I keep promising myself that I'll stay out of these CC threads, but like a moth to a flame...
I sail around the Barrier Reef. I pulled my boat out of the water a few years back to do a few months of work on it and that has blown out to the point that the darn'd thing i still sitting high and dry. However, the reef looked fine for the most part when I left it and since cooling my heals on land all I hear on the TV about the reef is how destroyed it is. Usually by some researcher speaking with an accent that is not Australian. I've even heard ridiculous quotes like "90% of the reef is dead" bandied about. Sure, it has sustained some recent damage as I've heard from first hand reports. Most of this damage has been due to high SST's resulting during the 2016 el Nino and a number of recent cyclones that ran over the top of areas of the reef. On the subject of the latter, I heard someone from the weather bureau make a statement to the effect - when discussing projections for the upcoming cyclone season - that "Cyclone activity has decreased in the last 30 years, but they may
be increasing in intensity". Notice the Italics. Words like "may", "might" and "could" are very popular for those wishing to express their visions of global destruction to be wrought upon mankind by climate change.
Anyway, I digress. When I float the boat shortly I expect the reef to still be pretty much how I left it, so no need to update plans. In fact, when I was in Cairns and Port Douglas recently (major hubs for Barrier Reef tourism) the constant stream of boats carting tourists out to popular islands and reefs appeared to affirm this. Speaking of tourists, the most damage I have personally observed to the reef is caused by tourist and related boating activities.
Now to enter the fray. Whether it's man, the Sun or hobgoblins that are responsible for a changing climate is irrelevant. What is noteworthy is why it's only ever the maybe
of some horrible irretrievable disasters that are bandied about. The actual effects directly attributable to climate change and nothing else are somewhat limited. Quotes like that below are a perfect example. No one cares about the good bugs; Or other fauna and flora. Nope. It's just the ticks, virulent pests and other creepy stuff that gets to run rampant thanks to climate change.
Just to widen the CC scope a bit know that moose are being severely impacted by ticks >Apparently spruce budworm is not the only critters benefiting from mild winters. This is not a real problem as there is little data by qualified data collectors so can be disregarded by herds of us. However, If you cruise the coast be prepared to dress for CC avoiding Lyms D. AS for Luddits avoiding science and technology facts .farmers in Sudan are following this thread with interest to wrest an understanding of how melting tundra can cause their corn to die. Few have PhDs so can by safely ignored too.
Dig deeper, and there are untold benefits of a warmer climate. Accuse me of cherry picking if you will, but I grabbed a couple of examples in double quick time.
1) World grain production has increased from about 600 million tons in 1950 to around 2200 million tons now. Dunno about where you live, but farmland and the percentages of people working in grain growing occupations haven't increased anywhere near proportional to those values in my neck of the woods.
2) Average life expectancy in the US has increased from around 47 years in 1900 to around 80 years currently. Make of that what you will.
As "they" say, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. The omelette in this case is technology and all the incredible advancements that it brings. The broken egg is (on the assumption the cause is anthropogenic) climate change. Even our beloved climate scientists cannot undertake their valuable research without contributing to molecules of CO2 to the atmosphere. Simply commuting to work, equipping and powering their homes and labs, flying to research sites, conventions and other junkets and so on and so forth all add to the pot.