Why is this even on? why does the media make crap like this? THIS IS SO STUPID! If we are wasting our time thinking about what the earth would be like when there are no humans on it, we need a life. Fearmongering is a full-time job for National Geographic.

I don't see how this is fear mongering. This is a hypothetical look at what would happen if people disappeared; not suggesting how that might happen.

Just like the History Channel's Life After People.

www.history.com/minisites/life_after_people

To smartman,
You got the man, now get the smart. If you aren't interested, don't watch it. It's not an offensive concept, at least not to the earth. And it sounds like YOU are the one that needs to get a life! Smile!

Is it fair to suggest that Obama will be the best environmental candidate because he has the greatest chance to gain the congressional support to pass the tough environmental laws we need to avert disaster?
www.envirobama.com

Maybe this show is to warn us of Planet X. Check it out on youtube.com

This program is another attempt by the church of the kool-aid drinkers to poison the well and induce people to hate themselves for even being born. Without humans, the Earth would have no meaning, no self aware entity to observe that life even exists. Without intelligent life, there's no collective awareness, no lasting meaning to life here. What achievement can a world of roaches hope to make? Don't believe the hype, people have a right to exist.

This was a good show, except I could have done without the fast forward and then quick rewind of the clouds in the sky every two minutes.

People have a right to exist? Humans are nothing but parasites who destroy everything they touch. WATCH the program, decades after we disappear, our disease causing effects are still being felt. Humans suck and I'm sure nature is chomping at the bit for our final bow.

Oh my gosh! Without the most magnificent creation of nature, somehow our extinction makes the world a wonderful place? I don't think so, so why aren't the monkeys evolving to take over? This show is thought provoking that this will never happen and our place is secure.

Hey, why don't all of you enviromental whackos who think that the world will be better off after all of the humans are gone go ahead and get rid of yourselves if you believe that so strongly. I am just very dissaponted in this show. I thought that I was going to watch something interesting, instead I saw a two hour infomercial for global warming and how the human race has destroyed the earth. If this show was advertised that way I would not have even bothered watching. Horrible horrible show, it really stunk. The history show life after people was much much better and much less political.

Aside from the riduculous assumption that animals and birds would survive something that wiped out man, the rest of the scenario is equally as flawed. Without man to create carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, the CO2 would quickly dissipate and cause no damage to concrete or steel structures. If in fact there was a continuing source of CO2, vegetation would thrive on it, thereby releasing oxygen in even larger quantities which would displace the CO2 faster than it was formed. Without CO2, acid rain would not form, allowing concrete and steel structures to last thousands of years, not a few hundred years as the producers would like us to believe.

Do you guys ever consult an engineer or a real scientist to check facts and reality before you waste the viewer's time airing this garbage?

What is happening in other parts of the world? Only the humans of the United States have made the world horrible. I really believe the apes would evolve and take our place on land, and the dolphins would rule the seas. That is how "Planet of the Apes" came to be. This show is just silly.

These population zero shows seem to revel in the idea that the Earth would be better off with billions of people dead. Is their message to our youth that without the ignorant polluting masses, without civilization, Earth would be a paradise?
How much money to create a celebration of the wreckage of all humanity has produced, and achieved?
Are these the Zero Population Growth advocates inspired by Paul Erlich who encouraged the youth of developed nations to have two or fewer children, so the youth of the third world are repopulating the developed nations, as our heirs become aging minorities in their own homelands?
Are our heirs better off for the intervention of these well intentioned theorists?
Maybe we owe it to our heirs to be bold in questioning where those we allow to influence our young, are guiding them.
Maybe we are obliged to look at the world they stand to inherit from well intentioned theorist, when those of our watch are actually gone.
As I write this I hear horses were in America long before mankind. There were other stand out errors that caused me to question where the fact checkers and fact providers went to school.

ZPGers, or third world immigrants, who got it right for their heirs, an accurate world view does matter.

Tom from Guilderland

TLaG:
Just off the top of my head, a virus could wipe out just us humans and leave behind other life ("animals and birds").

I like your scientific thinking. However, the show is obviously based on a hypothetical situation with the underlying message that the Earth does not need us and that we are slowly destroying it. Therefore, consulting engineers & scientists would just lead to more disagreements or holes in a theory that can't be tested anyway because we won't be here! (This is similar to the tree falling in the woods: Does it make a noise if nobody is there to hear it?).

PK: Within the first 15 minutes of the show, Canada and Europe are mentioned as well as the impact "around the world."

I say enjoy the show for what it's worth and discuss it at work, with family or friends, but not pick on Nat Geo in a world-wide forum.

From a presentation and personal aspect, the only thing that bothered me was the narrator's nearly monotone voice throughout the entire show.

Cheers,
John

this is the most inaccurate false premised so-called documentary since Al's show...oh I remember it is all about the odorless, invisible, live giving trace gas CO2...Did anyone consult the producers of this POS show about what man's contribution to CO2 is...the best guess I have read....and yes it was a "science" study was less than 3 tenths of one percent of all CO2 is human produced...and CO2 is 4 tenths of one percent of the Greenhouse effect...Also did anyone tell these guys that Global Warming has stopped...Temps have been falling since '98 that is 1998 and 2007 erased all of the precieved warming since 1850 in one freaking year...propaganda no doubt...Americans Bad ... NGEO and the rest of the World Good...nice message or better nice lie...
Can anyone say James Jones? What color would you choose?

I watched the "Aftermath" episode and am unable to find its value. It had the scent of Al Gore et al. I am not surprised at the number of self-loathing individuals who feel that man has no place on the planet. To those I say you may leave at any time.

Amen, Roy!

Global Warming night on NGEO....JEEZ!!

Wow I just watched this Aftermath show. I had no idea how great a place Earth would be if only there were NO Humans. Great concept! What self hating group of people revel in the thought of the extinction of the Human Race? If only Humans were part of nature rather than the parasite that this show makes us seem to be. I know I must be an Evil Conservative because I feel that Humans do bring value to this planet. But what do I know - I'm one of the parasites...

Whether or not 'we' are as responsible as said for CO2 and global warming, you cannot deny the damning and re-routing of rivers, the countless other poisons we release into the environment. To the person claiming less than 0.3% of all CO2 is made by humans, either you're taking into account ONLY what is exhaled, or your numbers/source are just plain wrong. Cars pump over 80 billion tons of CO2 every single year. Your claim would mean between animals, and naturally occurring, over 266 TRILLION tons of CO2 annually.

Also, do you hate whales, or are you just ignoring the parts of the video you think might actually be factual?

I think this video was quite informative, whether or not it was 100% accurate from all angles. There is no denying that humans are the sole species responsible for every non-naturally occurring 'anomaly' on this planet.

Do I think we should all be killed? No. Would I take the world depicted without us over the one we live in? Any day my friend. What the human population needs is a wakeup call. If being set back a few centuries is what it takes, then so be it.

If you plot the course of human evolution and expansion, it is only a matter of time before we occupy every available piece of land the planet has to offer. It is only a matter of time before we have mined every possible resource from the earth. It is only a matter of time before we will turn the very planet we depend on, into a world that is no longer capable of sustaining us. There is no other species on earth with the capabilities of causing as much damage as we have, and do every day.

Something didn't look quite right, and before I get flamed for it I'm posting a correction. If we are responsible for 0.3% of the world's CO2, the annual total would be roughly 24 billion tons, not 266 as I stated. Blame the lack of comas in calc.

TRILLION! 24 TRILLION tons. I need to stop commenting at 4am.

I thought the show was very thought provoking. Do I think humans need to disappear? No... Do I think that they need to be more aware of the environmental impact we make every day? Absolutely. The earth can repair the damage we humans cause...if we just give it a little help, everyone wins.

TJ The Great wrote:

"Sep Snyder...what are you talking about?:
People have a right to exist? Humans are nothing but parasites who destroy everything they touch. WATCH the program, decades after we disappear, our disease causing effects are still being felt. Humans suck and I'm sure nature is chomping at the bit for our final bow."

If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. Why not make your final bow now...kill yourself and set an example. Mother Earth will be so pleased.

I find it unusual that only one person on this post recognized that their’s a balance to be reached here. Anyone who says that human activity on this earth for at least the past 1000 years hasn’t greatly altered the world we live in (in a negative way) would be denying reality. It’s not to say that we should not exist or not have the right to life, but at the same time we should be more aware of our impact on earth and realize our actions do play a direct role in the health and well being of our mother earth.

We are part of the earth and the earth is a part of us. Why are people taking such a hostile stance on either side, instead of thinking about the value of the hypothetical possibility of the documentary, and considering how we can reverse the damage we have done.

Redirecting rivers, pollution, chemicals, bio-engineering, species destruction, deforestation; Even without global warming included, these things are causing effects that are for the most part irreversible. We can’t bring back extinct plants and animals that we lose. If we are not more careful, we will inevitably destroy our only source of life, our world. Propaganda or not, this show causes us to think about our impact here because it’s truly worth a second thought.

Wow! Nat Geo really stirred the pot! This blog is encouraging.

I don't remember the show saying humans died out. I viewed the program as if they just weren't living on the surface anymore.

It may sound ridiculous to some, but Man possesses all the technology and resources required to build sustainable solar powered lighter than air homes right now. If the chronology of the automotive evolution were applied to this lighter than air homes scenario, the whole of humanity could be off the planet in less than 100 years.

When viewed from this perspective, the program is very encouraging. The afterbirth of our past life style would eventually vanish, even without our help.

I think what needs to be taken out of this show is a little humility. That's asking a lot from a species that is hopelessly narcissistic. This show not only reminds us that life was doing fine before we came along but that it will quickly forget us and the changes we made (good, bad, or neutral) very quickly. We are the new animals in the jungle and right now we rule, but extinction is inevitable for all species. When our turn comes (and it will come) what will all our accomplishment mean to the new ruler? I’ll tell you. The same as they mean to the rest of the life forms we share this rock with now: absolutely nothing. Our accomplishments only mean something to us and we think way too highly of ourselves.

George Bush did it!!!
When the program started I was wondering where this is leading, I didn't know NGO is a front for the AL Gore fanatics blaming everything on global warming.Your argument falls flat on your face when in the same program when all the humans are gone an ice age takes over. Did the animals cause it? You rightfully explain the earth goes in cycles around the sun and over centuries it moves closer to the sun and then further away, hence the warming and cooling of the earth, humans has very little to no effect on global warming. I am disappointed in NGO that you under estimating the viewers intelligence. From now on I will take everything on NGO with a grain of salt and move to Discovery channel until I find them to be in bed with activist liberals.

Vaeldik,

Thanks for the amateur try on the mathematics. Yes Human's contribute a very small amount of CO2 to the enviroment to the tune of 6.5 gigatonnes compared to the 150 gigatonnes that bacteria and plant life contribute not to mention volcanos and oceans yes we only contribute 3 tenths of one percent...those aformentioned sources are such greater forces of CO2 that there is no chance Human's production of the gas can even come close....stop watching CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC,MSNBC, CNBC, FOXNEWS, NGEO, HIST CHANNEL, to get your data they are in the business to create hysteria...just look to how they handle missing person cases...or the current presidential campaign...never the true or news just propaganda...

If you want to go back a couple of centuries go ahead my friend...learn to heat your food with fire(whoops you'll produce more greenhouse gases) and produce smoke to kill you, learn how to refrigerate your food, clean your dishes in cold water, freeze in the winter because you have no furnace, bake in the summer because you outlawed A/C....we are who we are partly through our technology...Dummmy...That is not to say to pollute indiscriminatingly that is suicide....but to take the argument that the climate is changing because we drive cars, fly aiplanes, and heat our homes....re-check the data...and if you don't like it move to Africa...that is how they live-hey may welcome an idiot liberal such as you....then again maybe they won't...be careful what you wish for...

A science paper on the issue would do you good....google it...you may find a different answer than you think...From you statement and math calculations...I know you have not checked the data...most people that believe AGW haven't...In case you haven't learned about the CO2 cycle at least a small part...trees in the growing season soak up CO2 and in the fall the decaying leaves release almost all of the CO2 back to the atomosphere....and if you place a greenhouse contained with only CO2 gas in the pairie it will not be warmer than a normal greenhouse...just for instance...if you want to know more I can enlighten you...not with with my knowledge but scientific papers...so before you go off trying to calculate my numbers... you will see the insignificance of CO2 and tempurature...

Underceige has no idea what he is talking about. Can you please support your arguments. Where are you getting your information from. What Scientific papers? Assclown.

Up to 40% of the gas emitted by some volcanoes during subaerial volcanic eruptions is carbon dioxide.[19] According to the best estimates, volcanoes release about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. Carbon dioxide is also produced by hot springs such as those at the Bossoleto site near Rapolano Terme in Tuscany, Italy. Here, in a bowl-shaped depression of about 100 m diameter, local concentrations of CO2 rise to above 75% overnight, sufficient to kill insects and small animals, but warm rapidly when sunlit and disperse by convection during the day[20] Locally high concentrations of CO2, produced by disturbance of deep lake water saturated with CO2 are thought to have caused 37 fatalities at Lake Monoun, Cameroon in 1984 and 1700 casualties at Lake Nyos, Cameroon in 1986[21]. However, emissions of CO2 by human activities are currently more than 130 times greater than the quantity emitted by volcanoes, amounting to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons).[22]
_________________________
19.^ Sigurdsson, H. et al., (2000) Encyclopedia of Volcanoes, San Diego, Academic Press
20. ^ vanGardingen PR, Grace J, Jeffree CE, Byari, S.H., Miglietta, F., Raschi, A., Bettarini, I. (1997) Long-term effects of enhanced CO2 concentrations on leaf gas exchange: research opportunities using CO2 springs. In Plant responses to elevated CO2. Evidence from natural springs. Ed. A. Raschi, F. Miglietta, R. Tognetti and P.R. van Gardingen. Cambridge University Press. pp. 69-86.
21.^ M. Martini (1997)CO2 emissions in volcanic areas: case histories and hazaards. In Plant responses to elevated CO2. Evidence from natural springs. Ed. A. Raschi, F. Miglietta, R. Tognetti and P.R. van Gardingen. Cambridge University Press. pp. 69-86.
22.^ Volcanic Gases and Their Effects. Retrieved on 2007-09-07

Also, If polluting indescrimantely is suicide... what exactly are we doing now. With Factories, Fossilfuels, Electricty, deforestation etc. etc. If we are polluting this much and it is only responsible for a fraction of 1% as you say, then wouldnt that mean even doubling or trippling it wouldnt have much effect? Why not pollute indescrimantely?

I hate it when idiots act like they know stuff when they dont. i would be glad to hear what you have to say as long as you state your sources.

It is obvious that those who believe man has no significant impact on earth have their minds made up. It is equally evident that those who see man as contributing something positive to earth do so with absolutely no ability to prove it.Ultimately, the scenario on this program is what we might see if the aforementioned people continue to be what the majority of the human race is comprised of. I choose to take the side of "better to be safe than sorry" and do my best to live more simply. We have a theoretical program here that says "what if?" and it seems to clearly effect the demographic of which I spoke above with a particularly venomous result. I have observed this most commonly amongst those who feel guilty but have yet to deal with clear thought outside their own egos. Fear stops us from imagining "what if?" because it is too terrfiying to these people to change. Better to live in a small box and make believe everything is just peachy........and that those of us who do ask this question are just "crazies". It's much easier than reality.

Enjoyed the Aftermath program buy you failed to touch on one big problem. All those oil wells and drilling platforms on land and at sea. What happens when the well heads rust off? Oil will flow out of the well covering land and sea.That is something that will not just go away.Maybe you should include that in your next Aftermath.

Please have your researcher check into the construction of fuel storage facilities at nuclear power plants. They are not sheet metal buildings that will allow huge "explosions" of radioactive material. The heated material will generally migrate out over time, this is true, but the containment buildings vary from three to five feet thick and are reinforced concrete structures. In general, this was a very good program, well thought out and dealing with issues that will affect us for years. In some ways, though it seemed to bend to the side of the people that hate being of the human species. How can anyone "marvel" at the quality of the air or water if there are no self aware beings still existing? We do need to learn better technology to prevent our own pollution, but to develop that we have to get through to the back to nature peple that think all of us want to run around naked and eat the fruit off the trees, which would be considerably less tasty since most of the fruit trees have been developed by hybridization.

"Hitherto it is questionable if all the mechanical inventions yet made have lightened the day's toil of any human being. They have enabled a greater population to live the same life of drudgery and imprisonment, and an increased number of manufacturers and other to make fortunes. They have increased the comforts of the middle classes. But they have not yet begun to effect those great changes in human destiny, which it is in their nature and in their futurity to accomplish. Only when, in addition to just institutions, the increase of mankind shall be under the deliberate guidance of judicious foresight, can the conquests made from the powers of nature by the intellect and energy of scientific discoverers, become the common property of the species, and the means of improving and elevating the universal lot."

-- J. S. Mill's "Of the Stationary State", published in 1848

I noticed a couple of errors. Stainless steel holds up poorly when submerged and no mention was made of the radioactive material in some satallite batteries.

I was surprised that NG brought up the matter of "spent" fuel rod storage. I thought NG was too "establishment".

DE McClure is mistaken: the sheds over those pools are insubstantial. They were safe enough (without water, for periods of a few years) as originally designed, but have since been loaded with several times as many fuel rods --since we have no way to get rid of them.

The premise of this entire show is idiodic. Exactly how are humans supposed to disappear?

The entire show seems to build to a perfect eden where the earth returns to its natural state becasue the big bad humans have magically disappeared. Give me a break.

As a child I remember sitting at home reading old issues of National Geographic magazine, pulling out the neat maps, and exploring places I probably wouldn't see in my lifetime. Just the other day I discovered a copy of the magazine from the early 1990s. The main story was about small group of explorers who were in the Arctic -- lo and behold they carried firearms and had to shoot a POLAR BEAR of all things. There were a handful of pictures of the bear stalking them through the snowy terrain and then finally of the explorers shooting and fatally wounding the bear. I could hardly believe my eyes; it seems that public opinion and perception has changed quite a bit in the last 15+ years, probably more than I thought. Years ago no one would have batted an eyelash -- today there would be groups holding a candlelight vigil for the poor bear. I, too, tuned in to the "Aftermath" show tonight and was woefully disappointed. Packs of "stray" dogs preying on dead livestock. Give me a break. It was obviously controlled film making with what must have been milk bones placed around the cows getting man's best friend to play along. Quite frankly I am disgusted with the recent line of programming on the National Geographic Channel. I expected the true, gritty stories I remember reading about as a kid. Instead I've gotten a non-stop guilt trip and environmental activism channel. Where is the National Geographic I grew up with?

It was a fascinating show but I wish they covered fires, evolution, other cities/regions, etc. I think out of control fires would burn down many cities. Also, what would evolve in the thousands and millions of years to come? I havent done the research but I do wonder if monkeys could once again evolve into a human-like species. Obviously it wont be exactly the same as us. Also, they didnt mention pet cats much either. But I think theyd adapt well as feral cats. Itd be cool if they covered places like Rome (especially The Coliseum), Amazon Rainforest. Africa, the Middle East, Egyptian Pyramids, and so on. They did a little bit for some of those, though.

The fantastic concept that people would simply just disappear is an interesting and thought provoking matter, but not all that likely. I believe, as many other bloggers apparrently do, that the Earth would have a self-regulating effect upon human population. That is, not all humans would disappear all at once, rather there would simply be a reduced population. But the undeniable point is still well-taken; That the Earth would take care of itself, repairing the contrived direction caused by man's endevors. Perhaps this self-regulating effect may also take care of Earth's current biggest problem, overpopulation.

by the way i want to clear it up a little bit. and i think this is partially influenced by my opinion. but as we know this show brings to light real facts, real occurances. and as the show also mentioned the earth would be able to repair itself. what the deal is, is that humans need to find a way of coegisting with the earth so that we are not wiped out. global warming, over population, deciease will most likely wipe us out. and global warming, green house gasses, chemicals and toxins in our plastics being eaten by the bottom of the food chain, eventually eaten by us will unfortunately create a great many of problems for humans such as the loss of the ability to reproduce. and thats a real thing, i forgot my source however. so you dont have to take my word for it, im not trying to convice you of it. it just is. but anyways, we need to begin to coaperate with the earth and be more beneficial to it than paresitic. when we can live in harmony in a more earthist way we will be able to survive. we need to do it like the budists do it, we need to rely more on natural products, and we need to keep in mind how the products we are buying get to us. do they need to travel half way around the word?-and use all that energy=polution to get to us. or should we buy local products? just a thought for yall to think upon. instead of tying to fight it, lets work with it

Marcos:

Dude...CO2 becomes toxic in very high concetrations..that is a scientific fact I would like to know what other concetrated gases were present when the fatalaties occurred...I love real science so provide to me ceegee6866@aol.com and I can provide you with papers saying that CO2 isn't a cliamate driver. You...and you "believers" can construct a glass house filled with only CO2 and have another filled with our current atomosphere and show no difference in temperature....check it out should I use the word "assclown" this study has been done I guess your bibliograghy you provided missed this one...CO2 does not drive temperature heat does do your research...CO2 has been much higher in history and usually lags in 800 year increments(Singer,Avery) and 800 yrs ago ....what? Medieval Warm Period? 800 years ago? I don't believe it....why is our CO2 higher? why was there a cooling period in the 1950'S 60'S and part of the 70's weren't we pumping, at unprecedented rates of CO2 into the atomosphere? Why was 1936 the warmest year on record(check NASA) Why did 2007 set records as the fastest cooling on record? And by the way how did we ever get out out of those awful Ice Ages Little and all...CO2 cannot explain those changes....it is not in the Ice records...not is the fact in the early 1300's that they were growing grapes for wine production in Greenland and England...if you care I will cite my sources for 3 tenths of 1 percent for human contribution for CO2 in the atomosphere...but it is so insignificant I hardly think it has a baring for "climate change", looking at history that is has any merit...

Hold on to your faith, you belong to a religion whether you believe it or not...we will cool before your faith has any traction...Our Sun has entered a cycle that has allowed cosmic rays to produce clouds and cooling...no amount of CO2 can hold back...so get your parka and long johns....and mark my words...

Love

Send this film back to the editors Shame shame on NGC for not doing thier homework. For showing a incomplte hypothesis like this.Not once was there any thing metion about earth quake's or Volcano's which would have been a major events in earths history though out time I strongly sugest that ngc programers go over ther subject matter befor showing on the air somthing lke this program

Underciege:

First of all, I apologize for calling you names. It was almost unnecessary and although amusing, very childish. However, your points are still cherry picked and out of context. Read below and tell me with what exactly you are disagreeing with and show me where you got the information from.

Due to human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation, the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization. And yes, you are correct; the earth’s natural waves of climate change and greenhouse gas levels do fluctuate even without human influence. However, this particular case is different because of how rapidly it is changing. Five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more prevalent than today, decreasing to 4-5 times during the Jurassic period and then maintained a slow decline until the industrial revolution . Temperature change is a natural process if it takes tens of thousands of years. What has happened in our world since the industrial revolution is an anomaly that can almost certainly be tied to human activity. I’m sure that given the evidence that you can agree that humans have radically increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Now the question becomes, does it affect temperature. You gave an ambiguous analogy of two glass domes, one with co2, one with regular air. The experiment you gave doesn’t reflect all of the components of the earth’s atmosphere and I would question the validity of it all together. Where did you get this from? Please paste the link of the study.

Temperature being affected by co2 is not opinion, this is a fact. It’s known as the “green house effect”. Although the name is based on an incorrect analogy of how actual greenhouses actually work (which is the reason that the glass dome study is invalid), it is very real. Carbon dioxide, methane gas, and nitrous oxide are examples of greenhouse gases. The more of them are in the atmosphere, the higher the temperature. Impartial scientific studies by an online magazine called “Chemical & Engineering News” show this in what? Yeah that’s right, none other than an ice core records. Here is the link:

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/83/i48/8348notw1.html

As for the hottest recorded temperature in 1936? Well, that was due to the great Heat Wave of 1936. A heat wave is a natural phenomenon that occurs almost completely outside of the science of global warming. Direction of the wind, The season, The position of the jet stream, and current pressure systems all have to work together to create the “perfect storm” situation for that to happen. It means nothing to take the temperature during a heat wave in ’36 and site that as evidence that temperature has nothing to do with co2 because they didn’t have high co2 levels back then.

This could go on forever… In the end, if you want to believe something you can. But if you’re interested in science and facts, then do you research and look at both sides. If you can show me something valid and real, then I will be happy to accept, but all of the recognized major and non major scientific organizations agree on this. Even the American Petroleum Geological agency agrees and they are in the business of making money off of oil!

Mark:

I do agree, There were so much factors missing in this doc that it was almost boring to watch. I wanted to see more about africa and asia. much of the science was flawed as well... i think that the one on discovery channel was better.... step it up NGC!!!

I think this show was done for pure entertainment. I am surprised that some people are getting so mad over it.

Thank you National Geographic Channel for the fascinating program. It does take a little 'Suspension of Belief' to get beyond humans being extinct. But then it is fascinating to take a view of what would happen without us. Especially the building and structures. It really gives me a greater appreciation of how humans keep it all glued together. Look forward to watching it again. Dave B.

If this was to happen. I don't think the planet would be better off or worst off, It would just be diffrent. However I was hoping that little black poodle would have made it. It would have been nice to see him rise to power as the king of the dogs. His new empire would be in Paris under the broken effiel tower.

Marcos:

Cherry Picking?...Well, the IPCC has cherry picked the whole report...read it...check out the part where it comes to Solar influence...or the number one greenhouse gas water vapor...they give it a N/A...they go after the trace gas of CO2...blaming it for everyting...common sense says that something in trace amounts does not trump the dominate...It is no not my belief....it was what is the science says... if you need help I can direct you to to sources(I have converted to Vista and the sites are readily available like with XP)...for overall view I direct you to the www.internetskeptic.com, www.climatepolice.com, www.thegreatglobalwarmingswindle, www.junkscience.com(globalwarming features), www.dailytec.com, www.Hawaiireporter.com, www.solarcycle24.com,www.C02science.com, and even the IPCC report itself. That is just a start. I wish I could give you specific links but...it is what it is...this way you can explore all the scientific papers...not just your AGW alarmist BS...I mean for god's sake it has been warming throughout the solar system (Mars is warming)...w/o C02...you are of the belief that a trace gas or a host of trace gasses have an influence over the main greenhouse gas water vapor....a hysteria...and those "scientists" you quote are on the mother's milk of the UN...I know you'll claim the scientists I produce on on the milk of the oil cos....but the UN and the US gov't are outspending the oil cos. a bil to one (est) (I figure you'll be able to research that-if you care)...

I hope you know all these apocalyptic scientists are relying on computer models (the same computer models that cannot predict our weather more than 24 hours in advance) void of solar variances and water vapor....all the they do is add more C02 to the equation..and get the result they were paid to get...People bad...the hockey stick projection has been totally rejected since 1998...we've cooled...not withstanding the majority of scientists do not believe that humans have any, but a .04 degrees centigrade increase in temps...the consensus is not on the side of global warming it is the other way %48 of scientists in the field say it is man-caused and %50 say it isn't...the other 2% aren't sure...www.dailytech.com....Michael Asher (Blog) - August 29, 2007 11:07 AM...

It was 1934...not 1936 and it is important....in regards to the dire predictions...I hope you can figure it out....but in case you can't...the world was in a little Ice age up until 1850...(when we started taking temp recs) so the warmest year was 1934...it warmed notwithstanding CO2...then it cooled for thirty years notwithstanding the increase of man-made CO2...a snapshot in human history...no doubt so it proves nothing other than we warm...then cool...and it has been warmer..and it has been cooler...it got warm in 1998....and it has been been getting cooler ever since...in fact this winter erased all of the global warming since 1850...how can you explain CO2? the sun works in magnetic cycles when they protect the earth we warm....when they don't cosmic rays bombard the earth and clouds form and we cool...that is how all previous coolings/warming are explained...these can happen year to year...not over thousands of years...almost over night we get cold...or warm...check your geology.

Your Journey is before you my friend...I went into my journey with an an open mind...unfortunately, for the AGWS ....when i type in Global Warming into Google-I get a number of sites...the ones that say AGW is happening...but they failed to to give me any science at all-rather I get how I am bad for being a human being(just as I was in the NGEO show)...when you go to the science sites you are able to make your own conclusions...regardless of the religion...Solar scientists are split at this time since the new solar cycle hasn't started whether we get a hyper cycle where we warm or the opposite....I go with the ones that say we are in for a cooling...since every thirty years that we have had records we cooled...common sense!!!

Like I said, I don't mind sharing...

Watching this show it said that CO2 causes steel to rust (in the part where they are showing buildings colapse. When did this scientific discovery occur? I always thought that oxygen caused steel to rust.

Another hand wringing anti-man global warming douch bag show. Just like all NG magazine articles. You should PAY US to watch this drivel.

I found the natgeo version to be a documentary slap in the face to the histchan version. The histchan went on and on about Las Vegas being powered by Hoover Dam, people tell us the how and when. Mr. Monotone pointed out that Las Vegas would never be seen again, Hoover Dam would be overwhelmed when the dam above it broke. Glaciers would apparently wipe out Mt. Rushmore.
Best thing about both shows was watching them in HD.

I enjoy scientific discussions of "what-if" as much as the next person. But unlike the History Channel's "Life After People," you decided to inject your own political beliefs, adding the sentiment that the Earth should be allowed to "recover" free of Man's interference. How foolish. I personally would mourn the loss of human civilization: our art and music, our cultures and religions; the immense collective work that so many human lives contributed to.

i really like this show. i like all 'what if' shows and this tops the list. it does make you wonder though if a disease had done this....

As a matter of fact, the World's bacteria are rapidly becoming immune to our antibiotic medicines, so an extreme form of bacterial necrosis could literally devour everybody and leave no visable remains.

But after the nuclear spent fuel rod storage buldings exploded into hundreds of Chernoble type disasters, I doubt any life could survive, and the planet would become a lifeless chemical wasteland and oceanic sewer.

On the other hand, we might decide to reduce our population and recycle 100% of our waste and pollution - hopefully.

any body can tell me how to become the part of national geographic team