2 and 3 are both true.
Notes: 1a would be most likely to be true if warming is minimal.
I agree with b, d, e.
b) Warming of earth is not good for the humans and the other organisms. It will effect their free life. The high temperature will not allow the organisms to live freely. All organisms have certain adaptations to overcome the difficulties. But unexpected climate changes can't be good for the humans and the other organisms. The sun burn is a common disease because of the warming. There are many other diseases like dehydration etc.
d) The green house gases are increasing because of the uncontrollable developments. The Government in any country haven't taken a solution to control it effectively.
e)The warming in this century is because of the human interaction o the earth.
I don't agree with any of the letters in 1, but would agree with 1 d and e if they added the word "probably".
I agree with 2 and 3 completely.
On point 1.
a/b. is a denier talking point they like to make it sound like warming is beneficial (that is when they are not denying it's warming) it is certainly true that temperate zones may benefit if the are a little warmer, of course this cherry picks one zone while trying to ignore many others there is a fairly obvious effect on ice in a warmer world and we are seeing that already. Glacial ice is melting and as well as being a contributor to sea level rise millions of people rely on glacial melt water to survive, around the world.
c. Again a denier talking point and simply not true, the warmest decade is the 2000's and the warmest years 2005 & 2010 the later just 3 years ago.
d. The physics of why this will happen is pretty straight forward, melt permafrost and glacial ice and you expose land, it's melting releases more Co2 & methane, again this has already started to happen, with thousands of new seasonal lakes forming across Siberia in the process.
e.This is what the science shows, there is now no real doubt about that.
f. Yet again a denier excuse, they have already tried blaming the sun, volcano's, cosmic rays and clouds and have now moved into the total fiction section
2. Seems to be a rehash of 1a at the start towards the end going into possible deaths. There is no doubt from our history what we do when resources are stretched, look at China and Japan and a group of insignificant islands. What might we do if food or water security are threatened. Sadly I think the same people who now scream "it's not happening" will also be the ones saying "take what the other guy has, by force if necessary"
3. Probably true, deniers have this little catch phrase "alarmists blame everything on AGW" and deniers obviously troll for any silly report they can to try and confirm this, given the scope of AGW and the changes it will cause, it's hardly surprising that a few groups may indeed look at some silly points but that doesn't change the overall science in the least, all it seems to show is the petty and childish nature of denial. It should be pretty obvious that if you increase one of the main greenhouse gases by ~40% then you will warm the planet and doing that will have wide ranging effects.
Sea level rise, glacial melt, acidification of the oceans are all fact and known to be in their first stages. Sea level alone can cause huge problems not only in direct effect but in king tides and storm surge the effect of 1m is amplified in a storm surge, anyone who lives in areas like Florida already knows the added problems if a storm surge coincides with a high tide or worse a king tide, the flood effect is far greater, a permanent 1m rise means that will always be the case and when the new high tide mark coincides with a storm surge, areas that hardly ever see flood will be affected.
One of our brains trust of deniers has suggested (several times) that we have seen only 6in of sea level rise and will see no more than another 6in of sea level rise by the end of the century.
This seems to typify deniers and their math skills given the 6in figure is over a decade old
The actual figure up to 2012 was ~220mm (1870-2012) that is 8.6in not 6in.
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/index....
The current rate of rise is 3.16mm per year so the claimed 6in rise by the end of the century also doesn't add up as that ~275mm by the end of the century (87 years) that's a further 9.8in or a total of 18.4in (46.7cm) and that's without any further increase in the rate, so even without a further increase in the rate of rise we are already set to be near a half meter of rise.
The effects of that are clearly going to cause great harm.
Global warming ended last year and Earth's environment has always been in good shape for a thousand years. Mike
a definitely
b disagree, cooling would be horrendous with our 7 billion population
c it never started
d I think it is going to get colder
e NO
f A combination of known cycles but not yet understood.
2 and 3 agreed, what we must not do is something like geo-engineering, Man has a habit of interfering with nature with disastrous unforseen concesquences
f. Somehow you always forget the natural fluctuations of temperature from the MWP to the LIA and to now. That is a very well known cycle warmists always leave out.
What is it that we can do with something that is 200,000,000 times the size of our whole population?
If you disagree with any of them, please indicate which ones you disagree with, and why. If you agree with all of them, please briefly explain why. (the first 6 statements all started the same way, so I did them as 1 a-f instead of as separate numbers)
1. Whether or not it is probable, it is at least minimally possible that:
a. Warming will be generally beneficial for humanity and/or most other organisms
b. Warming will be generally harmful to humanity and/or most other organisms
c. AGW has stopped or will soon stop
d. AGW will accelerate over the next century
e. 20th century warming was caused primarily or entirely by human greenhouse gas emissions
f. 20th century warming was caused primarily or entirely by some as-yet-unknown natural cycle, rather than by human action
2. Any climate change, regardless of what type, or even any lack of change, will have winners and losers--that is, some organisms and/or people will be better off, and some will be worse off, than they would be under different conditions. Whatever happens with climate, and whatever we do about it, at least some individual people will die who would not otherwise have died.
3. The optimum course of action is generally the one that causes the least overall net harm, it is generally not possible to find a course of action that will cause no harm to anyone.
