Why global warming is very good for mankind

[shonagon53]

Every time I read about global warming (cooling) and climate change, I have a tendency to think: this is such a longterm problem, with very few consequences for our lives; it should be of no concern to us.

The other day I read that Greenland's entire icecap could melt by the year 2350 (oh no!) and Antarctica's outer icecaps could be withdrawing for up to 30 kilometres inland! For environmentalists this is a spooky scenario. Cities like New York and London will disappear from the map! Entire cultures will drown!

But just think of all the fantastic things we can go do on Greenland and Antarctica, if only that damned ice wouldn't be there.

Both landmasses are full of mineral resources, not the least of which are vast oil reserves, gold and aluminium. We can build new cities in Greenland, which will be a beautiful green land full of flowers and prairies with a gentle climate. It will have vast water resources, a commodity which by that time will be very valuable. It will have gigantic clean energy potential (hydro, thermal). Greenland is strategically located between the US, Europe, Canada and East Asia. So exporting its huge reserves of mineral resources will be no problem either.

Moreover, if all the ice of the Arctic Sea melts, we will finally be able to travel the North East Passage to China, that Mythical Golden Shipping Lane of which so many explorers, kings and emperors have dreamt. Global shipping will see tremendous change, connecting Europe, Northern Russia (with its vast natural resources) and Asia much better than ever before.

The same story with Antarctica: finally all those natural resources will be exploitable, because the weather and climate will no longer prevent it. Moreover, shipping lanes from Antarctica will be hassle free because there will be not one single iceberg around.

In short, global warming is really a good thing. I think we should speed it up. London and New York will disappear, but who cares, with 1/1000th of the resources of Greenland and Antarctica we can rebuilt those cities five times over.

Man is flexible and can easily adapt to change.

 

[Andre]

Don't count on it, it won't work. There isn't nearly any global warming so little chance to accellerate it.

 

[Marijn]

guess he forgot the [sarcasm] and [/sarcasm] tags.
But it might be nicer places for all around 350 years from now (provided global warming persists)

 

[Andre]

Nope, there were invisible [honestly] and [/honestly] tags.

It's a long story though.

 

[Phobos]

shonagon53 -

No care for future generations at all?

And, of course, the world is more than just London and New York. Do you hope to relocate billions of people to the northern and southern latitudes? (better start fixing the ozone layer...no wait, that's their problem too, right?)

And, do you discount any possible negative effects too?

If you want Greenland's resources, then drill for them. I'll bet you it's cheaper with the ice there than it would be to adapt the human race.

 

[Gonzolo]

Woohoo! Global warming is good! Let's all buy SUV's and run over them hybrids!

 

[Andre]

I think that cynism is not really helping. How about this little essay?

A baffling binary battle

It's true I have something with alliteration, hence the title. This Essay intent to investigate all the possible binary permutations about the global warming dispute with three binary variables, being Antropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is either true or false, Kyoto being either implemented or not and Kyoto being effective against global warming or not. We just following binary logics, using three times the binary digits 0 (zero) for false and 1 (one) for true. This is giving counts of 000, 001, 010, 011, etc.

Each scenario is evaluated who was the most right about global warming and about the results of implementing Kyoto. So each scenario is worth two credit points.

To be absolutely clear: The concernists are supposed to consider AGW true or at least that the increase of emission of Carbon dioxide causing global warming and they consider the Kyoto threaty about emission effective in countering that. The skeptics would deny both. We also assume that Kyoto being effective would improve the general climate and environment. But Kyoto will be very expense and if Kyoto is not effective it would harm the environment because of the misspent assets that could have been used mitigating other environmental problems. So the skeptics think that putting all eggs in the wrong basket will be disastreous for the environment as well.

Very well, the binary battle: the concernists versus the skeptics in 8 permutations from 000 to 111:

So the first situation would be 000 indication: "AGW not true, Kyoto not implemented, Kyoto (would have been) not effective", (which is obvious). The "concernists" will not be happy but no harm is done. This would be the best possible result for the world and the desired result of the "skeptics". Two points for the skeptics. Score 0-2

Next we have 001: "AGW not true, Kyoto not implemented, Kyoto (would have been) effective". This permutation is actually not relevant because there cannot be an effective cure against a disease that does not exist. Anyway the result would have been equal to the 000. But we must omit it, too bad for the skeptics. No points, no score.

About 010: "AGW not true, Kyoto implemented, Kyoto obviously not effective". The nightmare scenario. The one that skeptics foresee and try to prevent. Everybody looses leaving the skeptics with the bitter satisfaction that they score two points for being double right. Score 0-4

Then 011 "AGW not true, Kyoto implemented, Kyoto effective". Clearly an impossible situation like 001. Too bad for the skeptics again. No points.

The next step 100 "AGW true, Kyoto not implemented, Kyoto (would have been) not effective" is the scenario as desired by Bjorn Lomborg . Bad for the world but we could not have prevented it. Bad for the concernists but at least they were right about global warming. Bad for the skeptics because they were wrong but at least their objective was reached preventing a disastrous decision taking effect. Both score a point. Score 1-5

How about 101? AGW true, Kyoto not implemented, Kyoto (would have been) effective. This is where the scary scenarios are becoming true. The worst surprise for the "concernists" and the nightmare for the "skeptics" Exactly the opposite of 0 1 O. The only comfort being that funding not used for Kyoto, can be applied to mitigate the effects of AGW some other way. Two points for the concernists 3-5 the score

Next is the 110 situation: AGW true, Kyoto implemented, Kyoto not effective. The worst possible scenario for everybody as foreseen by Bjorn Lomborg. Concernists lose althought they were right about AGW. Skeptics lose for being wrong although they were right about the results of Kyoto. The world is the big loser as society is unable to mitigate effects due to the cost of Kyoto. Both party score for a total of 4-6

Finally the 111 situation: AGW true, Kyoto implemented, Kyoto effective. The desired result and the dream scenario for the concernists. The skeptics lose both counts. The preliminary end score: 6-6

Although the skeptists already missed four penalties, we are in a draw and we must continue penalties for who would have damaged the environment the most in each scenano.

The situations 000 and 010 (omitting 001 and 011) yield two penalties against the concernists being concerned for nothing, No AGW and Kyoto ineffective and we are back to 4-6. Balancing this, the situations 101 and 111 are penalties against the skeptics since AGW is true and Kyoto works and we are back to a draw, 4-4.

So the final decision is for the 100 and 110 scenario of Bjorn Lomborg. Kyoto is not working despite global warming. This is obviously the pivot point. Obviously the penalties must to go the concernists here since a futile implementation of Kyoto brings the world in a worse situation.

End score of the binary dispute: Concernists 2, Skeptics 4.

Of course this was a pure exercise in binary logic. The real world is much more complicated. For instance when Global warming is a little true and Kyoto is partly or almost effective. This would add weight to the individual situations. But since most situations count for the skeptics, the 'concernists' need more than double weights for their assets.

Weird anyway that the negative blithe detrimental attitude of the sceptics in relation with the apprehensive trepidation of the concernists is not reflected in the potential damage to the climate and environment.

 

[no idea]

global warming is not a good effect . Although it can makes more rainfall in some places , the others place will be less rainfall. It also encourage some dangerous diseases while the rainforest expands due to the wet and hot climate.