Pros and Cons of Global Warming? i have to do a debate for school. Here%26#039;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

Additional Details

5 months ago

i mean like stuff to prove this is correct (pros) and stuff to prove this false (cons)
Debunking of Wall St Journal claim in article

Go ahead read it, it won%26#039;t bite you.

Or maybe she%26#039;s referring to this reliable source, who most of the skeptics, what few there are, are affiliated with.
From real climate.org

%26quot;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. %26quot;

%26quot;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.%26quot;

Or maybe this is her source.

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

%26quot;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. %26quot;

%26quot;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.%26quot;

%26quot;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.%26quot;

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

As far as the pros and cons of global warming

%26quot;I don%26#039;t know if there is a meaningful way to define an %26quot;optimum%26quot; 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%26#039;s even better with no ice caps anywhere.%26quot;

%26quot;It doesn%26#039;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.%26quot;

%26quot;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.%26quot;

%26quot;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? %26quot;

%26quot;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.%26quot;

%26quot;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.%26quot;

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

%26quot;And please don%26#039;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%26quot;
from http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10...

Yes there is a scam afoot. But not the one skeptics fantasize about. It%26#039;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%26#039;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. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/0... The Cold Truth about Global Warming by Joseph Romm

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_ar...

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2...

The Scientific Basis for Anthropogenic Climate
Change
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2007/12...

The 2008 National Academy of Sciences Summary Brochure on Climate Change
http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/clim...

Scientific Opinion on Climate Change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_... 0% 0 Votes

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. 0% 0 Votes

You are on the lying side. 0% 0 Votes