Yes I have, and this is where I feel there is more pressure to conform. This is also why I avoided the term "Climate change" and stuck with Global Warming. Because some people in the Climate Change camp can only talk about doom and I agree with you that it seems they are ignoring some of the consequences because they might be favorable to a given area (even if on the whole the net effect is negative for the planet).
Carbon taxes is where I draw the line. It's too easy to cheat when no one is keeping score. So why implement a fraud-riddled system in the name of environmentalism? Oh, wait - you say there's money to be made here? Got it...pay me some carbon tax (say a few hail Mary's) or pay for inefficient green energy programs".
So yeah, I understand the spirit with which the whole carbon tax exchange was founded, but it's a hopelessly flawed system that really needs to go away in favor of better solutions.
Well, if someone denies the temperature data itself, that is pretty hard to accept. When I think of a denier, I think of someone who says that the mean global temperature really isn't rising, not someone who agrees that it's happening but disagrees about what to do about it...That is why the word "denier" makes me smile. It sounds so heretical.
So long as the increased frequency of Nor'easters doesn't cancel out the shorter winter, right? (Which, admittedly, I am not 100% convinced will happen anyway.)
This is actually one of the predictions... That as the American heartland dries up and becomes unsuitable for farming, Canada will probably take over that role. So probably a wash in terms of net food production, although the midwestern farmers are surely going to be pissed...If northern Canada had longer growing seasons could more food be grown for the starving world?
Interestingly, none of the models I've ever looked at predicted any of the current deserts getting wetter and/or turning into grasslands. I don't know enough about Climatology to understand why though.Would the Gobi become less arid.
I've also read a little bit about this idea. The problem is that increased CO2 dissolved in seawater drives the pH down due to carbonic acid formation, and many organisms can't handle this. (Coral reefs all over the world are shrinking as the seawater pH lowers, although admittedly coral is quite a bit more fragile than phytoplankton.) In the end, I think the answer to this one is "we don't really know". The oceans are the largest ecosystems we have, and we don't know nearly enough about them.Would phytoplankton production increase, generating more primary food for endangered whales as well as a resource supporting fish for human consumption?
I agree completely that the issue needs to be approached from a position of rationality, and you must consider the economics of any remedy. I've said it before, but it bears repeating: it may well be cheaper for us to spend money DEALING with the results of Global Warming that it would be to try to stop it. Honestly, we may be unable to reverse it with our current technology, so it would seem prudent to at least investigate what we could do to adapt...the point is that the issue of balance never comes up and that's why I asked my question.
But as you said, it's rare that you see anyone talking about the problem from this angle. More balance would undoubtedly be a good thing.
Adam