Friday, June 24, 2005

There's a growing -- though still small -- group of advocates who favor the warming of the planet. They feel that humans changing the climate is not such a bad thing.

Here's an example:
A warmer climate would produce the greatest gain in temperatures at northern latitudes and much less change near the equator. Not only would this foster a longer growing season and open up new territory for farming but it would mitigate harsh weather. The contrast between the extreme cold near the poles and the warm moist atmosphere on the equator drives storms and much of the earth's climate. This difference propels air flows; if the disparity is reduced, the strength of winds driven by equatorial highs and Arctic lows will be diminished.

Warmer nighttime temperatures, particularly in the spring and fall, create longer growing seasons, which should enhance agricultural productivity. Moreover, the enrichment of the atmosphere with CO2 will fertilize plants and make for more vigorous growth. Agricultural economists studying the relationship of higher temperatures and additional CO2 to crop yields in Canada, Australia, Japan, northern Russia, Finland, and Iceland found not only that a warmer climate would push up yields, but also that the added boost from enriched CO2 would enhance output by 17 percent.
Go crazy with air pollution and smog! As Martha Stewart says, "It's a good thing!" (Forget the fact that we breathe in O2 not CO2).

OK, running with their logic (gulp!), if it's OK to mess with God's creation (Earth, nature), then why is not likewise A-OK to mess with everything else that God created -- such as human embryos (stem cell science)?

In nearly every instance, those who favor or paint an optimistic picture of global warming are right-wingers, the same folks who are more often than not on the opposing side of stem cell research. Seems like there's an inconsistency here (wouldn't be the first time for such folks -- but that's seemingly A-OK).

No comments: