Global warming is always seen negatively, are there not positive sides to it that mankind can benefit from?

Answer 1

More arable land. Land that was once covered by ice would be able to be farmed and/or populated.

The melting of glaciers also has the potential side effect of revealing a host of remarkably preserved extinct plants and animals (such as the fully intact baby mammoth recently found) that have been packed in ice for a few hundred thousand years.

Answer 2

What good sides can there be. With global warming the ice caps will melt causing the oceans to rise. Land masses will recede until they are completely covered by water.

While many did not watch the movie Waterworld that is a likely scenario from Global Warming.

Or, the global warming could actually trigger another ice age should it change the oceans temperates from the melting of the ice caps cooling the water.

There are no benefits, except for the third world countries who would suddenly become the planets new power.

Answer 3

That is a question for the ages. The truth is, Earth is a very dynamic ecosystem that has undergone many changes. 99.9% of all life that existed on Earth is gone through natural extinction without any human involvement. Those kinds of changes allowed man to evolve.

In the big picture, I'd have to say mankind is living in it's golden age, and fundamental shifts to the planet are probably not good for humans as a whole. The problem isn't limited to global warming; the problems extend to pollution and overfishing and cultivation of domestic animals such as cattle which produce methane gas. However, humans are a natural part of Earth, though admittedly we have far more ability to alter our environment than any other species (beavers are the second biggest offenders, and housecats are in second place when it comes to adapting to environments).

Overall, the answer is probably no, but Earth can take care of itself. It's humans that have to realize that tampering too won't kill the planet, but may kill mankind.

Answer 4

A few. But they're way outweighed by the negatives.

The big problem is that the world will suffer huge economic losses from coastal flooding and damage to agriculture. That will cause everyone to have less money. Unreduced global warming will quite likely cause a worldwide economic depression. More details here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL052735320070407
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07.pdf

So even the few places which get some better weather will be hurt.

On the other hand reducing global warming will have many positive sides over and above just reducing global warming. Developing alternative energy sources will be economically beneficial. It will reduce dependence on the Mideast for increasingly scarce oil, and reduce toxic pollution. Energy conservation will free up money for other purposes.

Not working on reducing global warming is a lose-lose situation in many ways. Reducing it is a win-win.

Answer 5

On one hand, there will be more beaches and property now inland will become pricey beachfront property.
On the other hand, hundreds of millions of people currently living on the land that will be submerged will be forced inland, so the beaches will be very crowded.


On one hand, winters will become much milder in extreme climates.
On the other hand, this means a world-wide increase in insects that are currently killed off by cold winters, such as fleas, ticks, mosquitos, and numerous parisitic organisms currently confined to sub-tropical regions. This means that diseases, such as lyme disease, malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, etc. will become widespread.

On one hand, maybe the beaches won't be too crowded.
On the other hand, this will probably be due to billions of deaths from inadequate food supply, fighting, competition for resources, and disease.

One one hand, because the oceans will be much bigger, we can all go swimming to stay cool.
On the other hand, the reduction of dissolved oxygen from ocean heating will result in massive fish kills, and we will have to swim through rotting, bloated fish carcasses.

On one hand, it will be so hot, clothes will become optional.
On the other hand, all the nudity won't be that great to look at because we will all be starving.

Those few survivors will be on permanent summer vacation besides endless beach, forgot about the unpleasant things and just focus on that.

There is a positive side to everything!

Answer 6

Sure it will lower the global population
And that is a mayor problem.
Just not so funny for those being lowered
But Kissinger will be happy
And they may be able to grow tomatoes in Canada
which is a good thing if all the other ones are burned up

Answer 7

Positive sides to the end of life on planet earth? Hmmm. Well, I guess from the standpoint of the universe, getting rid of the human race will be a big plus. I'm sure some of the other species will be missed though.

Answer 8

Well, with the flooding of coastal and low lying land, the population of the planet would certainly decrease, and that would probably be a good thing for those of us who survive. If you could transport all the dead animal life, including humans, to central burial sites, wait a few million years, and then you've got petroleum back and can start the cycle all over again.

Answer 9

Well there might be a little good causes but mostly bad. If everyone told you the good causes and never the bad, would you try to stop global warming?

Answer 10

Are you kidding?

Don't you know the mantra of the media?
"If it bleeds, it leads!"

Search the media for good news. Chances are you won't find it. It doesn't fit in with their obsession for ratings, ratings, ratings! Good news doesn't sell!

It appears that nobody has bothered to try to determine if there could be any good effects of global warming and the media sure as H*LL won't report it if any are found!

I've heard about more CO2 and milder winters providing for improved and longer growing periods for crops, but that's about it.

It just DOESN'T keep that grant money coming to go against the flow.