Climate Change Deaths

[durangodawood]

Human morality is good at directing actions where one individual is 100% responsible.

Its terrible at helping us decide what to do when everyone is a little bit responsible.
.

 

[Reeniee]

Most scientists don't believe in "Climate Change."

What is your source for this claim? I've heard quite the opposite, that most scientists agree that man made climate change is happening.

I mean: Scientists in relevant fields.

 

[AtWhatCost]

What is your source for this claim? I've heard quite the opposite, that most scientists agree that man made climate change is happening.

I mean: Scientists in relevant fields.

Unbiased articles.

 

[Strathos]

Unbiased articles.

Paid for by fossil fuel corporations, right?

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

[AtWhatCost]

Paid for by fossil fuel corporations, right?

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

You're not very good at figuring ut bias, are you? No, that was paid for by your tax dollars, and brought to you by the government that has much to gain by getting what they want to get -- excuses to spend your money for what they want and to make sure they're no-drilling policy goes on as long as they get reelected.

Never mind. I'm looking for someone to debate. I hear enough of the programming from the different sources already, to know what I'm supposed to believe. I'm a grown up now, so make up my own mind.

 

[Strathos]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...ved=0CBsQgQMwAGoVChMI58m11amPyAIVyW8-Ch12iANL
http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/928.asp

Funny how every scholarly article and reliable source agrees with me, and only wingnut sites and fossil fuel shills disagree.

 

[loveofourlord]

Ugh tumblr is leaking again.

One its not like climate change is going to kill anyone any time or fast enough that there wont be fair warnings before you would drown. I mean seriously, go enjoy your life. Why is everyone so desperate to stop climate change yet as a country we cant even provide for our vets? Like priorities, seriously.

Ummm number of people died from heatstroke, huricanes, floods, droughts, and other things has been going up, and alot can be attributed to global warming, it's not like were going to only die when things get 100% bad, there will always be hurricanes and droughts, but if 2500 people normally die from huricanes, and with global warming it's 3500 people thats 1000 people died likly from global warming, it's not like it's a magickal barrier where after global warming ramps up to 80% everyone dies or such.

 

[civilwarbuff]

.

 

[Dave-W]

Except that this time it is human caused, and so is happening faster than natural.

To me the threat is real whether it is man-made or not.
I will get out of the way of a falling boulder just as surely as I will get out of the way of a train. Both will kill me just as dead.

Climate change deaths aren't okay just because longer term climate change is natural.

No they are not.

My point is whether natural or not, climate change needs to be figured in to the way we all live. (as should economic change)

 

[Paradoxum]

To me the threat is real whether it is man-made or not.
I will get out of the way of a falling boulder just as surely as I will get out of the way of a train. Both will kill me just as dead.

No they are not.

My point is whether natural or not, climate change needs to be figured in to the way we all live. (as should economic change)

Well the evidence is that it's man made.

I'm not a radical on this issue. I'm not sure any drastic changes are needed to stop climate change. I don't think we need to significantly change society. It would cost, but it will cost less than having to deal with climate change once it's here in full force.

Also, using green energy give more energy security, and takes away power from the middle-east and Russia. It should also improve air quality, and so health.

 

[Paradoxum]

Are we sure of that? If you see a drowning person and can swim, you might have a responsibility. But what are you, individually, capable of doing to prevent the seas from rising?

The biggest thing would be voting for, and pushing for political party policy which is green.

Well, nothing. None of the tokens that make people feel good about themselves really can do that. And, what's more, we don't even know what to do. If Global Warming is real...and it's primarily man's doing...we still are not fully informed about what policies will work to slow it and which are theories that will turn out to be mistaken.

Well investing in green research, subsidies to green energy and improved insulation, and a tax on carbon use would help, an perhaps solve the problem over time.

This is a little off-topic perhaps, but consider the matter of wind energy. Does it relieve some of the pressure for the use of dirty energy? Probably. But before you run out and put a giant windmill in your backyard, consider that hundreds of thousands of birds, including protected species, are killed in the blades annually. Consider also that the cost of such energy is much much more than the cost of fossil fuels. This falls upon the poor. So is the moral imperative to conserve animal species and the moral obligation to improving the lot of the poor suddenly of no importance? Do you have a moral obligation to avoid such alternative energy for this reason?

Wind farms might kill some birds, but climate change will kill many more species around the world.

Climate change will also likely affect the poor, particularly in poorer countries, if you want to count them too. Subsidies could reduce the price for the poor for a while, until the cost is similar, or until we have fusion energy.

And that's to say nothing about "visual pollution" that conservationists and environmentalists have been harping on for generations. Now they've gone silent because they have a different issue.

That wind turbines look bad? I think such people can go to hell.

When it comes to moral responsibility, it really does take having the ability, as an individual, to make a difference--not a gesture. And not to engage in something unethical in order to accomplish something that's ethical.

Individuals can make a small difference, but the biggest difference in in voting and support for green causes.

 

[Paradoxum]

No--no more than you are personally responsible for all who have been killed by illegal immigrants or in wars in which your country participated.

Well if I was vocally in favour of an unjustified war, perhaps I would be somewhat responsible for murder.

I don't really know what you mean by illegal immigration comments.

 

[Paradoxum]

Most scientists don't believe in "Climate Change."

As far as I know, they do.

 

[AtWhatCost]

As far as I know, they do.

Sure. Easy to do, if you don't look closely at "the facts" because you don't look hard.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

If someone drowns in front of you, and you purposely don't minimally help them, isn't their death your fault?

You're playing at the weakness of men in being inactive when someone is in dire need of help.
~tread carefully~

 

[Albion]

Are we sure of that? If you see a drowning person and can swim, you might have a responsibility.

The biggest thing would be voting for, and pushing for political party policy which is green.

I'm sure the drowning victim would appreciate knowing that you could have helped him but had more important things to do.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Yeah, that's not the same. I wasn't in a place where I could help anyone drowning, and that was the point. That you're in a place to help.

Why would anyone want to help someone drown? Euthanasia? Of course that poster is not in any position to stop the climate from changing. So the poster is correct in the analogy. The poster cannot stop the multiple causes of climate change anymore than the dinosaurs could when their climate changed. And refraining from being conned into thinking so by those that want to use the bogus idea that people have the ability to stop the climate from changing in order for them to force their agenda on economic fairness upon us is only a reasonable position to take.

 

[KWCrazy]

I'm 59 years old. Since I've been alive, people have been told we're headed into a mini ice age twice and we're heading the other way three times. It's kind of like the ever-changing "The world is ending on (Insert whatever date you want here.)" After a while, it's just amusing.

And yet, the dishonest still lead the gullible and call you a denier.
I have a hard time looking at those who believe in man caused climate change as intelligent people. I'm 53 and I've heard the same drivel my entire life; everything about America is and and we're destroying the world. I fact, in this thread we have a serious post about how eating meat is destroying the planet. Everything destroys the planet.

Dropping millions of tons of explosives all over the world didn't destroy the earth, but cow farts are going to kill us. Really?
We don't have the AUTHORITY to destroy this planet. It WILL BE destroyed, however, and I seriously doubt it will take another hundred years. The Lord is returning and all the signs have been fulfilled. The world will end with a trumpet and an exclamation from the angels; not by cow farts or the use of (not really) fossil fuels. The true deniers are the ones who deny the testament of the Lord that He will come quickly. It can happen today.

After 17 years of cooling they are still talking about global warming. It's about time for the liars-for-hire to shift their rhetoric to talk of another ice age. The gullible will believe it, of course. It's sad what a dearth of common sense there is these days.

 

[KWCrazy]

Funny how every scholarly article and reliable source agrees with me, and only wingnut sites and fossil fuel shills disagree.

Funny how leftist sights are called scholarly articles and publications that allow for dissenting opinions are called wingnut sites. I believe the stupidity of man has reached new heights. Now instead of seeking different viewpoints and making up their minds people prefer to follow the propaganda sources and attack anyone who tries to bring news instead of rhetoric.

I guess I'm done talking politics with the willingly indoctrinated. Their minds are closed and inoperative. They believe only what Big Brother tells them. Orwell was right. The only thing he had wrong was the date.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Cold weather is more lethal than warm weather, so allowing a little (or big) Ice Age to happen could be a bigger problem than hotter weather. It seems to me that it is difficult to avoid deaths no matter what one does. The weather will always cause deaths, whether it is too hot or too cold, and possibly even if it is "just right".

Plus, the poverty caused by economic intervention to save lives may cost lives.

So, how do we calculate moral culpability out of this? It strikes me as very difficult.

And does this require a commitment to utilitarian approaches to ethics?


eudaimonia,

Mark