----- Original Message ----- From: "Wojtek Sokolowski" <swsokolowski at yahoo.com>
[WS:] This is of course pure speculation, but let's assume for the sake of argument that this is true. Then the obvious question is "how would those upsides compare to the downsides?" Would the longer growing season in, say, Canada compensate for the displaced populations of island nations, Bangladesh, Chesapeake Bay area, etc.?
One would think that of all papers, the FT would be the first to perform a cost/benefit analysis. I do not know if they did because I did not read the article, but if they did not, they would seem incapable or arguing with their own arguments - let alone those of their adversaries.
Wojtek
===================
Ecosystem dynamics are no more conformable to the Procrustean bed of constrained optimization than capitalist economies. To expect the journalists at the FT to even begin to know what the heck is going to happen -even if only to knock them off their perch- when they rarely, if ever, consult with biologists/ecologists who have semblance of what's going on is a silly exercise.
Ian