Global Warming claims three lives

• derek bomar

  

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/03/baby-survives-shooting-in_n_484316.html
  http://abcnews.go.com/International/baby-miraculously-survives-shooting-suicide-pact/story?id=9987171 (for those who hate the huffpo)
  
  :huh:
• Nate

  Al Gore told you so!
• FatHobbit

  

  It wasn't really global warming, but hopefully the baby will be ok.
• O-Trap

  

  Next week, there will be an article about a dog who survived gunshot wounds when its owners mistook it for a manbearpig, and before turning the guns on themselves.
• tk421

  

  The world would be a lot better off if the people who believe in man made global warming did their part and killed themselves.
• jmog

  Shouldn't the title of the thread say claimed three lives?
  
  Both parents and the 2 year old.
  
  The 14 month old baby is the lone survivor of these idiotic parents.
• gorocks99

  

  That's the spirit.
• derek bomar

  

  jmog wrote: Shouldn't the title of the thread say claimed three lives?
  
  Both parents and the 2 year old.
  
  The 14 month old baby is the lone survivor of these idiotic parents.

  fixed
• baseballstud24

  tk421 wrote: The world would be a lot better off if the people who believe in man made global warming did their part and killed themselves.

  You honestly don't think we have created a disturbance/change in the atmosphere?
• gorocks99

  

  Global warming fight, round eleventy billion ....
  
  ... FIGHT!
  
  <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
• tk421

  

  baseballstud24 wrote:

  tk421 wrote: The world would be a lot better off if the people who believe in man made global warming did their part and killed themselves.

  You honestly don't think we have created a disturbance/change in the atmosphere?

  Do we pollute? Absolutely. Is it going to cause catastrophic changes to this planet? Who knows. If people believe that man is harming this planet, then the logical conclusion would be to have less people, no? So, do your part for mother Earth, kill yourself.
• JoeA1010

  I hope all the media cheerleaders for global warming alarmism are happy with themselves. They and the environmentalist nutjobs just scared these people into killing themselves for fear of global warming.
• baseballstud24

  tk421 wrote:

  baseballstud24 wrote:

  tk421 wrote: The world would be a lot better off if the people who believe in man made global warming did their part and killed themselves.

  You honestly don't think we have created a disturbance/change in the atmosphere?

  Do we pollute? Absolutely. Is it going to cause catastrophic changes to this planet? Who knows. If people believe that man is harming this planet, then the logical conclusion would be to have less people, no? So, do your part for mother Earth, kill yourself.

  I do believe man harms the planet, but the logical conclusion is not to have less people (although sometimes it would be nice)...the logical solution would be to stop littering and polluting, no?
• tk421

  

  baseballstud24 wrote:

  tk421 wrote:

  baseballstud24 wrote:

  tk421 wrote: The world would be a lot better off if the people who believe in man made global warming did their part and killed themselves.

  You honestly don't think we have created a disturbance/change in the atmosphere?

  Do we pollute? Absolutely. Is it going to cause catastrophic changes to this planet? Who knows. If people believe that man is harming this planet, then the logical conclusion would be to have less people, no? So, do your part for mother Earth, kill yourself.

  I do believe man harms the planet, but the logical conclusion is not to have less people (although sometimes it would be nice)...the logical solution would be to stop littering and polluting, no?

  Yes, but that's not what the alarmists preach. They'd rather we all go back to the horse and buggy.
• baseballstud24

  I'll consider myself an alarmist then and preach STOP F^&** LITTERING AND POLLUTING THE AIR!
• O-Trap

  

  baseballstud24 wrote: You honestly don't think we have created a disturbance/change in the atmosphere?

  Might we have made a TINY difference? Sure. Have we created a "disturbance?" No.
  
  Mother Nature is far more robust than that. Between the human species and the earth, the former is the more fragile of the two.
  

  baseballstud24 wrote: I do believe man harms the planet, but the logical conclusion is not to have less people (although sometimes it would be nice)...the logical solution would be to stop littering and polluting, no?

  Not polluting and littering is all about being a responsible member of the environment. However, the crying Indian is not a sign that we are having any significant effect on the earth as a whole.
• baseballstud24

  I'm not talking about throwing trash out the car window. I'm talking about major corporations all over the world pumping toxins and harmful gasses into the environment. Tell me that doesn't have a major impact on this planet.
• O-Trap

  

  baseballstud24 wrote: I'm not talking about throwing trash out the car window. I'm talking about major corporations all over the world pumping toxins and harmful gasses into the environment. Tell me that doesn't have a major impact on this planet.

  Compared to the size of the planet, it honestly isn't all that much, particularly when nature itself has the ability to counteract much of what you're describing.
  
  The earth is not a weak, defenseless entity that humanity must avoid damaging by walking on eggshells or reinventing the wheel of industry.
  
  To put it in the words of one of my favorite authors, "The earth was here before we were, and it will be here when we leave."
  
  Suggesting that the volume of those toxins and gasses is harmful is missing the forest for the trees.
  
  When you look at them in a philosophical vacuum, they look like a large problem. When you add the context of comparing them to the volume of the earth, AND you factor in the robust nature of the earth, they become FAR less concerning.
  
  For example, one of the big concerns for awhile has been CO2 emissions. However, when comparing man-caused CO2 emissions to naturally produced CO2 emissions, the man-made emissions look like MUCH less of an issue, because one can see that the earth has easily been able to withstand its own CO2 waste in large quantities for millenia. Thus, one realizes that while mankind might see its own CO2 emissions and think them overwhelming, when comparing them to naturally produced CO2, they are nothing.
  
  At most, our pollution thus far has been a knee scrape on nature. Not a serious problem. That isn't to say we shouldn't keep it in check, of course. If you keep scraping the same knee over and over and over, you'll get to bone, and you will end up with bigger problems. I am all for many of the green efforts.
  
  However, to suggest that we, a single species that the earth has sustained for a long time, can somehow destroy the natural hand that has fed us and sustained us is ludicrous.
• Sonofanump

  I do see a correlation between those who believe in man made global warming and those who feel they are better off ending their own lives.
  
  ...and who put these Volcanos and cows here on earth? Don't they know they are bad for the environment?
• UA5straightin2008

  

  56 year old man, 23 year old chick
  
  hes bound to have problems in the bedroom, so the chick probably went apeshit
• Sykotyk

  

  But in talking about air pollution, we're talking 'parts per million'. If just a few parts per million more of a certain chemical, compound, or gas can cause problems, it doesn't really take a genius to figure out how quickly you can begin affecting the world.
  
  Smog is greatest 'proof' of pollution, and what California has done alone since the 1980s to limit pollution has done a great job of reducing smog. Unless, of course, you want to believe the decline in smog is just a coincidence and has had nothing to do with people and what they've done through laws, reductions, and environmentally-safe practices.
  
  Sykotyk
• fan_from_texas

  baseballstud24 wrote: I'll consider myself an alarmist then and preach STOP F^&** LITTERING AND POLLUTING THE AIR!

  At what cost?
  
  If we wanted to eliminate global warming, the best way to do that would be to completely stop all use of electricity, as well as any manufacturing. We'd also need to eliminate cars. This would be the best way to do it.
  
  But I don't think anyone really wants that. There are tradeoffs. What sort of tradeoffs do you propose? What would you like to see happen?
  
  When people act like a handful of Americans driving hybrids is going to make any noticeable difference in GHG emissions . . . they completely misunderstand the scope of the problem. If it is a real problem, we probably don't have the political stomach to take the measures necessary to combat it.
• jmog

  baseballstud24 wrote: I'll consider myself an alarmist then and preach STOP F^&** LITTERING AND POLLUTING THE AIR!

  Sorry, but CO2 is not a pollutant/poison.
  
  If it was, then humans should all stop breathing out.
• jmog

  baseballstud24 wrote: I'm not talking about throwing trash out the car window. I'm talking about major corporations all over the world pumping toxins and harmful gasses into the environment. Tell me that doesn't have a major impact on this planet.

  Please tell me what "toxins and harmful gases" you are referring to so I know how to respond to your post.
• jmog

  Sykotyk wrote: But in talking about air pollution, we're talking 'parts per million'. If just a few parts per million more of a certain chemical, compound, or gas can cause problems, it doesn't really take a genius to figure out how quickly you can begin affecting the world.
  
  Smog is greatest 'proof' of pollution, and what California has done alone since the 1980s to limit pollution has done a great job of reducing smog. Unless, of course, you want to believe the decline in smog is just a coincidence and has had nothing to do with people and what they've done through laws, reductions, and environmentally-safe practices.
  
  Sykotyk

  Sorry, but SMOG and AGW are totally different subjects and totally different chemicals/gases altogether.
  
  So pick one.
  
  If you want to talk about SMOG then sure, lets talk about NOx, SOx, etc gases that come from cumbustion and create major LOCAL polution problems (SOx contributes to SMOG, NOx contributes to acid rain and ground level ozone). These chemicals over the last couple decades have been greatly reduced in vehicle emissions (low sulfur diesel, catalytic converters, etc) and in industry in "SMOG" type cities like LA, LV, etc. Both NOx and SOx are harmful gases.
  
  Hower, GW is supposedly caused by CO2, which is not a harmful gas at all, it is part of the life cycle of the planet (we breathe in O2, breath out CO2, plants take in CO2, release O2). CO2 is not a poison and as O-Trap pointed out we create much less CO2 in industry/car emissions that the planet does on its own (volcanos, animals, etc). The CO2 we emit does very little to the planet.
  
  Now, I'm also like O-Trap and believe in conservation and a lot of "green" energy idea, but mainly to find alternatives to foreign oil