What if global warming actually makes the planet greener?
Filed Under (Global Warming, etcetera) by Don C on 07-06-2008
Why exactly will global warming cause all the coastal areas to flood? And other than having to relocate dense population centers why is a lot of extra water such a bad thing? It’s not like our dense population centers have been a raging success. They are in fact the source of many of the nation’s ills. Crime, pollution, poverty, urban sprawl… and global warming.
Besides, aren’t we in some kind of global water shortage crisis? Isn’t California shutting down for want of some more water? I can see how people who drink off the melting glaciers might be concerned about melting glaciers, but that is hardly a global problem, is it? Besides wouldn’t all the extra water from the glaciers have to be included in the weather systems, ultimately causing more rain around the world? Doesn’t redistribution of water make as much sense as redistribution of wealth?
You don’t hear a lot of talk about global warming being a good thing. Primarily I think this is because global warming, if it even continues over the long term, will cause many great changes and when there is great change the people who have are at risk to lose ground to the people who have not. People in charge do not like unmanaged change–that is, they do not like change where they are not still in control of everything after the change has occurred. Al Gore’s vile tobacco plantation could be reduced to a dust bowl, for example.
What if, after the initial global catastrophes, if any, global warming and melted icecaps were to provide an unmeasurable benefit to the the entire plant and animal kingdom of earth, enabling human civilization to endure and prosper for ten thousand years? Seems an unbiased scientist adhering to the scientific method would have to consider such a scenario.
