Prev: «   |   Next: »
  • Stacey

    People are STILL on this global warming trip? I thought 1987 would have been long enough ago. I personally think if your going to mention global warming…you should mention maybe…at least 1 of the thousands of scientists that disagree with it? “However, global warming is causing problems for this (and just about everything else in the world)” Please do elaborate and add some sources?

    • oak

      since climate change is accepted by the vast majority of scientists in the field, i think it would be up to the detractors to provide sources

      • Eric

        Climate change is not global warming. Hippies started calling it climate change when global warming fell on its face. Climate change has been occuring since the dawn of time and will continue until the end of time.

        • erik

          Yup it is, the question has remained to be answered, though, as to how much humans are playing a role in this natural cycle. Oak is right though, the vast majority of scientists believe we have impacted the cycle, a question still remains as to what the implication of this impact is going to have. Also, a large proportion of the scientists that don’t believe we will have an impact, or the consequences of that impact will not be that large, receive their funding from companies that profit from CO2 or CO2 equivalent emissions.

      • Steven Scot

        “since climate change is accepted by the vast majority of scientists in the field, i think it would be up to the detractors to provide sources”

        Easily done.

        31,000 scientists reject ‘global warming’ agenda

        More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting “global warming,” the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth’s climate.

        • erik

          A simple google search reveals a bit more about this petition.

          Here is one article that shows how it doesn’t really have much of a stance.

          • ed

            Google and huffington post. Well arn’t we reliable?

          • ed

            Also, just because not all petition signers where climatologist dosn’t mean there not educated
            1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences occupy over 3800 signings. I would think they know a little somthing about the subject, wouldn’t you agree?
            2.The sciences of computer mathmatics offers 935 signers. All of the the theory’s scarse evidence rests on statistics, aquired with MATH!
            3. Physics and aerospace sciences hold steady at 5812 signatures. The theory of global warming states that green house gases are trapped in the atmosphere, and retain heat from the sun. Physisist and aerospace scientists are greatly knowladgable of the proprties of matter (gases included).
            4. Chemisists are sitting pretty with over 4500 signatures. Chemisists are well trained in the behaviors of chemicals found in green house gasses.
            5. Biology and agriculture acount for almost 3000 scientist. Biologist know the proper living conditions of nearly all things on earth
            6. Those trained in medecine are a major factor, with just of 3000 signatures. I can only hope they know the proper living conditions for a human being
            7. Finaly, general science and engineering are number one with a whopping 10102 signatures. General science. Need I say more.

  • Peter Boucher

    Well, there is already one thing that exists that is capable of ending civilizations………its called a Nuclear Bomb(s)

    • True, but that ain’t crazy.

      • Peter Boucher

        TopTenzMaster. You are absolutely right about it not being crazy. What I do worry about is Nuclear Capability in places such as North Korea, Iran, Syria and God knows who else that has that mind set

        • Dave

          I`m not bothered about North Korea, Iran and Syria (the world`s new bad guy) having the Bomb. America, Russia, the UK, China, France, India, Israel and Pakistan all have them. And isn`t it a tad hypocritical to call North Korea for having nukes, and Iran a secret nuke programme, when all the other countries that have nukes also developed them in secret?

          • Peter Boucher

            @ Dave. Its a very good point that you have made and I jumped the gun not realizing about the secretiveness of the whole ordeal. But I will say this, if I were to have to make the mortal choice of dying, I would go with dying in my sleep, or being in the epicenter of a Nuclear Bomb and evaporate in less then 1/10th of a second. There is a list that I believe that is on here about a Japanese man who survived both Hiroshima and Nagasaki and lived to be into his early 90’s and is believed to be the only person that survived both.

  • Meawoo

    I do not believe the number one is right. Because if the nanobots has to build, or replicate then they need materials to build them with. Let us say they can use any element which is present inside the bottle for this purpose, even then when material is used up, then the production has to stop. Doesnt it. Let us say it some how managed to use the bottle itself for the purpose. Even then after the destruction of the earth and it’s atmosphere, it runs out of the material. Am I wrong?

  • Chuck Piper

    A question on Number 1, how is arson a great thing? I know i have a sarcastic streak, and I enjoy the sarcasm in the lists on this site, I just don’t get it. Maybe I’ve been up to long today…

  • FMH

    Even if you let all the scientific aspects aside, I would argue like this. That there is a vast climate change coming is completely sure, very few honest scientists would refuse to agree with that. The only question is whether mankind’s CO2 emissions take a vital role in causing this climate change.
    From there on, it’s easy:
    If the CO2 emissions are no big part of the causes for the climate change, we can do nothing about it. Then we should just prepare for what is in for us and invest in securing threatened countries. But we know we don’t do that.

    But if the climate change is at least partly man-made we can do something about it and should, because even though we won’t get Hollywood-like end-of-the-world scenarios countries will get flooded, crops will die and areas will get inhabitated. But we know we don’t do that either.

    So all in all, we should prepare for the worst case scenario – that the climate change is not man made – while hoping the best – to reduce it’s effects by acting like it is man made.
    But we do nothing.

    • FMH


  • skywatcher

    Global climate alteration is a simple fact; even the scientists who dispute it only argue whether or not it’s caused by human action. Which is, for our immediate purposes, irrelevant. We know that the process is spurred by the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Lower that amount and you slow the process.

    Incidentally, there’s an enormous amount of methane locked up in the frozen tundra. When the tundra thaws and that methane is released, we’re in trouble.

  • Matt S

    I didn’t really enjoy this list IMO, several other “crazier” choices that could have ended up there such as a gamma ray burst. Or if you want to go crazier you could go for the hypothetical verneshot, where a explosion of compressed gas under the surface sends a landmass into the sky, and back down to cause havoc.

    Otherwise well written list though.

  • SOAB

    I would of put all world governments at the number one spot, they are all a big disease infecting everything, breaking things that aren’t broke…the end of the civilisations will be caused by some government throwing a hissy fit over something that doesn’t concern them…end of.

    • Matt

      One country wont end it. And we have created many nuclear warhead countermeasures, such as lasers that can effectively make the nuke useless, things like that do exist.

  • Carl

    LOL @ “Global Warming”

  • Lucky Joestar

    Number 3 is wrong. What keeps Europe so uncharacteristically toasty during the winter are the prevailing westerlies, which does likewise for Washington and Oregon. The Gulf Stream is the result of these winds. Arctic melt, even if it cuts off the Gulf Stream, can’t stop the prevailing westerlies from keeping Europe warm. In fact, even if it could, the global warming would still be enough to offset the loss.

    • Peter Boucher

      @ Lucky Joestar. Finally, somebody who knows exactly what he / she is talking about.. The Gulf Stream which regulates the temperatures of certain parts of the United States. If you live in the North, then why do lakes freeze and the ocean does not ? (Salt in the ocean’s water has a little bit to do with it). But Kudos to you Lucky JoeStar on finally posting something that’s crystal clear and understandable.

  • ping

    what about the zombie apocalypes?

  • Zarth

    Verneshot really deserved a mention, imagine gas compressing under the earth’s crust, with nowhere to escape, until the pressure builds higher and higher and higher until it’s unleashed, launching a chunk of the earth into space. If you’ve seen a tire go boom, you’d know compressed gas has quite a lot of power.