Have you ever read anything good about global warming? Why is all the news always bad?
Objectively speaking, any environmental change should have both positive benefits and negative effects. For example, theory predicts and observations confirm that human-induced warming takes place primarily in winter, lengthening the growing season. Satellite measurements now show that the planet is greener than it was before it warmed. There are literally thousands of experiments reported in the scientific literature demonstrating that higher atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations ― cause by human activity ― dramatically increase food production. So why do we only hear one side about global warming?
Perhaps because there’s little incentive for scientists to do anything but emphasize the negative and the destructive. Alarming news often leads to government funding, funding generates research, and research is the key to scientists’ professional advancement. Good news threatens that arrangement.
This is the reality that all scientists confront: every issue, be it global warming, cancer or AIDS, competes with other issues for a limited amount of government research funding. And, here in Washington, no one ever received a major research grant by stating that his or her particular issue might not be such a problem after all.
A recent story is typical. Two American scientists, Thomas Knutson and Robert Tuleya, published an academic paper forecasting an increase in the power of hurricanes (typhoons) because of global warming. Specifically, they used a computer model in which the sea surface temperature was warmed, and they found that nearly 60 percent of the changes in the computer’s hurricanes could be attributed to that effect.
The real world is not the world of the computer. In reality, only 10 percent of the behavior of hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean (where there are the best long-term records) is related to sea surface temperatures. When that is factored in, any changes in hurricanes related to global-warming become undetectable over the next century.
I would visit this website: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-w... It provides both positive and negative consequences of global warming. Although some people may say that global warming is a scam, if you do your research and pay attention to current events (super-storms like Sandy and Katrina) you will see that global warming IS very real.
Although you are correct that global warming won't happen overnight, many of the areas that rising sea levels, drought, and other things will affect are located in countries with very little monetary resources. This means that they won't be able to move people out of the affected areas and even if they did manage to get everybody out, where would they all go?
The point I am trying to make here is that global warming, while it may have some benefits to the environment, will create a chain reaction of events/disasters that will stretch humanity's ability to cope. I'm not saying that the end of the world is nigh, I'm saying that global warming will drastically change the way that the human race interacts and lives with its environment.
It is considered a "bad thing" by those who stand to gain financially from these fraudulent claims. People need to begin paying more attention to the solar-lunar magnetic connections and how these forces have direct impacts upon our planet's climate. Why is Greenland named this? Because at one time (during the Viking's time period) it was covered by greenery and there was much less sea ice in the North Atlantic and Arctic Seas. What caused this kind of warmth to exist at a time when there were no hydrocarbons being released en masse by humans? Yeah, the fake scientists do not want to go there. They wish to keep banging the mankind is the culprit drum as loudly and as long as they possibly can. It means money in their pockets through higher fuel prices, carbon taxes, carbon trading prices, and the means to bring equality between Developed nations and Undeveloped nations. Gore grows wealthier by the day because of global warming doomsayers. CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a necessary raw material for green plants to grow properly. Instead of taxing everybody, we ought to be concentrating on expanding our forests, particularly the rain forests in equatorial regions. Consider the fact that as the ocean water temperature grows warmer the water itself releases CO2 into the atmosphere. So, the big question really is, What is causing the ocean temperature to increase? and not, "Why are the CO2 levels increasing so fast?"
Imagine the land being filled with water,moving the people yes but where i mean at the moment too the population density is high and moving people away from high risk places to other would mean even higher density and there would be very less place if the lands got filled. Climate change will also bring a lot of diseases and disaster we can't just imagine the scenario it would be more than the worst case scenario.
Global Warming is the poster child for militant environmentalism. It embodies every child's nightmare, every mother's worry, every politician's avarice, every scam artist's wildest imagination. It is propaganda. Its publishers have made it exactly what they wanted: a scare tactic to over-ride common sense. Climate change has become the front story on the evening news instead of the weather report between the headlines and the sports report.
this is globle warming the face of the earth would change as well as weather patterns.
No it would not be bad, we would lose some coastline, but would gain a lot more habitable land (Siberia Canada) also warming would mean wetter so our deserts would recede, warming wetter and Co2 mean better food crops, and more farmland.
Desertification, mass extinctions, sea level rise. And what about those that are unable to move elsewhere? Oh I forgot, your mantra is "**** you Jack, I'm all right"
Things like this happen suddenly. Normally, humans react slow to such disasters either because they are scared or too frightened till they can't move. Global warming help to melt ice glaciers too.BAD
I understand the face of the earth would change, as well as weather patterns.
The inland sea might fill again, and the coastline would change, but is that really so bad?
It would not happen over nite, so people would have time to move out of endangered areas.
What precisely makes the warming bad?
Because it is a scam, politically.
It good for the Earth, though.
Nothing, Wayne, nothing. If you try searching "man's contribution to CO2" you will find the truth about global warming.
Historically, when a climate change takes place this fast it is accompanied by a large extinction event.
It melts the snow.
Life is a delicate balance that works in certain conditions only...
Actually it depends on WHERE you live.
God made it bad. Anyway wouldn't it be nicer if it was cooler?
Move to Bangladesh if you don't think it is bad
