What are the "cons" of global warming?

Question

prove the negaive effects

prove why it doesnt exist and how theres no evidence between certain ideologies

List 3 cons and prove 2 out of the three remaining.

also tell me the pros and tell me how you can disapprove them if it were an actual debate and you were the ccon side. Write as much as yo want too and make it detailed. its for a project thank you so much

Answer 1

Well First off It ain't as real as the media tell everyone, that's a con, right?

Just look at the earth's history and any scientist can see that the world's climite goes in cycles and its neverending

Answer 2

Cons:

- Warmer temperatures (now at the far high end of prediction ranges)

- Sea level rise (recently shown to be accellerating)

- Glacial and ice cap melting (happening much faster than predicted)

- Resource wars (currently in Darfur)

- Food riots (recently in Haiti, etc.)

- Disruption of wildlife (Spring occuring earlier, etc.)

- Moving ecological zones (pikas moving higher in elevation, tree species moving northward, etc.)

- Reduced snowpack (reduced water supplies) and incidence of drought

- Increased incidence of extreme weather

- Heat and drought damage to crops

- Ocean acidification, coral reef bleaching, disruption of ocean food chains

- Extinction of much of the life on this planet

Pros:

It was originally thought that more CO2 would result in more plant growth, but it turns out that that growth is less nutritious:

Warming may change the nature of the food we eat

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/Suzu...

-----

As for proving that global warming doesn't exist, I don't see how that's possible, since:

1) Global temperature is rising.  No temperature data sets disagree with the measured trend of 120+ years of global warming (or they'd be trotted out regularly in these discussions).  Not one.  Zero.  Zilch.  Nada.  None.

2) The 750°K temperature of Venus, with its atmosphere of 90% carbon dioxide, is strong evidence supporting greenhouse gas theory.

http://www.ias.ac.in/resonance/Mar1996/p...

3) It's been confirmed through carbon isotope analysis that mankind has increased CO2 levels significantly, as temperatures rose.

4) The scientists in the 10 national science academies that jointly drafted this statement say it's real:

Joint Statement of Science Academies: Global Response to Climate Change [PDF], 2005

http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.a...

How many major scientific organizations (not created as PR stunt) have expressed skepticism or doubt?  None.  Zero.

It is far more interesting to note that the so-called skeptical scientists don't seem to exist.  Their alleged existance seems to be a PR scam on the part of oil and coal companies, who have hired former tobacco industry lobbyists to run a disinformation campaign:

Slamming the Climate Skeptic Scam

http://www.desmogblog.com/slamming-the-c...

"Few PR offences have been so obvious, so successful and so despicable as the attack on the scientific certainty of climate change.

One major funding source:

Exxposing ExxonMobil's Agenda: Manipulating Politics and the Public

http://www.exxposeexxon.com/facts/dailyf...

Television and cable networks gladly run fake science to increase controversy and keep their ratings and income high:

At Fox News, a Pundit for Hire

http://www.freepress.net/news/print.php?...

"Objective viewers long ago realized that Fox News has a political agenda. But, when a pundit promotes this agenda while on the take from corporations that benefit from it, then Fox News has gone one disturbing step further"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Mill...

The Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University, documents how the media supports the false appearance of controversy on the topic of global warming:

http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/05...

Creating controversy where science finds consensus

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978

"A new study has found that when it comes to U.S. media coverage of global warming , superficial balance—telling "both" sides of the story—can actually be a form of informational bias."

Media False Balancing Allowed Extreme Views to be Treated Same as Scientific Consensus

http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/Gl...

Here's how scientific papers pro and con stack up:

http://norvig.com/oreskes.html

The consensus was quantified in a Science study by Prof. Naomi Oreskes (Dec. 2004) in which she surveyed 928 scientific journal articles that matched the search [global climate change] at the ISI Web of Science. Of these, according to Oreskes, 75% agreed with the consensus view (either implicitly or explicitly), 25% took no stand one way or the other, and none rejected the consensus.

---

Supporting Links:

It's well documented that global warming is happening:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2...

Confirmation of scientists' proof of global warming (which predicts tropospheric warming with stratospheric cooling):

STRATOSPHERE TEMPERATURE DATA SUPPORT SCIENTISTS’ PROOF FOR GLOBAL WARMING

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroo...

The Fu team’s work indicates the troposphere has been warming at about two-tenths of a degree Celsius, or nearly one-third of a degree Fahrenheit, per decade. That closely resembles measurements of warming at the surface, something climate models have suggested would result if the warmer surface temperatures are the result of greenhouse gases.

Scientific estimate of species extinctions to result from warming:

http://www.killerinourmidst.com/methane%...

A careful examination of a large number of species in numerous parts of the planet projects that a stunning portion of them will be "committed to extinction" in just 50 years, with only modest global warming (Thomas, 2004).

Confirming evidence of major extinctions from warming climate:

Permian–Triassic extinction event

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Tri...

It was the Earth's most severe extinction event, with up to 96 percent of all marine species and 70 percent of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct. Because approximately 25 percent of species survived the event, the recovery of life on earth took significantly longer than after other extinction events. This event has been described as the "mother of all mass extinctions".

Confirmation of faster than normal ice sheet melt:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk...

New research confirms that ice sheets in West Antarctica are thinning at a far faster rate than in past millennia.

http://www.barentsobserver.com/hottest-a...

"This winter might become the mildest winter in Northern Norway ever registered. So far the average temperature in parts of the region has been up to eight degrees Celsius above the normal."

Greenland is melting much faster than scientists (including last year's IPCC report) predicted:

"Instead of sea levels rising by about 40 centimetres, as the IPCC predicts in one of its computer forecasts, the true rise might be as great as several metres by 2100. That is why, they say, planet Earth today is in 'imminent peril.'"

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserve...

"Ground-based surface temperature data shows that the rate of warming in the Arctic from 1981 to 2001 is eight times larger than the rate of Arctic warming over the last 100 years."

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/eart...

The Pentagon clearly takes global warming very seriously:

http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/articles/...

"Pentagon officials warn that abrupt climate change over the next 20 years could throw the world into a state of anarchy -- dwarfing the current threat of terrorism.  In this doomsday scenario, large-scale droughts, famine brought on by food shortages and reduced energy supplies could cause riots around the globe that could culminate in nuclear warfare."

The report wasn't penned by members of the "Chicken Little sky-is-falling crowd" (as Republican leaders like to call global- warming activists), but by Peter Schwartz, former head of planning for Shell Oil and sometime CIA consultant, and Doug Randall of the Global Business Network, a California think tank.

http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2004/02/2...

The U.S. military will start practicing policing U.S. cities this Summer:

http://www.upi.com/International_Securit...

Sea level rise is accelerating:

"Global averaged sea level continued to rise through 2006 and 2007.  ...since 1870 there has been a significant increase in the rate of the sea-level rise."

http://wcrp.wmo.int/documents/WCRPnews_2...

"A one-meter sea level rise would wreak particular havoc on the Gulf Coast and eastern seaboard of the United States.

'No one will be free from this,' said Overpeck, whose maps show that every U.S. East Coast city from Boston to Miami would be swamped."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...

Evidence that this rate of seal level rise can happen, since it has happened in the past:

Rohling and his colleagues found an average sea level rise of 1.6m (64in) each century during the interglacial period.

Back then, Greenland was 3C to 5C (5.4F to 9F) warmer than now - which is similar to the warming period expected in the next 50 to 100 years, Dr Rohling said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/natur...

---

As usual, the skeptics are all talk and offer no evidence.  Disprove ice sheet melting! Disprove the P-T extinction (which we're about to repeat)! Stop lying that it would be impossible to disprove... that would be incredibly easy (if it weren't happening)! Just show us multiple data sets showing no warming (to contradict the 15 showing warming)!

Answer 3

cons of global warming..

a shift of the fertile band northward... this would shift the food growing areas from where they are now to new areas.. (this is a con because i live in the US and we are self sufficient with the fertile bands where they are!!)

an increase in plagues... nasty germs like warmer climates this can be proven by any research into the spread of virus/bacterian warm moist good.. cold dry bad.

destruction of the sea environment... not from what people expect but from a dilution of the salt water.. life lives in a VERY VERY narrow ph/salt balance in the ocean... if you were to melt the glaciers and ice caps from the poles the resulting dilution of the oceans waters would in all probability result in a high kill ration of sea life.. although the oceans would eventually recover any country that relies on seafood would have some pretty major issues.

Answer 4

Global warming is a natural phase of Earth, caused by some Solar Activities by Sun. We human don't have to bother about it. Some of the environmentalist says that this is because of the CO2 we are emitting into the environment, but the reality is that we are just contributing towards 1% to 10% of actual global warming.

If the actual cause of Global Warming is CO2 emitted by the humans then why Global Warming occures on other planets. Just Google for "Global Warming on other planets" and see the results, there are no humans on other planets.

Having too little CO2 in the environment will cause for the plants to die more early, more over it also cools down the temperature on earth.

Having too much CO2 (obiviously, not caused by humans. Mostly generated in the Sea/Oceans) will lead to Green House effect and will lead in increasing the temperature on Earth.

So, the best is to plant more trees so that there would be a balance for the consumption of CO2 on the planet.

I personally think that instead of thinking on this baseless issue try to think on what if Nuclear War broke out in the world, it will destroy Earth more rapidly.

So, next time whenever somebody says you about global warming, just ignore it.

Answer 5

The earth goes in cycles of warming and cooling. It is not the hottest its ever been, but the rate of warming in the past one hundred years has rapidly increased. Global warming has many cons. Human extinction, earth becoming like its sister planet Mercury, Major flooding, Irregular weather patterns, and many others global warming should be a top priority. It is proved it is happening, they have proved all the other arguments wrong. We need to help this.

Answer 6

You will get the answers you get. Deal with it.

The biggest con is that when people lie often enough about something. people don't believe them anymore. Look at the record. The Hockey Stick was tampered with. It was never determined if the 'ozone hole' is a normal feature of the earth or not. AGW declares that a 0.0003% change in the atmosphere can have a disasterous effect on our planet, which is statistically impossible. Plants consume CO2 just as quickly as we produce it. When there's more of it out there, they GROW FASTER.

WOLF! WOLF! WOLF!!!!!!

Answer 7

The main con is exaggeration of the negative effects and ignoring the obvious positive effects.  There is no way to prove it doesn't exist.  There is also no way to prove exactly how much humans have added and subtracted to the temperature.  We don't even understand the natural trends that well.  We can't predict the weather (climate if you will) 20 days from now and certainly not 20 years.