Why do some people think that global warming will kill us?

Question

There's been several questions posted by people worried that global warming will kill them. Even in the very worst case scenario this isn't the case. It's certainly not what the scientists are saying and as far as I'm aware it's not what the media are saying.

I was wondering where people are getting this impression from.

Good point Grizz and = ^_^ = as it is mostly kids, looking at the Q and A profiles of many of them I believe they are asking genuine questions and are genuinely worried.

To clarify the point Grizz made. Some people think GW will kill everyone, I was wondering where this particular notion came from.

Answer 1

Well, Trevor, taking a look at Zach's answer just above mine is revealing:

"I'll tell you, THEY ARE ALL GOING TO EVAPORATE BECAUSE OF THE HEAT, HOW WILL ANY LIFE ON THIS PLANET SURVIVE WITH OUT WATER. It's impossible, we are all going to die with out water.

Do you understand, NOW?
Source(s):

It's a FACT "

The pedantic tone, as if he could actually teach you something on the matter, is disturbing and humorous in a nervous laughter kind of way. It makes me think of the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution, when one could be in favor of the revolt against the aristocracy but still end up at the business end of a guillotine for not subscribing to the particular mob rule du jour. Then, as now, there was a great stirring of emotions and engaging of the populace as a means towards an end. In doing so, there is always the danger that a popular movement can establish a "mind of its own" and actually obstruct the path towards that end...or venture off on a new one altogether.

We have not seen eye to eye on many things, but I do stand with you on the notion that ALL of us could and SHOULD benefit from conserving our environment: weaning ourselves from non-renewable fuels, re-evaluating our priorities when it leads to needless overconsumption, reducing our negative impact on the environment, and ameliorating the damage we have already created. That attitude, if adopted by all, would reduce anthropogenic GHGs to the point where the planet's natural cycles/buffers could easily compensate, making our contribution to GCC moot.

All of this would be independent of what one believes the science of global warming to be. It would be totally academic. Much as one does not need to know of the particular theories of gravity in order to have a rudimentary knowledge of how it applies to our every day lives, one does not need to know exactly the science of climatology to understand how to be a better steward of the environment.

Religious zealots still employ the threat of eternal damnation to all those who don't follow "the path" to salvation, to everlasting life with the Creator. Somehow, it is more effective than imploring us to be "good, for goodness' sake" and leaving redemption in the hands of the Divine. Something very much like that is at play here...and it appears to be more the former than the latter.

Answer 2

Trevor wrote: "It's certainly not what the scientists are saying and as far as I'm aware it's not what the media are saying."



Stephen W Hawking thinks global warming will kill us. You may not know who is Stephen W Hawking anyway

In an ABC News interview in August 2006, Stephen W Hawking explained, "The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space, and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate one of the main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large quantities of methane, trapped as hydrates on the ocean floor. Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so further global warming. We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can."

Answer 3

I've seen several tv shows with scientists from all over the globe talking about global warming on the public tv stations locallysaying that the sun is heating up, saying what at the moment is keeping the sun's heat from getting to us at the moment is smog. That we need to reduce the smog so we can breathe, but the smog is what's presently keeping us from going into desert mode, but if we do remove the smog (which the US and Europe have been cleaning up their smog but China and India aren't so much so but both are producing a lot) then the heat will get us. They say it's a double edged sword and by mid century we'd feel the sun's effects, and high waters...unless we put less oil, coal, and gas burning into the atmosphere, but still that the sun will take its effect on the world raising by 18 degrees F causing fires, same as it happened 50M years ago. .They say it's moving faster than ever these days toward that situation.

Answer 4

That ISN'T exactly what the media, and you yourself, have said in the past? That's funny (funny hmmm, not funny haha). Then where does the current figure of 150,000 deaths per year attributed to Global Warming come from?

Are you Trevor or the ghost of Trevor acting up again?

I also think the "Will it kill us?" questions are fake for the most part .. they all follow exactly the same format: "I am 10, I don't wanna die!" ... guess what, 10 is too young to be on this site, bye bye. LMAO ... now it's "I am 15, I don't wanna die!" so now they make the cut off age. Very peculiar.

EDIT: Jay K, I understand what you are saying but you cannot attribute any single weather event solely due to Global Warming. Katrina may or may not have happened in spite of Global Warming. You cannot say there is a direct relationship, that is incorrect, sorry. What you CAN say is there is a higher likelihood of higher severity storms more often (ie the 100 year storm is becoming the 10 year storm).

Answer 5

Read this....

A follow-up report by the IPCC released in April 2007 said the following

Sea level may rise

Some small islands are in danger

Glaciers around the world could melt, causing sea levels to rise while creating water shortages in regions dependent on runoff for fresh water.

Strong hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, wildfires, and other natural disasters may become commonplace in many parts of the world. The growth of deserts may also cause food shortages in many places.

More than a million species face extinction from disappearing habitat, changing ecosystems, and acidifying oceans.

Global warming could lead to large-scale food and water shortages and have catastrophic effects on wildlife.

Answer 6

Fires, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, floods and tornadoes will take a greater toll as we can already see. Probably the greatest factor, extinction of the human species would be in changes to the air we breath, the amounts of CO2, oxygen and nitrogen and the changes in their proportions. Too much CO2 is going to decrease the amount of oxygen available to breath. (I am personally open to mutation if that will solve the problem) Even a very small percentage can effect us adversely. I'm anxious to spend a weekend at some new tropical beach on the Arctic Ocean as soon as it's developed. I understand the northern lights will be fantastic.

Answer 7

Global warming is changing the weather patterns, causing droughts as well as floods, not to mention gigantic hurricanes that come before the hurricane season, all of which are devastating millions around the world. Many people are dying of dehydration everyday. Also, there has been studies of polar bears and other animals that the pollutants are causing the male reproductive organ to shrink, which leads to a decline in sex drive. Slowly, the population will decline as well, since the death rate will greatly surpass the birth rate.

Answer 8

Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth does indeed have some correct facts, but as he even says himself, sometimes you have to over-exaggerate to send the message to people:

Q. There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?

A. I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/ (Interview with Grist Magazine’s David Roberts and Al Gore about An Inconvenient Truth)

Answer 9

My guess is that it comes from watching 'An Inconvenient Truth', which basically presents the worst case scenario and as I recall doesn't present much of a timeline. That combination has the potential to cause confusion such as this.

It's true that global warming will kill some of 'us' (approximately 150,000 per year currently, but mostly in third world countries), but the fear that it will kill everyone is simply a misunderstanding, probably stemming from Gore's film.

Answer 10

this is what you people wanted

scare people into action.

your doing it by saying there will be floods, droughts, no food.

hell, you claim 150,000 deaths so far from global warming.

how can you honestly be confused how people don't think that it's going to kill people?



now, you sit back and wonder how this came about?

come on.

mass hysteria has been used since the 60's.
it's right out of your playbook.

save the children.
future generations.
must act now before it's too late.

SINCE THE 60'S!

never mind not one prediction environmentalists have made has come true.

shame on you! ALL OF YOU!

kids are committing suicide at an alarming rate. now you exacerbate the problem by taking away their future!

IS THIS YOUR IDEA OF SAVING THE CHILDREN?

but hey, according to you people, this is a GOOD thing.
we're depopulating the earth, ONE CHILD AT A TIME. congratulations.

you people are sick and disgusting cult and it boggles the mind how you have ANY credibility.