Fire Earth

Earth is fighting to stay alive. Mass dieoffs, triggered by anthropogenic assault and fallout of planetary defense systems offsetting the impact, could begin anytime!

2010 Disasters

The 6th Great Extinction: Sooner Than Expected

Posted by edro on May 23, 2010

Planetary collapse driven by man-made cataclysms

This blog has now been dedicated to the possible  ‘survivors’ of the planetary collapse that is being driven by man-made cataclysms

Based on our research, WE have concluded that a series of man-made cataclysms will drive the earth’s population to near extinction.

[This section was removed to ensure NO association WHATEVER could be made with “Rapture apocalypse prediction.”]

Most of the ‘survivors’ would be highly evolved, ethical and altruistic humans with the ability to overcome the immense difficulties they will have inherited . . .

Nevertheless, Moderators believe by identifying the major man-made obstacles that stand in the way, they could, for their part, help keep the flow of life on this planet uninterrupted.

WE are here to share our road map with the precious FEW…



Posted by feww on January 1, 2010

U.S., the world, stake the future on high-energy strategies. Energy models’ simulations show all such strategies ending in collapse. EDRO

2010: Year One of Human-Enhanced Disasters

  • In the next few years, YOU or someone close to you will likely have experienced a man-made, or human-enhanced ‘natural disaster.’
  • “About 99.98 percent of human effort goes to debilitate the ecosystems. In other words, for every single step taken to restore the natural life support services, humans take 6,400 steps in the opposite direction, destroying the planet’s ability to maintain life.” EDRO

FEWW Global Disaster Forecast:

In line with its concept of ‘Shrinking World,’ and based on simulation of FEWW EarthModel and EDRO Energy Models, Fire-Earth Moderators believe at least one disaster could strike somewhere on the planet each day, throughout 2010. The outlook for 2011 and beyond …

2010 Disaster Calendar

Click below links for Back-to-Back Disaster Diary in the corresponding months:

January 2010 | February 2010 | March 2010 | April 2010 |May 2010| June 2010 | July 2010 | August 2010 | September 2010 | October 2010 |November 2010 | December 2010

[Note: This listing is by no means exhaustive.]

What’s a Disaster?

FEWW Definition of Disaster adopted from CRED: Fire-Earth considers an event a disaster if it fits at least one of the following criteria:

  • At least 10 people were killed.
  • The event affected 100 or more people.
  • A state of emergency was declared.
  • A disaster was declared.
  • Federal or international assistance was requested.

Disasters caused by war/political unrest

The Disaster Calendar is apolitical. Whether large numbers of NATO forces, US soldiers, police  employees, etc., are killed by “insurgents,” protesters and the like, or the other way around, the calendar records both types of incidents as disasters.

UNISDR definition of disaster:

A serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society causing widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses which exceed the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources.

Cost of Disaster in 2009

Catastrophes cost insurers $26b in 2009, Swiss Re [re-insurers] reported, while estimating the wider economic losses at $62 billion, which means more than a half of all damage caused by catastrophes  in 2009 was uninsured (hint!)

Related Links:

“The antiphase will rapidly transform humans into vicious animals, fighting each other for water, food, fuel, land and all other dwindling natural resources. The fighting, in turn, enhances the positive feedbacks, accelerating the downward spiral.” —EDRO

NOTE:  Governments and international aid organizations invariably exaggerate disaster casualty figures to maximize the inflow of aid and donations for self-serving purposes and interests other than that of the victims.

IF the alleged numbers of fatalities/casualties in a given disaster are  claimed to be larger than a few hundreds, and no video or photographic evidence is presented to support that claim, those figures should be carefully analyzed.

Beware of international Aid Mafia

Please help the victims, anyway you can. There are many ways to help the survivors. But donate money only to the organizations that you know and trust.

See also

Disaster Calendar 2010 is Copyright of Fire-Earth Blog Authors. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

85 Responses to “2010 Disasters”

  1. Jason said

    The part that takes the cake is where they say, “don’t think we’ve broken the planet but we are creating a much more difficult world”

  2. Cory said

    I’ve been reading this blog for 7 or 8 years, and I don’t find anything new in the research paper. If anything, it strikes me as a sanitized, worry-but-don’t-lose-too-much-sleep version of fire-earth materials…

  3. Katherine said

    Research Article

    Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet

    The planetary boundaries framework defines a safe operating space for humanity based on the intrinsic biophysical processes that regulate the stability of the Earth System. Here, we revise and update the planetary boundaries framework, with a focus on the underpinning biophysical science, based on targeted input from expert research communities and on more general scientific advances over the past 5 years. Several of the boundaries now have a two-tier approach, reflecting the importance of cross-scale interactions and the regional-level heterogeneity of the processes that underpin the boundaries. Two core boundaries—climate change and biosphere integrity—have been identified, each of which has the potential on its own to drive the Earth System into a new state should they be substantially and persistently transgressed.

  4. Average Joe said

    I’m the average Joe, married with two kids. [Personal information removed by a moderator.]
    What are my chances?

    • feww said

      The exponential growth economy, the malignant cancer that has spread and invaded every part, system and service of the planet, has reduced your chances to between ZERO and 1 in 50 million.

  5. Anonymous said

    • feww said

      SP is a dog, a liar and a plagiarizer. Most English professors like him are tooth-and-nail establishment guard dogs.

      Notice how he sets up a “mass extinction” strawman only to knock it down by saying “conservationists now have the knowledge and technology to protect endangered species more effectively than ever before … to slow down extinction rates…,” or words to that effect.

      Moderator D.

  6. EDRO said

    […] The First Wave of World’s Collapsing Cities […]

  7. […] The First Wave of World’s Collapsing Cities […]

  8. SWP said

  9. nikki said

    she fought for what she believed. and did what she had to do even though it cost her life. couldnt be a better way to go. btw im not religious. just thought id put that out there. i am ‘spiritual’ though.

  10. nikki said

    • feww said

      hello nikki! you’re not intruding. on the contrary, your dreams and insight are quite interesting. are you related to Joan of Arc by any chance?

  11. M-MAR said

  12. feww said


  13. […] 2010: Year One of Human-Enhanced Disasters […]

  14. JGS said

    [Do you “N” guys ever have a break? Moderator]

  15. rosy said

    so many disasters!i guess god’s angry with us.

  16. […] 2010: Year One of Human-Enhanced Disasters […]

  17. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  18. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  19. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  20. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  21. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  22. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  23. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  24. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  25. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  26. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  27. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  28. feww said

    Dave B said: “Climate debate gets ugly…”

    Stephen Schneider of Stanford University seems to have gotten the first part of his statement right:

    “There are two kinds of opponents — one is the fossil fuel lobby. So you have a trillion-dollar industry that’s protecting market share,” said Stephen Schneider of Stanford University in California, referring to the oil industry’s long history of funding climate skeptic groups and think tanks. …

    Most universities/research institutions/academia are heavily influenced by unethical business, especially the Big oil and arms industry.

    See also:

  29. Dave B said

    Climate debate gets ugly as world moves to curb CO2
    (Reuters) – Murderer, liar, fraud, traitor.
    Climate scientists, used to dealing with skeptics, are under siege like never before, targeted by hate emails brimming with abuse and accusations of fabricating global warming data. Some emails contain thinly veiled death threats.

    Across the Internet, climate blogs are no less venomous, underscoring the surge in abuse over the past six months triggered by purported evidence that global warming is either a hoax or the threat from a warmer world is grossly overstated.

    A major source of the anger is from companies with a vested interest in fighting green legislation that might curtail their activities or make their operations more costly.

    “The attacks against climate science represent the most highly coordinated, heavily financed, attack against science that we have ever witnessed,” said climate scientist Michael Mann, from Pennsylvania State University in the United States.

    “The evidence for the reality of human-caused climate change gets stronger with each additional year,” Mann told Reuters in emailed responses to questions.

    Greenpeace and other groups say that some energy companies are giving millions to groups that oppose climate change science because of concerns about the multi-billion dollar costs associated with carbon trading schemes and clean energy policies.

    For example, rich nations including the United States, Japan and Australia, are looking to introduce emissions caps and a regulated market for trading those emissions.

    More broadly, the United Nations is trying to seal a tougher climate accord to curb emissions from burning fossil fuels and deforestation blamed for heating up the planet.

    Other opponents are drawn into the debate by deep concerns that governments will trample on freedoms or expand their powers as they try to tackle greenhouse gas emissions and minimize the impacts of higher temperatures.

    “There are two kinds of opponents — one is the fossil fuel lobby. So you have a trillion-dollar industry that’s protecting market share,” said Stephen Schneider of Stanford University in California, referring to the oil industry’s long history of funding climate skeptic groups and think tanks.

    “And then you have the ideologues who have a deep hatred of government involvement,” said Schneider, a veteran climate scientist and author of the book “Science as a contact sport”.

    The result is a potent mix that has given the debate a quasi-religious tone with some climate critics coming from the right-wing fringe and making arguments as emotive as those raised in the abortion and creationism debates in the United States.

    The debate has largely become drawn along political lines, at least in the U.S., where opponents in the Republican Party question climate science and raise doubts over the need to implement greener policies such as those espoused by climate change campaigner and former Vice President, Al Gore.

    In a party conference in April, Republican firebrand Sarah Palin, a potential 2012 presidential nominee, mocked what she called the “snake-oil-based, global warming, Gore-gate” crowd.

    The green lobby is also to blame. Exaggerations by some green interest groups, which have at times over-played the immediacy of the problem to bring about a groundswell of support for a new U.N. climate treaty and green policies, have given skeptics plenty of ammunition.

    Skeptics also point to admissions in a 2007 report by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change that there is a 10 percent chance global warming is part of a natural cycle.

    The same report says there’s a 90 percent probability that climate change is due to human activities led by burning fossil fuels. Nevertheless, the skeptics demand 100 percent certainty, something that researchers say is impossible.


    Scientists and conservationists say some anti-climate change lobbyists are funded by energy giants such as ExxonMobil, which has a long history of donating money to interest groups that challenge climate science.

    According to a Greenpeace report released last month, ExxonMobil gave nearly $9 million to entities linked to the climate denialist camp between 2005 and 2008.

    The report, using mandatory SEC reporting on charitable contributions, also shows that foundations linked to Kansas-based Koch Industries, a privately owned petrochemical and chemicals giant, gave nearly $25 million.

    Koch said the Greenpeace report mischaracterized the company’s efforts. “We’ve strived to encourage an intellectually honest debate on the scientific basis for claims of harm from greenhouse gases,” the company said in a note on its website.

    ExxonMobil makes no secret of funding a range of groups, but says it has also discontinued contributions to several public policy research groups.

    “We contribute to an array of public policy organizations that research and promote discussion on climate change and other domestic and international issues,” the company says on its website.

    Stanford’s Schneider has dealt with skeptics for years. But this time, he says, it’s different.

    “I don’t see it stopping,” said Schneider by telephone. “I see it intensifying. The ugliness is what’s new.”

    One of the thinly veiled death threats that Schneider has received says: “You communistic dupe of the U.N. who wants to impose world government on us and take away American freedom of religion and economy — you are a traitor to the U.S., belong in jail and should be executed.”


    Scientists say there is a wealth of data showing the planet is warming, that it’s being triggered by rising levels of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and that man is to blame.

    Skeptics counter this by saying that rising CO2 levels is natural and harmless and that it’s impossible for mankind to influence the way the planet functions. Others play up doubts or errors in some scientific studies to undermine it all.

    Many also say warming has stalled, pointing to the recent burst of cold weather in the Northern Hemisphere as evidence of global cooling, even though satellite data show that, overall, November 2009 to January 2010 was the warmest Jan-Nov the world has seen since satellite temperature data began in 1979.

    Then came the release of emails hacked late last year from a British climate research unit.

    The “climategate” emails, totaling more than 1,000, were stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU), and involve correspondence between director Phil Jones and other leading climate scientists, including Schneider and Mann.

    The emails led to allegations the scientists fudged data to bolster the case for mankind causing global warming, setting off a surge of criticism across the Internet accusing climate scientists of a massive hoax.

    “This whole thing has gone viral on the Internet,” said Cindy Baxter of Greenpeace, author of a recent report “Dealing in Doubt: The Climate Denial Industry and Climate Science.”

    “You’ve got all those voices out there on the blogosphere who are then picked up and echoed,” she told Reuters.

    The University of East Anglia has been a particular target.

    “There have been an awful lot of abusive emails since ‘climategate’ broke,” said university spokesman Simon Dunford.

    Skeptics were accused of very selectively choosing only a small number of the hacked emails and taking comments out of context to misrepresent the scientists’ meaning.

    A British government inquiry cleared Jones of any wrongdoing, but said CRU was wrong to withhold information from skeptics.

    Mann, who was accused of falsifying data, was cleared of any wrongdoing by an internal investigation by Penn State University.


    Skeptics also accused the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of supporting flawed science after several errors in a major 2007 report surfaced.

    The errors, including a reference to a non-peer reviewed study that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, represent a fraction of the conclusions in the report, the main climate policy guide for governments, which is based on the work of thousands of scientists.

    The IPCC has defended its work and has ordered a review. Many governments, including the United States, Britain and Australia have also reiterated their faith in the IPCC.

    For climate scientists, truth and trust are at stake.

    “In general, the battle for public opinion is being lost,” said Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado. His emails were also hacked in the CRU incident.

    “There is so much mis-information and so many polarized attitudes that one can not even hold a rational discussion or debate. The facts are certainly lost or glossed over in many cases. The media have been a bust.”

    Schneider said the mainstream media had failed to do “its job of sorting out credible from non-credible and not giving all claimants of truth equal status at the bargaining table”.

    Across the Internet, the climate science debate is being played out in a myriad of climate skeptic sites and blogs as well as sites defending the science of human-induced climate change.

    One high-profile site is, run by Marc Morano, a former aide to U.S. Republican Senator James Inhofe, who is an outspoken critic of climate change policies.

    Morano, who told Reuters he had also been the target of abusive emails, has been quoted as saying that climate scientists should be publicly flogged.

    “The global warming scientists need to feel and hear the public’s outrage at their shenanigans like “climategate” … There is no advocacy of violence or hint that people should threaten them,” Morano said, adding: “Public outrage is healthy.”


    Another prominent climate change denialist, Christopher Monckton, who’s associated with the U.S.-based Science and Public Policy Institute, told Reuters he doesn’t condone the coordinated attack on climate scientists, saying that he, too, was a victim.

    He said his main aim was to expose what he calls the “non-problem of global warming” and in an email interview with Reuters accused climate change scientists of being “increasingly desperate to discredit anyone who dares to point out that the Emperor has no clothes”.

    Media commentators have added their voices, polarizing public opinion further. In the United States, conservative radio talkshow host Rush Limbaugh said on the air last November that climate change was a massive hoax and that all climate scientists involved should be “named and fired, drawn and quartered, or whatever it is”.

    In Australia, just as in the United States, the level of abuse also coincides with media appearances or the release of peer-reviewed scientific work on climate change.

    “Each time I have a media profile in terms of media reports on scientific papers, major presentations, there is a flurry. So if I am on TV, or radio there ends up being a substantial increase,” said David Karoly of the University of Melbourne.

    “One of the purposes for the attacks is either an intention to waste my time or to distract my attention essentially from communication about climate change science or even undertaking research, and it’s also perhaps intended to make me concerned about my visibility.”


    “We get emails to say we’re destroying the Australian economy, we get emails to say it will be our fault when no one in Australia can get a job. We get emails just basically accusing us of direct fraud and lying on the science,” said Andy Pitman, co-director of the Climate Change Research Center at the University of New South Wales in Sydney.

    “My personal reaction to them is personal recognition that this means we are a threat to the sorts of people who would be trying to prevent the finding of solutions to global warming.”

    Pitman said a major problem was trying to satisfy demands for absolute proof of human-induced global warming.

    “There is no proof in the context that they want it, that the earth goes around the sun. They are demanding a level of proof that doesn’t exist in science.

    “And then they say when you can’t prove it to the extent that they want, then clearly that means there isn’t any evidence, which of course is a logical fallacy.”

    Better communication about the science is key, scientists say, even if they complain that many skeptics are reluctant to debate the science on a level playing field.

    “One of the ways I describe it (the debate) is it’s very asymmetric,” said Roger Wakimoto, director of NCAR in Colorado.

    “It’s very difficult to counter someone who just says ‘you’re wrong. I think this is a scam’. How do you respond to that? … They haven’t done any research, they haven’t spent years looking into the problem. This is why it’s asymmetric,” he said.

    “We like to go into a scientific debate, show us you’re evidence and we’ll tell why we agree or disagree with you. But that’s not what the naysayers are doing,” Wakimoto added.

    “We’ve never experienced this sort of thing before,” he said of the intense challenges to climate science and the level of email and Internet traffic.

    All the climate change scientists with whom Reuters spoke said they were determined to continue their research despite the barrage of nasty emails and threats. Some expressed concern the argument could turn violent.

    “My wife has made it very clear, if the threats become personalized, I cease to interact with the media. We have kids,” said one scientist who did not want to be identified.

    (Additional reporting by Alister Doyle in Oslo; Editing by Megan Goldin)
    posted at

  30. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  31. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  32. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  33. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  34. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  35. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  36. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  37. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  38. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  39. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  40. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  41. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  42. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  43. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  44. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  45. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  46. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  47. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  48. ropert mejos said

    the possibilities of 2012 end of the world is great!!

    • feww said

      The world probably won’t end in 2012, but a lot of catastrophic changes will have occurred by then.

      • Jack said

        If you don’t laugh, then what’s the point

        • feww said

          “If you don’t laugh, then what’s the point”

          There’s a fine line between sanity and laughing at the prospect of having your kids/grandchildren committed to extinction because your generation was too dumb to preserve the world.

          The accelerating rate of collapse knocks the fun out of you.

          • Jack said

            [Bottom line is that human race, by and large, has been extremely hostile toward Earth/ nature, and the latter is defending its other assets–evolving humans–against humanoid violence. Moderator.]

  49. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  50. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  51. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  52. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  53. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  54. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  55. […] Below normal rainfall is threatening some 42,000 hectares of rice paddies in the region […]

  56. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  57. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  58. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  59. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  60. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  61. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  62. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  63. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  64. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  65. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  66. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  67. Fire Earth said

    […] 2010 Disasters […]

  68. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  69. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  70. feww said

    Death toll from Brazil mudslides rises to 76

  71. […] 2010 Disasters […]

  72. Al Kay said

    [Nibiru collision stuff Edited. Moderator]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.