Originally posted by sh76
Still, an analysis of both the positive and negative effects of global warming is not such a terrible thing.
I agree. And most people that have done that come to the conclusion that global warming will have an overwhelmingly negative outcome in sum.
Maybe for every square kilometer made uninhabitable by flooding, two are made habitable by warming in the Arctic regions.
Sure, but the earth isn't short of habitable land. The issue isn't availability of habitable land. One of the issues (only one mind) is the change in habitable land. The Canadians have not taken in all the Syrians yet. New habitable land in the arctic will not be utilized by the people loosing habitable land.
Another very large factor is the amount of infrastructure that is on the coasts. Sea level rise of a mere metre would destroy trillions of dollars worth of property and infrastructure. Several metres would destroy several of the worlds largest cities (New York included). But it is changes in weather patterns that concern me most.
Maybe increased vegetation takes CO2 out of the air, thereby causing a negative feedback cycle that limits the need to cut down on CO2 emissions. I don't know.
Well I do know. CO2 is rising at a fairly steady pace unabated. No negative feedback cycle so far, and warming is already taking place - and will continue to take place even if we do not increase the CO2 levels from where they are now.
It would be nice to hear from someone in the media without an axe to grind on these issues every now and again.
Why? Far better to listen to non-media voices on this issue. The media are often motivated by selling stories and are typically not well educated in the sciences.