[Dilbert San Diego]

Is it possible to challenge the basic premises of the global warming extremists?

I would want to know—is global warming really only a bad event???

We obviously went through a period of natural global warming since the end of the last ice age. Chicago was buried under a mile of ice during the last ice age. Isn’t Chicago better off not being buried under a mile of ice???

We know the ice age ended due to natural cycles, because Cro Magnon man did not have coal fired power plants.

Aren’t there some potential benefits to warming though? For example, the midwest is a very productive agricultural region, but that area also has severe winters and a relatively short growing season. Wouldn’t there be some great benefits from a warmer midwest?

Just wondering why global warming is necessarily, by definition, a negativeevent per the liberals.

[BitWielder1]

Isn’t Chicago better off not being buried under a mile of ice???

Is that a trick question?

[skinkinthegrass]

I rather like; Chicago being under a mile of ice, can we include
Boston, San Fran., LA, Wdc and of course; any area under
Establishment control?

[Steve_Seattle]

"Just wondering why global warming is necessarily, by definition, a negative event per the liberals."

I've been asking that question for years. It seems that warming would have BOTH positive and negative effects, but libs insists it would be 110% negative and catastrophic.

I have also been asking if they would prefer global cooling, and what the effects of global cooling would be.