On 3/12/2011 4:54 p.m., The Natural Philosopher wrote:

When I hear someone expressing concern about the idea of a warmer
globe, I sometimes ask if they would prefer it if the the globe were
cooler. Why should the temperature we have become used to over a few
centuries be regarded as the ideal temperature? (I am not oblivious to
the costs of adjustment to a changing temperature, but that's a
separate issue.)

That I can answer very simply.

Change costs money.


The new Monte Carlo may well be Novosibirsk, but we will have to build
it. And we lose the investment in the old one if the sea floods it and
most of France becomes the northern fringe of the Sahara.


Change is expensive, pure and simple.


Did you not read my last sentence? The cost of change (i.e. how you get
there) is a separate issue from the question of whether a warmer planet
would be better or worse. Almost everyone assumes that it would be
worse, but it might be better for plant growth and food production.