Pros and Cons of Global Warming?

Question

i have to do a debate for school. Here's my statement: Be It Resolved that Global Warming is an immediate and grave threat to the environmental health of the world.

if you could please state the pros and cons that would be awewome!

Thanks! JennaRose

Answer 1

Do your own homework??

Answer 2

Pros: you can swim in ur front yard

Cons: no more polor bears.

Answer 3

Pros: "CO2 fertilization increases the efficiency of water use in some plant species"

"plant productivity should increase with an increase in temperature and length of growing season"

Answer 4

There are no pros. Global warming will destroy the planet.

Answer 5

For Canada the benifits of global warming are

A longer growing season and increased crop production.  And more farm land will become viable

The opening of the NorthWest Passage as a viable shipping lane.  

Reduced cost of maintaning an icebreaker fleet.

Most of the world will not benifit though.

Answer 6

Global warming is what's occurring in nature (human influenced or not). By asking if it will be harmful to the "health of the world" Is like asking if exposing water to extremely cold temperatures would be harmful to waters health. Everything will balance out later, just like water can freeze and thaw. What is "healthy?

Okay, maybe bad analogy. The world is constantly changing. Animals here today WILL NOT be here in a million years in the same form. "Global warming" may kill off today's living organisms, but more and different organisms will be here in the future. The environment is not trees and flowers and polar bears forever. At one time dinosaurs walked the earth. Now that they all died off (or evolved) would you say the earth is unhealthy? What's the difference when we and all of todays organisms die off?

Answer 7

There is a Pro!

Okay, if Global warming persists and it soon causes another ice age, it would in turn kill all of the bacteria and viruses on earth, because of the extreme cold.  any surviving humans wouldnt be afftected by these bacterium.

Answer 8

pros~

umm.....

Cons~

flooding of the world

everyone dies

extreme heat

animals becoming extinct

bad gasses in out atmosphere

it sucks

Answer 9

One of the pros is that the polar bear attacks on humans will be reduced.

Answer 10

global warming has NO pro's.

at all.

Answer 11

theres no pros. its killin animals and is hurtin us. it raises the average temp on earth. it will end up raisin sea levels if the icecaps melt. c where im goin wth this?

Answer 12

Pros and Cons of global warming?

Mostly we hear about the cons. About how our ozone layer is being depleted and how we will no longer be able to support plant life and human existence in X number of years if we continue on in the way that we are.

I haven't ran across any pros on the topic.

I do feel that people are making a bigger issue of this than is needed.  Though all people should be aware of their consumption of all the fuels, aerosols, use of plastics and other non-biodegradable products, etc....  still, we know that we are living in the last days, and this world isn't going to be around 1000 of years anyway.  God Himself said that He would destroy the earth and that there would be a new heaven and a new earth.  So, that is why I do not worry.  I know that God has it all in control.

Answer 13

Pros - it is fake

Cons - it wastes our time

Answer 14

the pros are•

The travel time from Europe to America will be reduced by 1/3

•he growing season will be lengthened resulting in a higher food production rate

•The amount of fertile land will increase

cons

• The worlds ice caps will melt resulting in higher sea levels

• Deserts and forest fires will increase

• Weather will become more severe

• Animal population will decrease

• Animal habitats will be lost

• Disease carrying bugs will increase

Answer 15

pros: we can wear bikinis all year round and get better tans

cons: polar ice caps melt and flood the earth. the continents are slowly submerged by water and we all die! haha

Answer 16

There are no pros. Some might say that the fact that plants will grow better is a plus....but tell that to those who suffer from allergies and asthma.

Also, all of the causes of global warming have other consequences BESIDES global warming:

The air that we breath is getting worse and worse. Is it any wonder that there is an asthma epidemic in this nation?

We are using up our world's resources at an alarming speed. The large gas-guzzling behemouths that self-centered individuals insist on driving not only waste resources, but are dangerous to everyone else on the road. I mean, would you really want to be hit broadside by an Expedition or an Escalade while driving a Prius?

Strong regulation is needed on power plants and automobiles...and it's needed immediately.

Answer 17

Your whole debate is false, then, because global warming was proved wrong. Debate about that.

Answer 18

You are on the lying side.

Answer 19

con: endgerd aniamls sealevel could flood, and the amazon will be come a savanh, strong sun rays so skin cancer etc

pro: get a better tan.(hahah not a good thing but yeah)

cant really think of any

Answer 20

global warming, if you didn't know could ACTUALLY be the start of a "global cooling" it has just been built up so much that so many people would lose their job if we said it was actually may not even be becoming warmer

did you know on the news one day when they were putting this food thing in greenland for the future that one of the people said they usually have to bring a gun out there cause there are TOO MANY polar bears??

Answer 21

i don't think there are any pros

cons:

-glaciers will melt and the world will be covered with water

-too much sun damage the ecosystem  

there's lots more that you can think of

Answer 22

Well you have two answers that claim global warming is a hoax or has been proven wrong.

I'd like to know their sources because there are tens of thousands of climate scientists all over the world who would be interested in knowing about these new discoveries.

juliEmAn-

must be talking about the phony article in the Wall St. Journal, which made the claim that AGW had been proven false by science.

http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n08/...

Debunking of Wall St Journal claim in article

Go ahead read it, it won't bite you.  

Or maybe she's referring to this reliable source, who most of the skeptics, what few there are, are affiliated with.

From real climate.org

"According to ExxonSecrets.org, the Heartland

Institute describes itself as “the marketing arm of the free-market movement” and has received $791,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998. The Heartland Institute is in no way a scientific organization. It is a propaganda mill. "

"The success of the fossil fuel industry’s multi-million dollar, years long campaign of propaganda to disinform the American public about the reality of global warming cannot be underestimated. They successfully delayed serious action to reduce emissions (and the consumption of their products) by ten or twenty years at least. With ExxonMobil alone reaping annual profit over 40 billion dollars, the payoff for the paltry millions they’ve paid outfits like Heartland has been huge."

Or maybe this is her source.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/26/wsj-...

"In today’s Wall Street Journal, prominent climate

skeptic Richard Lindzen tries to make the case that “There Is No ‘Consensus’ On Global Warming.” Most of the article is, typically, invective against Al Gore and his movie, An Inconvenient Truth. "

"Lindzen does acknowledge that thousands of

scientists from 120 countries have agreed, through the extraordinarily rigorous International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process, that human activity is driving global warming. He also acknowledges that this consensus was recently confirmed by a report prepared for Congress by the National Academy of Scientists."

"Here is Lindzen’s only substantive response:

More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy [sic — Naomi] Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words “global climate change” produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as

the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.

Peiser’s work – and Lindzen’s reliance on it — is an embarrassment. Here’s why:

1. Peizer misunderstands the point of Oreskes study.

The point was not that every article about climate

change explicitly endorsed the IPCC conclusions. The point is that if there was real uncertainty there would be “substantive disagreement in the scientific community” that would be reflected in peer reviewed literature. There wasn’t.

2. Peiser didn’t find any peer reviewed studies that oppose the scientific consensus. Peiser claimed that 34 papers “reject or doubt” the consensus view. Tim Lambert got Peiser to send him the abstracts of those 34 papers. The vast majority of these papers express no doubt whatsoever about the consensus view. Only one paper, by the Association of Petroleum Geologists, cited by Peiser actually rejects

the consensus view and it “does not appear to have been peer reviewed outside that Association.”Peiser has admitted that his work included errors. But ultimately, it doesn’t make a difference. The point of activity like this isn’t to be right, it’s simply to provide fodder to people like Lindzen to create the appearance of uncertainty."

And guess who the Association of Petroleum Geologists represent?    Oil Companies?

As far as the pros and cons of global warming

"I don't know if there is a meaningful way to define an "optimum" average temperature for planet earth. Surely it is better now for all of us than it was 20,000 years ago when so much land was trapped beneath ice sheets. Perhaps any point between the recent climate and the extreme one we may be heading for, with tropical forests inside the arctic circle, is as good as any other. Maybe it's even better with no ice caps anywhere."

"It doesn't matter. The critical issue is not what the temperature is, or may be, or will be. The critical issue is how fast it is moving."

"Rapid change is the real danger. Human habits and infrastructure are suited to particular weather patterns and sea levels, as are ecosystems and animal behaviors. The rate at which global temperature is rising today is likely unique in the history of our species."

"This kind of sudden change is rare even in geological history, though perhaps not unprecedented. So the planet may have been through similar things before -- that sounds reassuring, right? "

"Not so much. Once you look at the impact similar changes had on biodiversity at the time, the existence of historical precedent becomes anything but reassuring. Rapid climate change is the prime suspect in most mass extinction events, including the Great Dying some 250 million years ago, in which 90% of all life went extinct."

"What we know about ecosystems, and what geologic history demonstrates, is that dramatic climate changes -- up or down or sideways -- are a tremendous shock to the biosphere and cause mass extinction events. That, all in all, is not likely to be a good thing."

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/...

"And please don't forget that anthropogenic global warming has been for a century the underdog theory, it is only very recently that the mountains of research have dragged a generally conservative scientific community inexorably to a very unpleasant conclusion"

from  http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10...

Yes there is a scam afoot.  But not the one skeptics fantasize about.  It's the one that wants a dumbed down American populace, the one that fills the airwaves and print media with dis-information like what the Wall St. Journal did.

It's George Bush having his lawyers change the wording of the federal climate change study to suit the administrations agenda.  Yes, the lawyers changed what the scientists had reported.

Now lawyers are climate change experts I guess.

The media continues to talk about the great debate over global warming, while the debate is really in the media itself, and not among real scientists.

Answer 23

there's no pros .it's killing our animals

Answer 24

there's pro's to this?

please, explain.

Answer 25

before the previous ice age the arctic caps melted away much like what is happening today, so it may be another ice age we are in for. or we humans may be to blame for it, thanks to polution causing greenhouse gases to eat away at our atmosphere. all that is known for sure is that we're screwed. ENJOY LIFE WHILE YOU HAVE IT!

Answer 26

pros:

1)by trying to stop global warming; we also learn more about technology and the scientific advances that can be made.

cons:

1)global climate change.

2)our polar ice caps will no longer be available to us as drinking water

3)greenhouse gases

4)humidity will be increased over time due to higher evaporation rates

5)more hurricanes