• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is global warming really a bad thing?

Bucky

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2015
Messages
28,603
Reaction score
6,367
Location
Washington
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Assuming global warming is true, is it really such a bad thing like the media protrays? I could see some great economic benefits from global warming - such as easier access to oil in the Artic, less droughts, lower enegry costs by cutting down on heating bills, and perhaps a richer ecosystem by increasing the co2 level.

I'm not sure but perhaps global warming would improve our economy and make life better for the majority of people in the world.
 
Assuming global warming is true, is it really such a bad thing like the media protrays? I could see some great economic benefits from global warming - such as easier access to oil in the Artic, less droughts, lower enegry costs by cutting down on heating bills, and perhaps a richer ecosystem by increasing the co2 level.

I'm not sure but perhaps global warming would improve our economy and make life better for the majority of people in the world.


The result is not geographically uniform. The result is greater extremes in a given locality. If somewhere has droughts, they will get worse. Floods will get worse. We effectively lose (reduce) the 'middle class' of weather in any given locality. Weather goes from the economic demographics of a developed country to that of a developing country, to use an analogy.
 
Last edited:
Assuming global warming is true, is it really such a bad thing like the media protrays? I could see some great economic benefits from global warming - such as easier access to oil in the Artic, less droughts, lower enegry costs by cutting down on heating bills, and perhaps a richer ecosystem by increasing the co2 level.

I'm not sure but perhaps global warming would improve our economy and make life better for the majority of people in the world.

lol

More extreme weather, including droughts are possible

Perhaps less "heating" costs, but far more cooling costs

Rising sea levels

Changing ocean currents

I mean, could it turn out to be a "good thing", not likely. Something humanity can adapt to and survive? Likely. But it could flub up a lot of stuff we depend on for the short term.
 
The result is not geographically uniform. The result is greater extremes in a given locality. If somewhere has droughts, they will get worse. Floods will get worse. We effectively lose (reduce) the 'middle class' of weather in any given locality. Weather goes from an economic demographic of a developed country to that of a developing country, to use an analogy.

Yes, that .01 degree change will really mess things up.
 
Yes, that .01 degree change will really mess things up.

We are already experiencing the change I've noted, across the globe. Weather has become more extreme, with less middle ground.
 
Assuming global warming is true, is it really such a bad thing like the media protrays? I could see some great economic benefits from global warming - such as easier access to oil in the Artic, less droughts, lower enegry costs by cutting down on heating bills, and perhaps a richer ecosystem by increasing the co2 level.

I'm not sure but perhaps global warming would improve our economy and make life better for the majority of people in the world.

This is the projection for Boston, the right with "only" a nine foot local sea level rise, even with radical intervention now.
boston.jpg


https://www.wired.com/2015/10/map-shows-sea-level-rise-will-drown-american-cities/
 
Last edited:
We are already experiencing the change I've noted, across the globe. Weather has become more extreme, with less middle ground.

We know when it happens now in the instant information age. Not so much not too long ago. The earth has cycles and we have not been here long enough to understand those cycles. Carbon tax and wealth redistribution will affect things more than the weather.
 
Assuming global warming is true, is it really such a bad thing like the media protrays? I could see some great economic benefits from global warming - such as easier access to oil in the Artic, less droughts, lower enegry costs by cutting down on heating bills, and perhaps a richer ecosystem by increasing the co2 level.

I'm not sure but perhaps global warming would improve our economy and make life better for the majority of people in the world.

I don't think we are at all sure about what areas will be impacted how. Why, we don't even yet know, if the Gulf Stream will stop the conveyor belt warming Northern Europe.
 
The result is not geographically uniform. The result is greater extremes in a given locality. If somewhere has droughts, they will get worse. Floods will get worse. We effectively lose (reduce) the 'middle class' of weather in any given locality. Weather goes from economic demographics of a developed country to that of a developing country, to use an analogy.

Can you actually find actual science to back this idea?
 
I don't think we are at all sure about what areas will be impacted how. Why, we don't even yet know, if the Gulf Stream will stop the conveyor belt warming Northern Europe.

The Gulf will over-feed the Mediterranean and then the deep Atlantic current resulting in a disruption of the Circumpolar current, which will usher in an ice age.
 
The problem, Manc, is that some people on the Far-Right have become so pathological that they will look at that map and say, "Screw Boston; let them drown!" And actually mean it. That's who these people have chosen to become.
Actually, I do not think any on the right are saying that, what they are saying is that
at the current rate of sea level rise, which has been very steady for almost a century,
it would take 978 years to get that 9 foot rise.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8443970
In addition there are questions if the observed sea level rise is related to the CO2 issue at all,
so we could stop all emissions of CO2, and the same sea level rise might occur.
Also the sea level at Boston has actually fallen about more than 50 mm since 2010.
 
I don't think we are at all sure about what areas will be impacted how. Why, we don't even yet know, if the Gulf Stream will stop the conveyor belt warming Northern Europe.

The Gulf stream is wind driven.

The prospect of an amount of fresh water at 0c adding to the cold, below 4c and already around 0c of around 1% of the volume of the Gulf stream being added to the water that mixes with the northern edge of the gulf stream during peak summer does not cause panic in anybody who has ever done any physics.

The Gulf stream will be unaffected by any melting of Greenland's ice.
 
Assuming global warming is true, is it really such a bad thing like the media protrays? I could see some great economic benefits from global warming - such as easier access to oil in the Artic, less droughts, lower enegry costs by cutting down on heating bills, and perhaps a richer ecosystem by increasing the co2 level.

I'm not sure but perhaps global warming would improve our economy and make life better for the majority of people in the world.

I suppose if you don't mind putting the East Coast, West Coast, Florida, Louisiana and parts of Texas under water then those lower heating bills are pretty cool.
 
I suppose if you don't mind putting the East Coast, West Coast, Florida, Louisiana and parts of Texas under water then those lower heating bills are pretty cool.

How much sea level rise do you think is actually predicted as a maximum?
 
I'll take that as confirmation that you already know that there is no such science out there.

Amazing ignorance. The evidence has been mounting for at least 20 years. I'm not responsible for teaching you. You should thank me for pointing out that you are horribly wrong. I'm saving you embarrassment. But if you really want to remain disturbingly ignorant, have at it.
 
Last edited:
Amazing ignorance. The evidence has been mounting for at least 20 years. I'm not responsible for teaching you. You should thank me for pointing out that you are horribly wrong. I'm saving you embarrassment. But if you really want to remain disturbingly ignorant, have at it.

If it was possible for you to qoute a papeer which said that increased temperatures would cause increased extreme weather events then you would be all over it.

I know that you want it to be real. Want it so much that you are firmly wedded to believing in it. But I also know that you know that it is drivel.
 
If it was possible for you to qoute a papeer which said that increased temperatures would cause increased extreme weather events then you would be all over it.
Wrong. I don't need to. I don't care if you insist on remaining laughably ignorant. I post for the audience, not you.

I know that you want it to be real. Want it so much that you are firmly wedded to believing in it. But I also know that you know that it is drivel.

I know it makes you feel special to deny the obvious and easily accessible. Using blue font also makes you feel special. Find a new source of self worth.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom