Quote:
Really? The IPCC, a left-leaning organization, has stated that it believes that there could be a net benefit to GDP in developed nations as a result of global warming. Sure there will be specific losers. But there will be winners in global warming.
By the way, I am not a complete skeptic w.r.t. global warming. I just see the net economic benefit. Too much of this debate is focused on whether anthropogenic global warming exists, when it should be focused on how to provide society with a net benefit.
It just makes sense - life tends to flourish on planet Earth during times of warmer temperatures. Ice ages may be good for Polar bears but they are very bad for most species on this planet.
|
Imp,
There are too many uncertainties. Scientific speculation pertaining to the dynamics of climate has been unreliable. I agree with you from the standpoint that warming is a better alternative to cooling. My reluctancy to embrace your optimistic perspective stems from the fact that (according to the ice-cores) many ice-age cycles are preceded by abrupt warming. My research leads me to believe this is related to disruptions to the global ocean currents caused by melting glaciers. We must identify these triggers. Like it or not something is going to give soon and I doubt it will be pretty.
I also agree that we need to look at the solutions (net benefit) rather than continue down this endless path of complacency. We must also start mitigating our damages. This brings up a point...our lack of understanding of climate change. We do not know enough to justify massive investment in preparation and mitigation or it would already be in the works. I could argue both sides of the debate and the result would be stalemate every time. We need more answers before the money will be spent and sacrifices made. I am confident science will deliver soon enough. [-o<
We need breakthroughs not gridlock.
~Paradox