Isn't the real question about Climate Change why is it always doom&gloom and none of the good is highlighted?

Resolved Question

Show me another »

Isn't the real question about Climate Change why is it always doom&gloom and none of the good is highlighted?

My question has nothing to do with man made or not, my question is why is it portrayed assuch a bad thing?They denounce it as the end of the world, but yet when scientist look at the reality and look at the historical record there is in fact great benefits from a warmer earth.Greenland was called that because at the time of it's discovery by Vikings it was in fact green and warm enough to sustain life.The little ice age put an end to the Vikings settlement a 100 years later.

A list of benefits from a warmer earth,

-Longer growing seasons

-More farmland in cold regions

-More food production from higher CO2

-Less oil used to for heating during winters

-More coral reef growth

-LESS hurricanes

-Shipping benefitss using northern passage (4K less miles)

-Shrinking deserts

-Fewer death from cold

-Forest expansion

-Early spring,

Many of the university and scientific studies have found benefits like increased harvest and plant growth from higher CO2 levels. This is just a few bemefots, and I am sure there are hundreds more, but you never hear about them.

AREN'T AL GORE AND THE GLOBAL WARMERS MORE LIKE THE CRAZY GUY IN THE STREET YELLING THE WORLD IS ENDING?

IF SCIENTIST LOOKED AT THE BENEFITS OF GLOBAL WARMING WOULD THEY STILL GET THEIR BIG FAT CAT GRANT MONEY?

WHY IS IT THAT WE NEVER HEAR ANYTHING GOOD ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING?

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

1) The IPCC has a mandate to create fear about CAGW.

2)Like you said, it might be a bit hard to get grant money if you're not presenting a doom and gloom scenario on "global warming".

What benefits ? The ones you list are all lies ask any REAL scientist

There is a tendency for extremes to be emphasized but the claims that you are making as benefits have no basis.Increased growing seasons and land is offset by the loss of existing agricultural regions and the fact that our demographic use of land does not reflect the changing situations plus the changing habitats will result in environmental collapse such as the 80% of pine tress that have dies in Canada from pine beetles due to ten years of warm winters.There will indeed be less food production as current farmers find their land unproductive while other lands owned for other purposes becomes productive.Cooling takes far more energy than heating.Coral reefs die with slight sea temperature rises, it's called the bleached coral problem. More heat means more hurricanes not less, the primary energy source for hurricanes is heat.The North West passage is now becoming a conflict zone as the US and other countries are now claiming the waters between Canadian islands to be international waters, Canada is building a military base in Resolute and purchasing 70 fighters to enforce their presence in the northwest passage, the need for a military buildup in the North has dogged Canadian politics since the 1980's when nuclear submarines were considered.A hotter planet means less snow pack which means less flowing water in streams and rivers and more desserts.You can put on clothes when it's cold, only airconditioning helps with heat, the first is far more affordable than the latter. 80% of the forests in Canada are dead due to ten warm winters.Yes Spring is early, but that doesn't always mean life is early, the Crocus flowers in the prairies of Canada were delayed this year because of the lack of snow melt.

You need to revisit your dogma.

As to a geologic record of the extremes of global warming, look at the following video from Nova.You should also notice that the hypoxic seas exist today in coastal waters each summer such as the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico which has been growing each year.I doubt that a repeat of the geologic record will occur but the material you're catering to is flawed.

Source(s):

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/mass-…

Mostly because most of those are not likely to be benefits.There are certainly some benefits and some private investors have long been working to take advantage, developing arctic ports for example.But we won't be able to take advantage of longer growing seasons, for example, without major investments in water storage capabilities.Anywhere that relies on snowpack for water storage, the U.S. west for example, is likely to have to deal with increased spring flooding and increased summer droughts due to climate change.The adaptation will have to be massive investment in dams including the purchase of vast new tracks of public land and/or the taking of land now used for outdoorsmanship.We can make adaptations, the question though is who will pay for it all.Right now in America we have chosen to just suffer the extreme weather, the floods and the droughts and to do none of the rebuilding of infrastructure required to adapt to climate change.

There are a great many steps we can take to either mitigate or adapt to climate change.But we have decide to just dump the problem on our children and are grandchildren, because this is a particularly non-accountable generation of Americans.

There are benefits that are regularly highlighted.

Longer growing seasons in some areas of the world is a benefit.

More farmland in cold regions is a benefit for those regions. However this will be offset by the increased flooding in other regions and increased drought in others. Flooding destroys both crops and fresh water. And the recent Russian heatwave saw crop output decline substantially.

See last post regarding more CO2 and greater food growth. If all other factors remain the same CO2 will only be beneficial when it is the limiting factor. This concept is not very hard to grasp.

This is a silly argument. So we need to burn more oil to use less of it during the winter to keep warm?

This is false. Look up coral bleaching.

It is still questioned what the effects on hurricanes will be. They will most likely grow in strength. However the number produced is still up in the air. You seem to be knowledgeable in aspects that science has not found. Perhaps you should put out your own scientific journal yes?

Yes there will be shipping benefits.

Shrinking deserts is false again.

Fewer deaths from cold/ more deaths from heat.

This is another untruth.

You seem to be reposting many of the same points too.

The reality behind global warming and the science behind it has nothing to do with Al Gore. Scientists do look at the benefits of global warming. Where do you think you got your info from?

"WHY IS IT THAT WE NEVER HEAR ANYTHING GOOD ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING?"

We do, though we don't shout about it. If you don't it's probably because you haven't heard of Svante Arrhenius. Try reading a science book, and wasting less time on crackpot anti-science computer blogs like Wattsup.

Source(s):

If reading books is not within your skill set, try this website:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrh…

"He was the first person to predict that emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and other combustion processes would cause global warming. Arrhenius clearly believed that a warmer world would be a positive change."

Your 'question' is wrong on so many points:

>

Wrong. Greenland was named as such by the Viking 'Erik the Red' who discovered it to make it sound more appealing at home when trying to find people to settle there. One could call it history's very first use of an 'advertising euphemism'.

> & >

Both of which means more water is needed for irrigation and water gets scarcer because of global warming.

>

Higher CO2 does NOT automatically mean more food production, as several recent studies have shown, i.e. "Climate Change Boosts Then Quickly Stunts Plants, Decade-long Study Shows" (1)

>

More coal used to generate electricity during warmer weather (A/C)

>

Wrong. Coral's are affected world-wide due to increased levels of CO2 in the oceans as well as increased water temperature ("coral bleaching").

>

MORE intense hurricanes, the ones which cause the most damages.

>

A bit pointless when, due to sea level rise, there wont be many ports left to go to.

>

You have no clue whatsoever. None. Desertification is a major aspect of global warming meaning the amount of land globally which can be classified as 'desert' will increase, not decrease.

>

More deaths from warmer weather and global warming related extreme weather events (floodings, heat-waves, forest fires, etc.).

>

Only when there is sufficient water and with higher temperatures more ground water evaporates leaving those expanding forest you are imagining without little water to actually expand.

>

Ask any farmer how beneficial that is without extra water for irrigation, to name just one category of people who disagree with you on this particular item.

>

Can you back that up with credible sources?

The big reason is that the cons outweigh the pros.

1) higher water levels = people having homes and villages destroyed and other land

2) the temperature change will cause the currents to change causing many problems for many nations

3) salinity change cause cause problems for much of the marine life many people depend on for making a living along with many other negative implications.

4) the CO2 is often accompanied with many other pollutants causing/adding to health issues for citizens

5) causes pH to decrease, this could lead to more dying of sea life causing hard ship for businesses, people, etc as well

6) over time the Earth may become too hot, in this case it could make it impossible to inhabit the Earth for future generations.

I hope you understand the long term implications vs the short term is a large part of the argument.As Americans we are about planning for the future, and not ignoring the future so that we may profit in the short term.

I suspect the main reason you tend to hear mostly "gloom and doom" from people who accept global warming is that those who reject global warming are so busy painting the situation as being made entirely of kittens and rainbows that the realists are just struggling to get across the very real threats.

Here's a nice list of the positive and negative (mostly negative) effects of global warming: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-w… ; all of them are backed up with scientific papers.

Source(s):

Please check out my open questions

My question has nothing to do with man made or not, my question is why is it portrayed assuch a bad thing?They denounce it as the end of the world, but yet when scientist look at the reality and look at the historical record there is in fact great benefits from a warmer earth.Greenland was called that because at the time of it's discovery by Vikings it was in fact green and warm enough to sustain life.The little ice age put an end to the Vikings settlement a 100 years later.

A list of benefits from a warmer earth,

-Longer growing seasons

-More farmland in cold regions

-More food production from higher CO2

-Less oil used to for heating during winters

-More coral reef growth

-LESS hurricanes

-Shipping benefitss using northern passage (4K less miles)

-Shrinking deserts

-Fewer death from cold

-Forest expansion

-Early spring,

Many of the university and scientific studies have found benefits like increased harvest and plant growth from higher CO2 levels. This is just a few bemefots, and I am sure there are hundreds more, but you never hear about them.

AREN'T AL GORE AND THE GLOBAL WARMERS MORE LIKE THE CRAZY GUY IN THE STREET YELLING THE WORLD IS ENDING?

IF SCIENTIST LOOKED AT THE BENEFITS OF GLOBAL WARMING WOULD THEY STILL GET THEIR BIG FAT CAT GRANT MONEY?

WHY IS IT THAT WE NEVER HEAR ANYTHING GOOD ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING?