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

When reports about global warming/climate change/etc. are mentioned, the slant is always entirely negative. Surely changes of climate will actually be beneficial to some species or environments? I am prepared to accept that climate balance may be changing but I think the media is biased towards saying it is entirely terrible and not giving us any mention of good things that may come of it.

2007-07-28 16:06:40 · 33 answers · asked by quarktard 3 in Environment Global Warming

Having read some of the answers here, thankyou to those who have answered the question sensibly, and I'd like to point out to those who think there CAN'T be any positive effects you need to think outside the box a little. Example... decrease in polar bears is negative, but increase in "vermin" species IS positive - there is no logic to saying one species is "worth" more than another just because they look cuddly or are currently threatened with extinction.

2007-07-29 13:29:01 · update #1

33 answers

If you take a look at the latest IPCC report, AR4, you'll find that the models say that we'll likely have fewer cold days. It does not say we'll have more hot days - instead it says we'll likely have more frequent warmer nights. (likely means greater than 66% chance.) You'll also find that of all the other negative effects, they all have a likelihood of just over 50%. Additionally , ONLY ONE of the negatives - drought increases - has had any actual studies, all the others, they admit are just opinions: "Attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgement rather than formal attribution studies."

Not quite the doom and gloom people are expecting to hear.

Let's recap: the only places where researchers have a reasonable idea that man has made any contribution (greater than 2/3 a chance) is basically less cool/cold, not necessarily more warm, and these comes from a computer model. Only one other negative effect has actually been studied - droughts - and found to have a slightly better than 50/50 chance. The rest are opinions.

I don't know about you, but this puts me in the mood to blow a $trillion a year these terrible negatives.

2007-07-28 21:33:22 · answer #1 · answered by 3DM 5 · 4 1

honestly, the negative effects of climate change heavily outweigh the positive. In fact the only positive results(not really even positive tho) could be that 1, water parks could get more buisiness.... and that drilling for oil in alaska and the artic will increase busisiness...but that will only contributing more directly and greatly to the problem of warming of many climates... and distrubt ecosystems too in the region..so i don't know what your feasable argument is for this....the economy will slowly decline with the decrease of the need for certain buisinesses..e.g ski resorts, warm clothing lines, ect... and also the cost (econmically and enviornentally) of air conditioning in certain places will rise.....media isnt biased, as you stated they are stating wha tt top scientists have found.... in fact if the media were being biased, they would be favoring the anti-globalwarming/climate change side of the argument... since america's governement (bush administration) has continually been steadfast on the "it's not true" or, "there isnt much proof" view.... in fact in many articles, it has been proven that the administration has altered documents by scientists before publicising them to make the issue seem less urgent.... and bush didn't sign the kyoto treaty.... the media isnt being biased... all in all, climate change is truly dangerous to every aspectof the earth and its beings...

2007-07-29 07:10:27 · answer #2 · answered by nyfan1080 1 · 0 0

The real truth is that the earth is going out of orbit and is gonna crash into the sun. The worlds politicians just don't want us to know about it. Actually the climate always changes. Why would it stay the same? It is stupid to think that it would. Screw Al Gore and all the rest of the alarmists trying to make a buck out of the temperature. They are all crazy!

2007-07-28 20:18:32 · answer #3 · answered by hdrider 2 · 1 0

Because it doesn't fit the story that's all ready written. If you Talk about positive effects, or that they really aren't sure if the theory holds water you have killed the cash cow they call global warming.

Patti Coastlines have always moved sharply. 2006 broke your theory about more severe storms. 1983 just 4 short years after alarmist were shouting Ice age the mississippi river flooded and Lake Mead flowed into its spill way at Hoover dam for the first and only time. Neither of these large river systems is even close to where they were in 1983. And as far as the polar bears only one group in Eastern Canada
shows a small decline in number the rest are triving and gaining number this according to the people who have been studying them for 30 years. And 900ad - 1200ad years that were warmer than today saw the greatest expantsion of civilization the world had ever known. Of coarse if you want to compare the years between the late 1200's and the early 1800's you would find Plague mass starvation and a stagnation of civilization. these years were called the little ice age before global warming but if you don't remember them then it doesn't blow your theory and people wouldn't think that quite possibly we are naturally coming out of this Iceage.

Some people will tell you only humans could be the reason the planet is warming. Yet we now have the ability to see the temp climb on mars and saturn that mirror what we see here on earth is the Mars rover that detrimental to mars climate? We also have the ability through our own written history from the observation of cultures all around the globe that what we are seeing is nothing new.

I just thought of a prefect test to see if mankind can control the weather Sunday July 28th 2007 at 17:00PST that 5pm westcoast USA every body face west and blow as hard as you can, tell all your friends I promise I'll pay for all the damage.maybe everyone with friends in different countrys could tell their friends too the bigger the test the more positive our data will be!


Danni

2007-07-28 16:19:38 · answer #4 · answered by Danni 3 · 3 5

What would those positive effects be????
Fewer polar bears?
More fires?
Even stronger storms?
More flooding?
Coast lines moving in sharply?

It doesn't matter why it's happening - it doesn't matter what the cause is - it only matters that, for the most part, it's not a good thing. If we can do anything to help stop the global warming - we need to do that. Placing blame had better become secondary to fixing it pretty soon, or IT WON'T MATTER.

ARRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!! We are about to debate ourselves into even more serious trouble . . . . . .

Danni - my point is - the debate is what's futile - we will never agree on where to place the blame. We just need to do something about our contribution to the problem. Did anyone watch the guy (sorry, don't remember his name) that swam in the Arctic Ocean that has NEVER before been liquid? There is not enough ice for the polar bears and their average weight is seriously down from what is normal - let's not wait until they're all dead and then the debate will be moot. Please, let's do what we each can to help instead of playing the us vs. them game ad nauseum!

Thank you MoonDog!

We always stick our heads in the sand to avoid having to change or give up any of our conveniences - - - - - of course, the corporations that pull most of our chains would have to get on board too . . . . . . . .

2007-07-28 16:18:50 · answer #5 · answered by Patti R 4 · 2 3

becaues there are not many
Agriculture and animals end especially what is happening on a micro biotic level

It took millions of years to get to this point
drastic changes is going to affect many things

micro organisms are being wiped out on a massive scale ,others are getting out out control

the insect world is affected ,
and so is everything that follows

3000 species of Animals have become exstinct in 50 years
so have many species of plants

Agriculture looses 10% of its crops with just 1 degree rise in temperature .

And since we are at the end of everything ,humans in the end are the most affected
it may seem pleasant for people living in cold countries at first
but their food comes mainly from hotter places and they are the first to suffer
so the colder places will feel the secondary effects such as rising food and drinks prices

that are some of the reasons.

2007-07-28 19:49:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

We don't really need to be alerted to the positive aspects of climate change. What would we do? Change it? No, just enjoy it. Being warned that something bad may happen unless we do something is a more crucial role to play than warning us that something good is going to happen unless we do something about it.

One positive aspect of global warming is that Russia can have more year round sea ports and that would enable them to export oil easier.

2007-07-29 17:13:16 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Absolutely correct.
It doesn't matter the status of our present environment.
All creatures on Earth have had to adapt to what is an ever changing environment.
Those that couldn't became extinct.
There is no more adaptable creature than man that's why we are at the top of the evolutionary tree.

2007-07-29 08:22:26 · answer #8 · answered by Barrie G 3 · 0 0

As far as i know there are no good effects from global warming...Do know we have treated this World as if it had unlimited recourse's and treated the Earth shamefully,,poisoning it day by day....You will no doubt dismiss this as scare mongering,dome predictions been around for years but the evidence points towards big problems so big it could wipe people out...

2007-07-29 08:43:40 · answer #9 · answered by yaboo 4 · 0 0

Very good question. And, you make a good point about being prepared to accept change. The climate is changing, whether we choose to accept it, or not. One obvious benefit is that the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the better plants will thrive. And, plants convert CO2 to oxygen. And, oxygen is not only good for man, it's a natural oxidizing agent. Oxidizing agents are good for cleaning up pollution.

2007-07-29 05:31:29 · answer #10 · answered by jdkilp 7 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers