hypnobunny asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 1 decade ago

Which doomsday scenerio, that does not involve taxation or resdistrubtion of wealth is being addresesed?

Asteroid and comet collisions are fact and not theory, where is the concern? Megatsunamis, Global Pandemic, overpopulation.

Nuclear war over carbon trading. Famine caused by the over farming of bio fuel.

Can you belive we are burining food, when people are starving. How sick is that?


You can tax SUV's, their excessive mass is drawing the asteroids to us.

Update 2:

How is the anwser to this question even remotely, what you assume condescendingly, I think the definition of theory is to academia("students and professors"). Are you are professor, if you are not you are a student.

Update 3:

Dawei - Why don't you look at definition #2 of you own link.

2. abstract thought : speculation

Asteroid impacts are far more concrete than global warming. We can see asteroids, accurately plot ther position, and they have hit the earth before.

Update 4:

Where in my question does it state that global warming is not valid and the answer it to you to defen global warming theory? Assume global warming is 100% truth and answer the question.

Update 5:

I bet an asteroid or comet would have the biggest IMPACT on climate.

6 Answers

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    There is a lot of evidence that the event which triggered the Younger Dryas cooling about 11,000 years ago was a scattered comet impact.




    THis is an account of a strike in Siberia only 100 years ago.

    This is recording a impact on Jupiter just last month and another comet on Jupiter only 15 years ago. These impacts are much more frequent than most want to recognize. We need a working space program for energy, industry and protection against space junk.



  • 1 decade ago

    There are plenty of people who do work on these problems that you have mentioned. First of all, global warming is a fraud, so don't even believe that humans have a HUGE impact on the climate. The sun is what is behind it all, and the climate has changed a lot throughout history. We have practically no impact on the climate at all.

    Oh and for the guy above, carbon is definitely a TRAILING factor. You really need to look past the "general" trash that is being put out there. Look "behind the scenes" a little more, and find out what the truth is.

    Anyway, there are many scientists who are working on solving these problems that you have listed above.

    And about the asteroids, check this out:

  • 1 decade ago

    The probability of a severe asteroid impact is small.

    When was the last extinction caused by an asteroid? Iirc, it was 65 million years ago. Assuming that's representative, investing hundreds of billions to stop an asteroid would be protecting yourself against a threat with a 1-in-65 million chance of occurring in any given year. (not to mentionwe wouldn't be anywhere near a 100% success rate at stopping such an impact).

    Meanwhile, the consensus of the scientific community is that global warming is a reality with something like a 90% probability.

    Besides which, defence against things like a global pandemic would probably require an increase in taxation and a redistribution of wealth (sure, you could let all the people in poor countries die, but they would act as test tubes for the virus to mutate and then, God forbid, rich people might die too!)

    As for biofuel, environmental groups have opposed food biofuel for years. The EU has recently cut its biofuel demands and the Bush administration clearly stated that its principle aim was for energy security. It's a stupid way of dealing with climate change since corn ethanol produces anywhere from 60-90% of the CO2 of oil anyway.

  • 1 decade ago

    People don't like new taxes. You need to scare them into supporting them. They go with the doomsday scenario that they think will scare enough people to support the new tax.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • David
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    Do you have a better way to reduce carbon emissions other than a taxation/cap™ scheme that works with the free market? No? Didn't think so.

    Do you know the definition of "theory" and what it means within scientific academia? No? Didn't think so. Why don't you look at the 1st definition of the word "theory" according to Webster:


    "The analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another"

    Source(s): Yes, definition 2 is that of the everyday use, e.g. "I have a theory that my son is stealing cookies." Definition 1 is that of scientific use. There are several facts supporting AGW, including the *fact* that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the *fact* that its concentrations have increased by nearly 40%, the *fact* that temperatures are rising, the *fact* that there is not another known natural forcing that could be causing the warming, the *fact* that the stratosphere is cooling just as one would expect from a greenhouse gas warming, the *fact* that the earth's radiation budget is out of balance as observed by satellites.... put it all together, and you have "a set of facts in their relation to one another". It's not a mere speculation. edit: right, you think AGW is valid. Your other questions/answers would seem to go against that, but ok. In any case asteroids, tsunamis, etc. are problems and should be researched. And they are: we have telescopes that scan the skies for asteroids and seismologists paid to research tsunamis. But tsunamis are still rather unpredictable and there is no good reason to believe that an asteroid is coming soon. Global warming and climate change on the other hand are agreed upon problems by scientists, and since the cause is known, doesn't it make sense to try to mitigate the problem? Since we know how to reduce the effects, shouldn't we do what is possible? It's really no different from an asteroid coming. If that were the case then we would want to do whatever possible to reduce its chances of hitting us. In the case of AGW, the absolute best course of action is to reduce its primary cause: CO2 emissions. If the cause is very likely CO2, shouldn't we do what we can to reduce its concentration in order to reduce the risk of dangerous climate change as much as possible?
  • 1 decade ago

    you can't tax an asteroid. well... not yet.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.