The latest cold snap in the US is estimated to have caused one billion dollars of crop loss in California alone. The last freeze in '98 cost California around 750 million.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg, if we can warm up these area's a few degrees, think of the money that can be saved!

If you can make a seperate climate for Califonria, than just go ahead.
I fear however you can't.

Whereas I doubt that California would profit at all from raising temperatures.

Your own intelligence serivce has already figured out that climatic change is the greatest threat to your national security not terrorism. And it is totally in accordance to the most scientists around the world. The EU for example brought out a large study on how in detail it could impact on Europe. The outcome was disastrous.

How so? If temperatures can be kept more reliably above freezing, California will benefit.

That's the same intelligence service that said WMD in Iraq were a "slam dunk" and that the Iraqi's would rally around the liberators, right?

Looks like the EU is seeing the Boogeyman.

Haha... that's not how Global Warming works.

The effects of Global Warming are changing the climates in all parts of the world. Just because it's calling "Global Warming" does not mean that extremely cold temperatures will not be reached in parts of the world.

California and other coastal areas would NOT benefit from Global Warming due to the fact that the ice caps and glaciers are melting extremely fast which will put most of those areas under water. I mean.... I GUESS that could be beneficial... but not to those areas. :P I think a little bit more research on the effects of global climate change is in order for somebody in this thread... not naming names or anything. ^_^

__________________

A damn will California benifit. You will be able to visit for example San Francisco only with diving equipment any more. Enjoy it, it seems thats what you wanna see.


There is a difference.
The WMD stuff intelligence was produced because of strong pressure from the administration. The climatic change stuff has been written against the will of the administration.

Moreover, thats just one out of many sources that say so. Its backed up by the majority of the scientific community.

Most of the global warming we see at the moment seems to be natural cycles of weather patterns.

If these fluctuations evolve into a permanent warming of the planet, it will throw earth's whole ecosystem out of wack, resulting in natural disasters of unimaginable porportions.

I wouldn't worry too much about saving money from it though.From some of the studies done by scientist, we might want to give establishing colonies on other planets some serious thought.

I think that it's good to teach different theories on Global Warming, but the indoctrination of Global Warming is absolutel crap. I went through my younger sibling's Middle School and there were drawings on the walls from class projects with depictions like water levels rising to the tops of the skyscrapers. Pictures like ridicilously pollution from factories and businesses. What are they teaching the kids? Nothing. They're indoctrinating the kids.

The kids are being "taught": Global warming is real, it's going to cause cities to be flooded (with thousands of feet of water?), it's because of industry, it's because of man, et cetera.

Of course, what would happen is theoretical. There are movies on different theories. Of course, what people don't realize is that, supposedly, the world's temperatue has been rising long before our pollutive industry existed. I mean, we had an ice age not too long ago, was it pollutive industry that induced global warming to take us out of that, or was that a natural process? If it's a natural process, is it impossible that it still is?

If you look at the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over time, you can see it does rise and fall naturally, causing hot and cold periods. We're currently in a high CO2 period naturally, BUT the CO2 levels today are massively more than they were in previosu hot periods. The level in those periods was fairly consistant, but today's CO2 amounts are about twice what they were in previous hot periods.

__________________
... I am surprised at your insolence in writing to me at all. You know, as I know, that I bought this constituency... may God's curse light upon you and may it make your women as open and as free to the excise officers as your wives and daughters have always been to me while I have represented your scoundrel corporation.
I have the honour to be... your obliged humble servant, Anthony Henley
- MPs reply to constituent, mid 1700s

Global warming is no longer being debated. It is a real thing. The only scientists who will refute it.... don't know what they are talking about and are few and far between. Of course the world has natural cycles of hot and cold. The problem with the current global warming we are seeing is that we are helping it further along.

Scientists are no longer debating on whether or not global warming exists. They are debating on (1) are we helping it along? (2) is it going faster than it should be? (3) how soon will it start to cause major problems?

Global warming IS real. It WILL cause cities to be flooded. And the current rate at which it is accelerating IS because of man and our industries. These are not false indoctrinations. And I don't see any benefit at all in clinging to the idea that they are. We should treat this as a real and growing threat and work to improve the situation (let's say... even if it weren't... what is the harm of drastically cutting back on polluting the planet we live on?).

__________________