Introduction to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

http://hallofrecord.blogspot.com/2007/02/is-warming-bad.html

It's interesting how much attention has been placed on whether or not humans are contributing to global warming and climate change (which are not exactly the same)... and how, at the same time, so little attention has been given to really examining the implications of such change.

If one only reads the popular press, the conclusion is that any change is going to be harmful. Quite likely, that is incorrect.

The implications are obvious. I am sorry that the real cause is ignored. Wars at sea influence the oceans, oceans influence the climate. Proof? Look at www.1ocean-1climate.com to see the way the climates has been changed by naval wars in the past 150 years.

Alex,

That's an amusing site. But the real question remains: what are the implications of climate change/global warming... and is the implicit assumption that the changes will be harmful a disaster in itself... especially when it will influence policy makers and potentially waste billions of dollars needlessly?

The short video above contained a section that predicted that northern tier states would have a climate similar to central tier states; central tier states would have a climate similar to southern tier states; and southern tier states would have a climate similar to more tropical areas.

Given the benefits of warmer climates in the area of increased agricultural options and longer growing seasons, plus the reduction of natural gas for heating (a CO2 issue for the IPCC), plus the expansion of habitable areas for many types of wildlife... why should the assumption be that any climate warming is a bad phenomenon to be avoided at all costs?

Humans are adaptable to almost any climate conditions, so changes that benefit plants and other animals would seem to be changes we should welcome.