Global Warming

Because we all know punished children for the acts of their parents is a good thing to do.

 

I already wondered, if this comment is going to be approved. But why did you approve it, if it's over the line? Since I'm a Nubi, I thought you have the power to erase my first 50 posts.

And of course I need to defend myself a little bit: While I admit that I said what I said in a cynical way, it is kind of the truth taken to another level. It actually is suicide to not care and to destroy himself by not caring. And even worse than suicide, it's murder. I think we have to consider that. And to make people think about something, you need to take messages to different levels to convey them. Everybody doesn't react to the same things. Some people try it this (Grow up, m*therf***er!) or that (Think about your children!) way, I tried to bring in another possibly effective way to say that. But I guess you are aware of all that.
Thank you for approving the post anyway.

To finally contribute something to the topic: I hope LP doesn't play some time in the morning. In the European morning, I mean. But I guess so...

 

Are you saying that global warming is "murder"? *looks in disbelief*

 

Murder implies intent. At best (worst?) Global Warming could be manslaughter. I mean, unless this guy opened his refrigerator door and thought "Excellent, the whole planet is now DOOMED!".

 

I like the fridge thing, that was amusing. But global warming in no way can be compared to "manslaughter" or "murder." That's just ridiculous.

 

It can indeed be compared to murder. Let's compare global warming to a Damokles sword above our heads. There are people, who try to strengthen the string which holds the sword and there are people who weaken the string by their ignorance, and they know that they weaken the string. Thus, when the Damokles sword falls and kills us, it's clearly the fault of those, who didn't try to strengthen the string and who weakened the string by their ignorance.
So they killed you, they knew that they would kill you and you don't want to call it murder? Well, I want to.

Just because the persons who do you/us harm are not standing directly in front of you/us, they can kill you/us anyway. And just because the weapons are different and used with different intentions, CO² still is kind of a weapon, who can kill and where people know that it can kill.

Agree or disagree with my comparisons, I know that no judge in the world would ever call it murder, but you definitely understand what I mean and that's the way I feel about it.

 

Well,if i was you,i would take a second thought in the whole global warming thing...I mean,sure we do a lot damage to the nature,and i believe global warming is real,but,you all know about the "hole of ozon" (i dont know if thats what they say it in english)...well,scientists have said it is real...but at the same time,i think 1 year ago,info leaked by scientists again,that the "hole of ozon" doesnt exists and it is just something said on purpose for some reasons i dont remember...so,we have either 1 truth and 1 lie,or 2 bull@its at the same time?noone knows,so you cant say for sure what is real and what is not ...Also lets not forget that Ice Age was a hell of a change of the climate at a period that mankind didnt exist...and i doubt that dinosaurs pissed gasoline or breathed toxic gasses ,so we cant take any change as a result of global warming...

As for the show,i think LP are doing great for participating,even if global warming is false...I wont be able to see them,but i guess thats the price i pay for living in Greece ...anyway, GL to them!!!

 

ya i dont believe in global warming. i just don't because i don't trust Al Gore, and for two i'm sure that this has happend in the past as well, you know, how the weather changes drastically. i don't really trust science anyways because alot of what they are "trying" to prove isn't plausible...

 

Psalm 109:10!



I guess everyone can have their own opinion. I think it's something we should obviously be concerned about.

I don't know about the comment about hottest winter, though. I mean, we got hit with a HUGE ice storm here. I thought that was something definitely in favor of Global Warming, though. While we're less protected from the heat, it also isn't trapped to keep us warm as well during those winter months.

I'm proud of Linkin Park for doing things like this. I think it's good!

 

I understand what you mean, but it just doesn't make any sense to call it murder. Yes, the earth has warmed up, but it's a cyclic thing that the Earth has always gone through and always will.

And what you were saying, that people who think global warming is bullshit or people who ignore it, are pretty much murdering other people? I don't want to offend, but that's just stupid...it makes absolutley no sense whatsoever.

 

Funny that my suicide/murder comment gets such an response: But here we go:

@ Spike: Ozone depletion isn't real? I was so stunned by your comment, that I started to inform myself and checked different sources. This is what I found out: It is real. Please tell me your sources or go check for yourself about ozone depletion. I think you could need it.

@Qwerty10: Yes, a climatic cycling is indeed natural, and it is partly a natural thing right now in reference to the last Ice Age. But it is obvious that a drastic change of climate and environment began in the 19th century during the industrial revolution. It was more visible in the environment, for example in Britain trunks of trees turned black. But at this time, greenhouse gases and aerosols were equally pumped in the air. Because of the cooling effect of aerosols the warming effect was diminished. But in the 1960-70 the amount of greenhouse gases increased drastically again, the equilibrium has been destroyed and global warming has started to take place. Are you even aware of the masses of gases that are being pumped into the air? Where do you think they go? How could they not cause any harm?
We shouldn't paint things black and white. It is humanity AND the Ice Age.

As for my murder-example, I don't think you understood me properly, because you throw two different cases together: I only talked about people who know it or believe in global warming. If there are people, who found reasonable reasons (theoretically) to not believe in this theory, they just don't know better.
Another example: A girl wants to swallow a pill, which you know will kill her (she doesn't know and there's for some reason no possibility she could). You could act and smash the pill out of her hand to save her. But if you don't do it, she will die. I would call it you killing her. Or what would you blame the pill? Or the producer? Or no one? Then again, if you have reasons to not believe that this pill is deadly, you don't do anything wrong by letting her swallow it. You just don't know better, thus it's not your fault.

Are you getting now what I mean? And just saying "it makes no sense" and calling my words stupid is pretty lazy. It would be more helpful if you point out the logical mistakes. Oh, and I know, the examples don't fit exactly 1:1 to global warming. So please don't come up with small things which don't touch the basis of arguments.

Thanks!

 

You definitley make a good argument, I'll give you that, probably much better than I can offer, I've never been good at debating. There isn't really much more I can say, besides the fact that I don't believe in global warming to be a huge factor that's going to prove deadly to us, because I believe it to be a cyclic manner that will always be there but will eventually equal itself out. I mean, we can go on and on and debate this, but neither of us can really be proven right or wrong. There's proof to back up what you think and proof behind what I think. So, I think we kinda worked this out well, I think we fully understand what the other means, although I give a sucky argument because confrontation isn't my thing.

 

Murder implies intent, as I already said. So you can compare it, but only to say "Hm... I compared global warming to murder and found out they aren't the same thing."

As I said, manslaughter at worst. But really, I would not even go that far. I mean, our actions may indirectly lead to the death of another individual some time between now and hundreds of years in the future. That is a bit of a stretch, in my opinion.

Also, there is a difference between letting someone die and kill them. Lastly, to make your example more valid you have to remember it is more similar to 2 billion pills being in front of the girl. Even if you swat your away from her, there are so many people there it is likely enough will let her have the pill so she still dies anyway. And if it greatly inconveniences you to swat the pill away, and it will likely be for nothing, then there is less of a reason to swat it away in the first place.

 

Global Warming is very evident in Florida IMO. We've had over 200 brush fires recently because of a drought we're having. Weather is absolutely chaotic here. It was hot for a long period during the winter even, and don't even get me started on our mess with hurricanes.

 

Global warming is definitely happening. The debate is simply about how at fault we are.

 

Oh, you're not good at debating?! Weird, because you've actually said a lot concerning that topic. I'm just the first one that confronts you with knowledge and arguments, but that compromise you try to work out right here isn't going to work. It would be wrong if it worked.
Once again: Yes, a climatic cycle is natural, but this nature is negativly affected by greenhouse gases, especially since the greenhouses gases have a higher percentage than aerosols. Easily said: Aerosols cool the air, greenhouse gases heaten up the air. Fact.
Since the industrial revolution, ways and amount of emitting particles into the air changed and the climate and environment always responded to it. You could draw a parallel timeline. Fact.
Billions of tons of gases and particles are pumped into the air. Fact. How do you come to the conclusion that these amounts of artificially produced chemical substances CAN NOT have an impact on the climate? How? This is simple math, it's simple chemistry. And the history of this planet, which indeed shows temperature fluctuation.
As I said, we can't only point the finger on the ice age or on humanity, both are known factors.

Do you still want to say that I can't be proven right? Oh yeah, of course I can't know if I'm right. It's like Darwin's theory of evolution. You can't prove it for 100%, but the natural and scientific indicators are so strong, that everything else turns out just stupid. I will always stay open for counter arguments, but I already knew that Ice Age has an impact on the climate as well in our time and I know enough, and I've said enough, to make it clear that humanity is partly responsable for what is happening right now. And for what will happen.

PS: I always sound so serious in debates. I'm sorry for that. I'm quite nice in reality. But if you come up with that Mars comparison you mentioned in another post, I'll tear you apart

esaul 17 said: Murder implies intent, as I already said. So you can compare it, but only to say "Hm... I compared global warming to murder and found out they aren't the same thing."

As I said, manslaughter at worst. But really, I would not even go that far. I mean, our actions may indirectly lead to the death of another individual some time between now and hundreds of years in the future. That is a bit of a stretch, in my opinion.

Also, there is a difference between letting someone die and kill them. Lastly, to make your example more valid you have to remember it is more similar to 2 billion pills being in front of the girl. Even if you swat your away from her, there are so many people there it is likely enough will let her have the pill so she still dies anyway. And if it greatly inconveniences you to swat the pill away, and it will likely be for nothing, then there is less of a reason to swat it away in the first place.

And as I already said, I know that no judge would call it murder. Call it "state of death which could have been prevented by human action", if you like to. Say it in any jurisdictional language you want. It gets my point across. It was just a stylistic device, a little exaggeration I used. Sorry if I confused anyone.

And as you said, our actions may indirectly lead to the death of some individual in the future. Yes, and it is everything but right not to try to prevent this. And we should add that, if we are going to see worse consequences of global warming, "some individual" is certainly an understatement.

And yes, there is a difference between killing someone and letting someone die, as well as there is a difference between lying and not telling the truth. But if these actions, let them be passive or active, result in the same negative consequences for the victim, does the difference between that really matter?

I'm not sure if I'm understanding your try to crash my example correctly. Do you want to convey the message: There's no sense in doing something good, because too many people are bad?
To make it more clear: The girl represents the passive part, the whole humanity as a victim of possible consequences. You, the person, represent the active part of humanity, the one who has the power to act and to avoid negative consequences. The pill represents the danger as a whole.
In other words: If we act, we can save ourselves fron negative consequences.

 

Yeah, morally at least. Here's an analogy.

Situation 1: a small child accidentally pulls the trigger of a gun he thought was a toy and kills his classmate

Situation 2: a criminal escapes from jail and runs into the school and shoots the aforementioned classmate


The same result in both situation (the classmate dies) but the different circumstances cause the moral value of each action to differ.

And, in reference to your example, my point was this. Your example makes it seem like someone can do a very small, easy thing to surely save the life of another. In reality, a person has to inconvenience themself a decent amount to contribute very slightly to the saving of lives. Just showing this difference.

I don't necessarily disagree with you as a whole, just found a few points you mentioned that seemed they could be expanded upon.

 

To start off, I never said that you COULDN'T be proven right, I just don't think the same as you. Yes, there is fact behind what you think, and I've already said this numerous amounts of time that neither of us can truly be proven correct. And I assume that you believe in Darwin's theory of evolution? I do not. I'm Christian and I'm proud of it. But that's off topic.
I agree with what esaul17 posted about the intent/murder thing. He posed a good example.
And the main reason why I said that I didn't feel like debating this any longer is because there really isn't much more to be said, both you and I are both beginning to sound like broken records, "cyclic manner" "aerosols and greenhouse gases"
But still, I've already said this numerous amounts of time, and personally I think that global warming is a cyclic thing that will always happen, always has, and has always evened it's self out eventually.
And sure, I'll bring up the Mars thing again. Let's see what we have to debate about that. Now, I don't have my sources on this, I heard it from my dad, and he's quite up to date about stuff in the news, the thing about Mars' ice caps melting. And if you come back and say something like "we're affecting Mars with our toxins in the air" I might have to tear you apart
But anywho, same as you said, I dunno if I'm coming off as a bitch, but I hope I'm not! I'm really just a sweet ballerina *bats eyelashes* Haha, but I have to go to school now so...Peace