"WASHINGTON (AP) - The harmful effects of global warming on daily life are already showing up, and within a couple of decades hundreds of millions of people won't have enough water, top scientists will say next month at a meeting in Belgium."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070311/D8NPKSRG2.html

Has there been any harmful affect already showing up which are due to Global warming? Recently or for last hundred years of global warming?
They claim:
"The draft document says scientists are highly confident that many current problems - change in species' habits and habitats, more acidified oceans, loss of wetlands, bleaching of coral reefs, and increases in allergy-inducing pollen - can be blamed on global warming.

For example, the report says North America "has already experienced substantial ecosystem, social and cultural disruption from recent climate extremes," such as hurricanes and wildfires."

Isn't this all a bunch of silliness?
Is "Global warming" merely a catchall phrase for everything humans do rather than a temperature increase of .6 over the the last 100 years? Let me turn this around suppose the entire .6 C increase in global temperature was all due to nature. Could we then say the all human activity has has no affect upon "species' habits and habitats", loss of wetlands, bleaching coral reefs, and wildfires?
Or in comparison this .6 C increase in average global temperature how much was the result human activity. I mean is it roughly half done by .6 C increase or 25%, 75%, or 99.9%. So if global warming is shown to be mostly a natural result does that mean that all these "pet peeves" weren't actually cause by say human waste systems or altering the flows of rivers, or whatever- were the environmental wrongly blaming other causes? The alternative is that global warming has had only a slight affect on these types of things OR global warming has become merely a convenient sloppy catchall phrase.

Apparently the Lefties have transformed the words "global warming" from a warming period of over 10,000 years, to a term that means an increase of global temperature due to recent human activity, to now being changed to mean any effect caused by any human activity. So obviously they are completely psychotic- but I guess that isn't anything new.

Now, of course human activity has had some effect on changing in species' habits and habitats. But the same could said of beavers, though of course humans have a far greater affect than beavers- and of course beavers are nice and humans are EVIL. But there is no evidence of human activity having an effect upon climate. We simply don't know how to affect climate- if we did we would be happily changing climate to fit our desires. But we know that climate changes have had major affect upon humans. The drought that CAUSED the dust bowl in the 1930 was not made by humans, the affect from the dust bowl were probably worsen by human activity and humans can currently do things that would lesson the affect of a major drought of the scale of 1930's, BUT human can't stop a drought from happening, nor would they be doing anything to cause it to happen if it happened again.

Now, of course there is no shortage of human myths about humans affecting the climate and don't just the modern myths- these myths are ancient. E.g. one reason to murder woman who were accused of being witches was because it was thought they were affecting the climate. And of course most primitive people would do various things to appease rain gods, etc.

Ok, so now let's see, what about ocean acidification? Where is evidence of this silliness? How do people even imagine this possible? Do they have any clue of the scale of the oceans of this world?
The level of moonbatry required is simply amazing.

"Between 1751 and 2004 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14"
Note it's estimated. Even if true who cares about .1 difference. It's not measured, it's guessed. I bet they haven't even measure all the current oceans within a .1 error.
going on:
"Note that, although the ocean is acidifying, its pH is still greater than 7 (that of neutral water), so the ocean could also be described as becoming less alkaline."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

So maybe some day the ocean will actually get less acid than any rainwater, but right it's much softer than this. And if it rains on some part of the ocean, then it would acidifies that part of the ocean. Oh, ooh, watch out for the dangerous rain [not acid rain mind you, just the garden variety rain]. And if corals are going to be affected by such a small amount in difference, that mean much greater affect would be caused in acidification in the shallow water required by coral by heavy rainfall.

All these "pet peeves" were never proven to be significant affect by any specific human cause, so it's all very natural for them transfer the blame to an even more unlikely cause.