Thursday, October 2, 2008

Opportunities of global warming

Which will be our first political party to begin a serious study to identify how Canada will benefit from global warming?

All we ever seem to hear about are the myriad disadvantages of global warming—impending disasters and so forth. But surely there must be significant advantages for a country like Canada. There is usually some good news amidst the bad. The fact that we have to mitigate the bad effects of climate change does not mean we should ignore the opportunities it presents.

Perhaps it is time to look on the bright side instead of the doom and gloom.

I have read about the Medieval Warm Period, a time of warm weather around 800-1300 AD during the European Medieval period. The Vikings took advantage of ice-free seas to colonize Greenland and other outlying lands of the far north. During their stay in Greenland, the European settlers farmed the land, something they have not been able to do in Greenland for centuries.

Back then, it is said, Greenland was actually green. Europe emerged from the Dark Ages during Medieval Warm Period, it was a time characterized by bountiful harvests and great economic prosperity.

Perhaps Canada's climate-change clouds have silver linings. Let us identify them so we can offset some of the negatives  we are told to expect.


  1. The doom and gloom sells more newspapers.

  2. Does doom and gloom really sell more newspapers? The long term circulation figures say otherwise.

  3. It is not just newspapers. The nightly news always leads off with their worst doom and gloom stories while baiting people with neutral/good news stories, like snow on Mars, that will come later in the program. How many media outlets of any kind reported NASA's observation that the biosphere is doing quite well? There was the "In praise of CO2: With less heat and less carbon dioxide, the planet could become less hospitable and less green" article by Lawrence Solomon in the Financial Post, Don Mills, Ontario on Saturday, June 07, 2008. I did not see that on CTV. I found it on a blog:

    Stories of interest that are not doom and gloom are usually near the end of the broadcast or are buried within the news paper. There has been so much good news lately, but people are shocked when I tell them about these stories. For example, few have thought through the ramifications that the Nature paper about how ocean cycles affect global temperature. Few seem to have realized that the oceanic noise in the temperature signal now must be filtered out, so climate must be at least 60 if not 120 years instead of the IPCC's 30 years. That leads to vastly different conclusions in the AGW debate. The media missed all that.

    Perhaps reader and viewership are down because people can get both sides of the story on the Internet. The old media were not fast enough to stay relevant. They continue to fail the consumer by assuming that soundbites are all that are desired.