English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Human beings prefer to live a warmer environment than a colder one. Cold temperature affects economy, agriculture and biodiversity. Ice age is characterized by famines, pandemics and social distrurbance. The rise of carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere favors the growth of vegetation and improves the yields of agriculture thus, starvation is avoided if food distribution is properly done especially to developing nations.

2006-06-29 18:01:20 · 24 answers · asked by Vitex 1 in Environment

24 answers

The Earth is a complex mechanism rather like a watch - only much more complex. If you make a big random change to the way your watch works, like for instance smashing it with a hammer, will it work better? If we make a big random change to the Earth's climate, which causes changes to temperatures, rainfall, winds and ocean currents all over the Earth do you think it is likely to work better?

I am guessing not in both cases.

2006-07-03 10:07:46 · answer #1 · answered by Engineer 6 · 1 0

If the phenomenom is true then I guess your explanation sounds like a logical advantage for those that could be affected favorably, but as nature always balances itself and everything in life relates, maybe others may suffer due to the change in the atmosphere. No one really knows what would happen, unless we just wait and see.

I still have doubts if its even real, I read that researcg scientists' idea of global warming over hundreds or thousands of years was just an increase of 1 degree of warmth, which hardly leaves me believing we're in a crisis. They really are just making alot of estimates through other outside parameters. I'm no scientist, but I'm pretty sure there were no thermometers thousands of years ago.

So if the phenomenom is false than we may be worse off, as billions of dollars are funded by taxpayers' money that could have been used for other more useful programs instead of securing cushy jobs for the global warming research scientists.

But who am I kidding, do you think these scientists want to lose their jobs and say that everything is fine and not to worry about global warming? I think not.

Inevitably, there is definitely a conflict of interest for the researchers that are governmentally funded and we will generally never find out if the phenomenom is true unless something very drastic happens to prove the theory right (Something other than hurricanes in the southwest, as that is already a common occurrence), because if nothing ever happens then these same scientists will state to the public "See we rescued the planet from certain destruction! Now give us more money to help keep our world secure."

2006-06-29 23:52:51 · answer #2 · answered by Jeff T 1 · 0 0

"Global warming" is change. The earth is always changing and while some people fear and hate change, others thrive on it by adapting to new circumstances. A warmer earth is not abnormal and even if global warming is partially caused by human activity, it is not "bad" just for that reason. We humans are part of Earth; we have a right to be here. Rather than spending in a futile effort to prevent warming, let's direct our intellects and creativity toward ways of adapting to a warmer earth so that all of humankind can benefit.

2006-06-29 18:14:52 · answer #3 · answered by ? 7 · 0 0

I think it is up for debate? Even if the earth is warming ,(and I believe it is slightly but I think it has been warming at the same rate since the ice age and Man has little or no effect on it) is there any negatives to it. In the end we have to adapt to whatever it does and stop trying to fight something we have no control over especially something that may be an improvement.

2006-06-29 18:07:52 · answer #4 · answered by Arvadaman 3 · 0 0

I just hope that the global warming doesn't increase each year, or we end up living in a thermo oven around the globe. Yes it does better in warming temperature. But on the other hand we gain a lot more rain lately though. I'll say it's better to have the same atmosphere temperature way back 25 years ago. happy living on our globe.

2006-06-29 18:14:24 · answer #5 · answered by KghC_thegreatest 3 · 0 0

The result of global warming could mimic the extinction events that are known in the geological record. At these times of significant environmental change, plant and animal lineages have become extinct. The dinosaur extinction in the late Cretaceous is an example. Representation of lineages survive the catastrophic event, and these lineages evolve to contend with the environmental changes.

2006-06-29 18:07:42 · answer #6 · answered by Don R 2 · 0 0

I personally prefer a colder climate. Where I live you can feel the global warming, temps are way too hot already. Broke some records and the smog levels have skyrocketed. I hate warmer temps.

2006-06-30 02:56:50 · answer #7 · answered by NïghtStalkër_666 3 · 0 0

>>in school our classification has to do a debate if international warming is nice or undesirable. i chosen the best part,<< Cool. >>conserving that international warming is undesirable because it melts icebergs causing sea stages to upward push<< replace "icebergs" to glaciers. Granted, icebergs commonly come from glaciers, yet once the ice is contained in the sea, this is melting or no longer melting has no result on sea aspect. straight forward to imagine. Fill a tumbler a million/2 finished with water. Mark the point of the water. Now upload an ice dice (representing ice falling into the sea from a glacier). Mark the water aspect back. next, look ahead to the ice to soften... the position is the water aspect now? >>with accessible extinction of animals and land loss.<< properly, guy is already on to blame for the extinction of many species with out international warming, yet this is no longer significant on your debate. hotter may be good for some species, yet even a small replace would properly be devastating for others. hotter is *no longer* universally extra efficient. As for land loss, that one is a vast deal once you consider the position a majority of the planet's human inhabitants lives. >>yet then i did some analyze and curiously if there became no international warming,<< the position did you do your analyze? i imagine that you've lengthy gone to three questionable web content if this is what you've got here upon. >>the earth will be less warm making no flowers and stuff.<< less warm than what? too a lot warmth kills flowers likely more desirable than no longer sufficient. >>so how am i able to love have an alibi for that??<< locate extra efficient elements. inspect the NASA and NOAA web content for ideas on international warming. _

2016-11-30 00:50:55 · answer #8 · answered by compo 3 · 0 0

I wondered that today, too, as I drove home and shivered on a cold June day. I thought that I would not mind it being a little warmer, at least in June, and they were discussing global warming on the radio.

2006-06-29 18:05:47 · answer #9 · answered by mic 4 · 0 0

food isnt properly distributed anywhere and too much carbon dioxide can kill things. you cut down all of the plants that make the air we breath from carbon dioxide and replace them with plants that will be uprooted and destroyed in order to gather the seeds and fruits, then the ice age sounds much better.

2006-06-29 18:24:24 · answer #10 · answered by noyb o 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers