Well, the debate on the ultimate outcome of this changing climate is delicate I believe. Even the word climate is wrong in this sence as it protrays the average weather of at least 30 years and has can thus hardly be measured since this debate has sprung up. We do know average global temperatures have been going up and we do know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The link is the most logical one to make, but what hapens in the complex carbon cycle and with all the different feedback mechanisms (reflection of clouds, hydrogen as greenhouse gas, less ablation, quicker forest growth, less or more planktonic blooms, less carbon uptake in the oceans, more or less oceanic circulation, more chemical weathering.... etc) isn't totally clear and this seems still impossible to accurately predict. I also feel that because it is concidered unethical to change the planet in such a way, that all possible affects are always focused towards the negative. For instance, imagine the large potential for agriculture when the tundra plains are releaved of perma frost. Or when boats will be able to pass along the north pole for transportation year round. Yes, we will probably need to start dealing with higher sealevels and move certain cities, but has anybody calculated what might be cheaper... Also the unethical nature of this entire situation has already been caused a long time ago when we started choping up migration paths for animals and isolating pockets of forests. If flora and fauna was free to move, than these shifts in climate belts would probably not be a mayro issue and would lead to some very interesting natural phenomena. The earth can cope with it, I'm sure, it has seen greater plagues...
That's all of my little rant
