Prove your objectivity. If you are very concerned about Global Warming, what are some of its benefits?

[StageLeft]

I see in the crowd of people really, truly concerned about global warming the consensus that global warming is uniformly bad, from storms to sea levels and crops and everything else. I very rarely hear any of the positives, which could be better weather in some areas, better crops, etc. Why is this? Is the "global warming crowd" convinced that we're at a perfect temperature now and the overall increase of 1 degree, for instance, is negative? Or further, do you assert we'd be better off with perhaps even a single degree of cooling? Do you consider that perhaps mankind is, through its wanton consumption and burning of fossil fuels, warming the planet as a whole but perhaps this is fortuous for us and we'll end up, as a whole, better off simply through good luck?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

One benefit is that I only have to wear a wetsuit about 2 months a year, to surf now. My mango and citrus trees haven't had to weather a hard freeze in years, and it always grilling season here. </facetious post>

 

[yllus]

For Canada, some moderate global warming should prove to be an economic windfall. More "usable" terrain opens up, and there will even be a natural inclination for more people to move here.

I'd paste an article that dealt with the benefits of GW on Canada but I'm lazy.

 

[Lemon law]

What we know for certain is that man can thrive with the climate we have. And we must admit its possible that global warming will have some benefits. And must also admit that global warming could hit a climatic tipping point that radically changes climate for the worse. Thereby possibly creating conditions where mankind cannot thrive with extinction as one possible outcome

If we knew the science better, we could quote the odds in what amounts to a game of Russian roulette.

 

[CyberDuck]

In my country, Norway, there certainly are some benefits in the short run. Mainly warmer and longer summers with (usually) better crops. Property value may rise if climate refugees become common. If the benefits is larger than the downside remains to be seen.

 

[1EZduzit]

Lower heat bill?

 

[Stunt]

Less winter is always a good thing.
Here in Canada, a warmer climate would be a nice benefit.
As the polar icecaps melt, there will be a shipping passage above north america instead of going through the panama canal; this will make shipping more efficient.
More of Canada's land could be used for agriculture.

 

[theeedude]

Russia will be primo real estate

 

[jonks]

Well it would eliminate crime in most coastal cities since they'd be underwater.

It would create plenty of jobs, especially in kayak-taxis.

Polar bears are killers, and with no ice floes to live on, they'd all eventually drown and become extinct, saving countless arctic explorers from a grizzly death.

I'm sure there are plenty of other positives, just like when your head explodes from exposure to sheer idiocy, you then no longer have to worry about paying bills because you're dead.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: CyberDuck
In my country, Norway, there certainly are some benefits in the short run. Mainly warmer and longer summers with (usually) better crops. Property value may rise if climate refugees become common. If the benefits is larger than the downside remains to be seen.

Ironically, Norway, a country totally Dependant on the gulf stream, is exactly the area most at risk from global warming. And its precisely one of those tipping point possibilities.

The point being, the gulf stream can be thought of as a giant conveyor belt. Taking warm water up from near the equator to Northern Europe where it cools and sinks. And while global warming may warm the incoming waters, too much fresh water melting near the poles could prevent the cooled end of the gulf stream from sinking. Thus stalling the conveyor belt.

There is a certain amount of evidence that such events have happened in the past and that they happen in less than a century. Which is extremely rapid in geological time.

But in such a scenario---Norway and all of Northern Europe becomes an almost instant deep freeze.

 

[Czar]

For iceland its better weather all around, hell we have been getting that for the past few years
Most of all are shipping routes through the north arctic would be a possibility.

 

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Well it would eliminate crime in most coastal cities since they'd be underwater.

It would create plenty of jobs, especially in kayak-taxis.

Polar bears are killers, and with no ice floes to live on, they'd all eventually drown and become extinct, saving countless arctic explorers from a grizzly death.

I'm sure there are plenty of other positives, just like when your head explodes from exposure to sheer idiocy, you then no longer have to worry about paying bills because you're dead.

I don't think you're quite caught the spirit of the OP.

"Lighten up a little Francis"

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: ScottMac

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Well it would eliminate crime in most coastal cities since they'd be underwater.

It would create plenty of jobs, especially in kayak-taxis.

Polar bears are killers, and with no ice floes to live on, they'd all eventually drown and become extinct, saving countless arctic explorers from a grizzly death.

I'm sure there are plenty of other positives, just like when your head explodes from exposure to sheer idiocy, you then no longer have to worry about paying bills because you're dead.

I don't think you're quite caught the spirit of the OP.

"Lighten up a little Francis"

I think he is exactly the person this thread is aimed at. Fools like sirjonk who believe that the current climate is the only one at which life on Earth can exist are no better than fundies who believe the earth is 6K years old.

Guess what sparky, the climate has changed before, it's gonna happen again whether we cause it or not.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: ScottMac

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Well it would eliminate crime in most coastal cities since they'd be underwater.

It would create plenty of jobs, especially in kayak-taxis.

Polar bears are killers, and with no ice floes to live on, they'd all eventually drown and become extinct, saving countless arctic explorers from a grizzly death.

I'm sure there are plenty of other positives, just like when your head explodes from exposure to sheer idiocy, you then no longer have to worry about paying bills because you're dead.

I don't think you're quite caught the spirit of the OP.

"Lighten up a little Francis"

I think he is exactly the person this thread is aimed at. Fools like sirjonk who believe that the current climate is the only one at which life on Earth can exist are no better than fundies who believe the earth is 6K years old.

Guess what sparky, the climate has changed before, it's gonna happen again whether we cause it or not.

Of course the climate will change again. There will be ice ages and magnetic reversal of the poles and continental drift, etc. I don't think looking for the silver lining is a worthwhile exercise, while seeing what we can do to slow our contribution to such massive changes in climate is. And just because the earth can survive the massive traumas nature, time and tide harry it with, doesn't mean certain animal life will.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, Florida's electoral votes won't matter any more... and we won't see any pandering to the Miami Cuban community, because it'll all be under water...

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: ScottMac

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Well it would eliminate crime in most coastal cities since they'd be underwater.

It would create plenty of jobs, especially in kayak-taxis.

Polar bears are killers, and with no ice floes to live on, they'd all eventually drown and become extinct, saving countless arctic explorers from a grizzly death.

I'm sure there are plenty of other positives, just like when your head explodes from exposure to sheer idiocy, you then no longer have to worry about paying bills because you're dead.

I don't think you're quite caught the spirit of the OP.

"Lighten up a little Francis"

I think he is exactly the person this thread is aimed at. Fools like sirjonk who believe that the current climate is the only one at which life on Earth can exist are no better than fundies who believe the earth is 6K years old.

Guess what sparky, the climate has changed before, it's gonna happen again whether we cause it or not.

Of course the climate will change again. There will be ice ages and magnetic reversal of the poles and continental drift, etc. I don't think looking for the silver lining is a worthwhile exercise, while seeing what we can do to slow our contribution to such massive changes in climate is. And just because the earth can survive the massive traumas nature, time and tide harry it with, doesn't mean certain animal life will.

You again miss the point. Will third time be a charm or are you doomed to bash your head against the wall of demagogic bias? Come on, give it one more shot and please get it right this time. I know you can do it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You can make money in companies manufacturing anti-malarials!

 

[Martin]

This is a common way of thinking amongst the denialists, but it misses the point of worrying over GW. The point is not that GW will kill us all, or render the world uninhabitable or even make it less desirable in some detached, absolutist, pie-in-the-sky way of thinking (for example, one can say "GW will make huge parts of Canada and Russia more habitable, so that all the people in vulnerable regions like Bangladesh can move there so everything will work out"). The point is that we are well adapted to the world as it is now and the change in climate that is likely to occur will cost us more to adapt to than the relatively minor measures that we can take now - the old "an once of prevention is worth a pound of cure".

The ironic thing is that you denialists behave this way personally - after all how many of you have no auto or health insurance, and no retirements savings, preferring instead to take it as it comes? None of you, of course - you realize it makes more sense to pay now to minimize the potential risk instead of facing the full consequences unprepared. To understand GW, just take this to a non-personal level and it'll start to make sense.

Here's an economic report to get you started: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared.../30_10_06_exec_sum.pdf

Don't worry, they're only words, they won't bite you!

 

[StageLeft]

The point is that we are well adapted to the world as it is now and the change in climate that is likely to occur will cost us more to adapt to than the relatively minor measures that we can take now - the old "an once of prevention is worth a pound of cure".

The world always changes. Always has.

I'm not a denialist. I do not believe that an issue like this is all negative and when somebody says it is, they've proven their inability to discuss intelligently and objectively on it and therefore should have their opinions discarded.

 

[smack Down]

It is almost impossible to predict the positives of any event but easy to predict the negatives. For the simple reason it takes human action to capitalizes on the positives and human action to avoid negatives. So it is easy to predict negatives because it doesn't require predicting the action of humans.

 

[daniel49]

open waters for fishing and energy exploration in the North.
must say though most of the last month has only been in the 60-70 range here with a couple quick trips up into the eighties...lots of rain too.

 

[Lemon law]

I am not quite sure if we are even to the point where we can rationally discuss what amounts to a hope by Skoorb. The point being, GW amounts to all of us turning in our cards and then letting the cosmic card dealer reshuffle and then redistribute the cards. As Skoorb points out, natural changes continually does that and then we have no choice but to deal with it.

But now we discover the mankind has now reached a point where we are having a significant climatic impacts. And as we then seek to increase our understanding of the required sciences, we rapidly discover that we know almost nothing as we discover that the problem is far far far more complex than anyone previously imagined. And even if something appears to be initially good to us men and women, that very positive thing could then cause all manners of other disasters. And we are perhaps decades away from having a much better understanding than we have now.

We can generate an almost endless list of possible effects of GW, but is the science now there to make anyones guess any better than anyone else's? So I wonder about the quality of the fruits of that kind of question.

And also wonder if we should really redefine the real question.

Namely, given what we now know, should we do anything to alter man's climate altering effects or not.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

The point is that we are well adapted to the world as it is now and the change in climate that is likely to occur will cost us more to adapt to than the relatively minor measures that we can take now - the old "an once of prevention is worth a pound of cure".

The world always changes. Always has.

I'm not a denialist. I do not believe that an issue like this is all negative and when somebody says it is, they've proven their inability to discuss intelligently and objectively on it and therefore should have their opinions discarded.

Interesting rationalization. Can you point us to the thread where you "intelligently and objectively" discuss the potential negative consequences of "global warming"? If not, can we therefore assume your opinions should be discarded?


The problem with saying "The world always changes." is that it is a recklessly stupid dismissal of an important issue. Yes, the world has undergone major climate changes over its history ... and look at what happened. Countless billions of living things died, whole species became extinct, habitable land became submerged, lush vegetation was replaced by desert.

Consider just one consequence of a major change in Earth's climate. There are currently six billion human beings on the face of this planet, and their survival depends, in part, on a massive agricultural system. This system is intrinsically tied to local soil conditions and climate, and was developed over hundreds of years as the Earth's population exploded. Disrupt this blend of soil and climate and food production drops. If food production drops, famine results and people die. While it is true man would eventually revamp agriculture to adopt to new locations and climate, hundreds of millions -- if not billions -- of people will die first.

You may consider this an interesting intellectual exercise -- Yay! Think of all the new beach-front property! -- but those are real human beings who will die. All moral people should consider it imperative to do what we can to prevent this, even if it means one can't drive his portable living room down to the Piggly Wiggly to get another gallon of Hagen Daaz, even if it means that some of Earth's greedier bastards may take a bit of a hit in their quarterly profits, even if it means the blindly bleating partisans have to put aside their childish rejection of anything said by someone with a (D) next to his name.

Do we know with 100% certainty what will happen and how much we can do to stop it? No, Science just isn't that good. It is, however, the overwhelming consensus of the most qualified people on the planet that we're headed in a dangerous direction. That's reason enough to take whatever mitigating actions we can. It is the only rational, responsible response. If the scientists are wrong, we've wasted a few dollars and we forced people to adopt more environmentally-friendly lifestyles, but that's a hell of small price for an insurance policy that could save billions of people.

 

[StageLeft]

Can you point us to the thread where you "intelligently and objectively" discuss the potential negative consequences of "global warming"?

I have never seen such a thread.

Countless billions of living things died, whole species became extinct, habitable land became submerged, lush vegetation was replaced by desert.

You're forgetting about the billions of living things that came along, whole species came along, inhospitable land became hospitable, desert became lush vegetation.

Consider just one consequence of a major change in Earth's climate. There are currently six billion human beings on the face of this planet, and their survival depends, in part, on a massive agricultural system. This system is intrinsically tied to local soil conditions and climate, and was developed over hundreds of years as the Earth's population exploded. Disrupt this blend of soil and climate and and food production drops. If food production drops, famine results and people die. While it is true man would eventually revamp agriculture to adopt to new locations and climate, hundreds of millions -- if not billions -- of people will die first.

Actually, this is the same erroneous logic that Martin alluded to, that we have mastered our planet in its current state. Have the starving wretches in dastardly parts of the world mastered their environment? I can't remember seeing pictures of apple orchards at the north pole and vast corn fields at the heart of the Sahara.

If the scientists are wrong, we've wasted a few dollars and we forced people to adopt more environmentally-friendly lifestyles, but that's a hell of small price for an insurance policy that could save billions of people.

No, the point is, if the scientists are wrong, and GW is actually a net-gain, then fighting it would be a crazy thing to do if we're undeliberately going in that direction for free anyway.

Fact is, we don't know how much of the current GWing trend is because of us. We don't know what net impact it will have, and more to the relevant point I do not believe in the restraint of human kind at all and its ability to ward of even a totally predictable catastrophe because it has shown in the past so many times (deforestation, over-use of land, fisheries) that it will consume until it cannot anymore. That's how it is. I'm looking for the silver lining in the inevitability of the unstoppable machine of humanity.

 

[DangerAardvark]

So why try? How do you wake up in the morning?