more energy

or

2. IF the problem is real...then the tax is meant to limit the use of energy, meaning ANYONE -- Bo included -- can VOLUNTEER to limit their use of energy. THUS, yes, the idea of man "destroying the world" through use of energy PRECISELY means that we should stop wasting energy on personal indulgences, such as TV, 24/7 internet usage, unnecessary driving, etc.

THUS....my "ad hominen" attack on BO is NOT an attack...I'm trying to gather just a *shred* of evidence that the boy actually believes what he says. That ANYONE in the movement actually believes, because to the best of my ability, all the people telling me man is destroying the earth through their use of energy use just as much as anyone else, which no attempts to stop or reduce or limit. They indulge in excess energy use just as much as everyone else. Soooo....apparently, there isn't a damn single one of you out there that actually believe the bullshit, or else you would change your behavior.

Andyou don't need to bother with providing me with any cooked up evidence of global warming. It has been demonstrated over and over again that the data is manipulated and cherry-picked. That there are still a lot of "scientists" out there who "believe" is directly tied to the fact that there are a whole lot of "scientists" out there getting paid, and if the hype dies down due to truth revealed, they lose their paycheck. Further, a great number of the most vocal advocates aren't scientists at all.

But let's look at one huge topic: CO2. I dare you to do a little research, and look up CO2 lagging indicator of temperature:

http://www.1010wspc.com/documents/GeorgeHollidayPaperonGlobalWarmingSynopsis.pdf

http://ipec.utulsa.edu/Conf2012/Papers_Presentations/Olson_GlobalWarmingRebuttal_8.pdf

http://www.thegoodnewscafe.net/greenhouse-gases.php

http://notrickszone.com/2012/10/09/new-paper-confirms-co2-lagged-global-temperature-models-get-it-all-wrong-again/

You can continue the research on your own...

And if you don't catch the point...something that lags behind and event can not cause it...

Thus, CO2 can not cause global warming if it lags behind temperature change.

I know this is hard to swallow, because it burst the religious belief that some have about global warming. but...that is *exactly* the problem with global warming "belief"...it is an emotional belief, instead of a scientific one for most people.

When presented with scientific evidence that contradicts the global warming hysteria, people tend to react with anger, instead of examining the new data and drawing a new conclusion...

So I dare you to examine these links, especially the two papers, and a draw a rational conclusion. I dare you.

@ SYnapse

10 tonnes, yes. Like I said, not huge. They hit quite often.

Krellin, global warming pales in comparison to depleting fish stocks and pollution and the consumption of fossil fuels

Synapse - it's too bad you weren't around in the 70's -- the level of pollution in the US is *dramatically* lower than it was then.

the problem with what you just said -- deleted fish stock, pollution -- is that you are trying to combine a *real* issue (depleted fish stock - which notion I also reject... and pollution -- which is vastly imporved in the US versus decades ago) and a fake issue (global warming).

Fish stocks: Despite opinions to the contrary, the oceans are not about to run out of fish. More hysteria. Yes, certain species may be lower in quantity because of overfishing, and we **should** regulate quantity of fish pulled from the ocean (yes, a conservative calling for regulation..) -- but , sorry charlie, there's still plenty of fish in the ocean.

Pollution: Dramaticalyl improved in the US since the 70's and getting better all the time. This is due to *sensible* regulation. The *real* problem with pollution is in places like China and the developing world, where, sadly, the environmental whackos will not focus any of their attention, and, when making "climate treaties" actually **give the worst offenders a pass!!** -- Thus, again, proving the fallacy of their so-called belief, or else they would risk life and limb to pursuade China to be a good actor in order to "save the planet".

But, again, trying to suggest the pollution -- a polluted lake, contaminated ground water, etc -- all of which SHOULD be addresed -- is the same as "climate change" is ridiculous.

It is a testimony to the power of an (ignorant) press, in that it has so effectively tied to sort-of-related topics in to one, convinced an ignorant public that it is a single topic, and then targeted US corporations almost exclusively as the villains. The incredible lack of logic, and lack of consistency in the arguments is astounding.

Global warming pales in comparison to being slammed with a giant fucking asteroid.

By the way -- fossil fuels -- recent finds of fossil fuels have *exploded* their availability...as reasonable people have always known they would - meaning the Middle East is hardly the largest holder of fossil fuels any more...and, meaning that the hysterical claims that we are going to run out of oil are just that: hysterical claims with no basis (and there never was a basis for them...)

And sense fossil fuels are not destroying the planet...and are readily available...their consumption is a non-issue.