Originally posted by sh76
Yes, I agree that's a silly position to take.
Still, an analysis of both the positive and negative effects of global warming is not such a terrible thing. Maybe for every square kilometer made uninhabitable by flooding, two are made habitable by warming in the Arctic regions. Maybe increased vegetation takes CO2 out of the air, thereby causing a negative fee ...[text shortened]... e to hear from someone in the media without an axe to grind on these issues every now and again.
uhuh, and may i ask who gets this newly "inhabitable land"? will it be a "first come, first served"? will the russians and canadians be cool with millions of displaced chinese settling at the north pole?
do you also believe it will be a sudden trade? 1 square kilometer gets flooded on Monday and 2 sq km of Artica gets prime real estate on wednesday? or will millions of refugees have to deal for years until the land of their dreams opens up?
also, have you tried growing food in arctica? i am sure that 2 for 1 deal will be awesome when you lose imense areas of fertile indian and chinese farmland.
you have really thought this through. years of scientific experience are showing.
"I don't know."
usually a hint it's time to start knowing or keep one's mouth shut.
"It would be nice to hear from someone in the media without an axe to grind on these issues every now and again."
ah yes, the conspiracy. all those wind and solar energy tycoons wanting to make a killing. all those scientists living paycheck to paycheck because they didn't become whores.