Why is it more important to discuss the downsides of AGW?

Focusing on the benefits of AGW is a little like focusing on the benefits of North Korea being run by a juvenile delinquent. Of course there are some benefits -a greater chance of North Korea's nuclear weapons development being slowed by incompetence, more incentive for South Korea and Japan to coordinate strategy in the region and with the U.S., etc.- but they are clearly outweighed by the risks.

Another reason for being skeptical about global warming's benefits (which certainly exist, and may even outweigh the downsides for a few regions and groups) is that the people emphasizing them typically

(a) cover up or underplay the downsides as part of a deliberate deceptive pretense that the NET OVERALL effect is likely to be beneficial, despite that being demonstrably untrue

(b) are the same denier crackpots who will, with a straight face, echo chamber on endlessly one week about AGW being overall beneficial, the next week about how it is too late or too difficult to do anything about it even though it is overall NOT beneficial, and the week following will claim that AGW doesn't exist.

Note: A lot of people here seem to think that the average global temperature increase is why AGW is an issue. That of course is silly. Even the high-end scenario temperature increase in coming centuries is less than the common fluctuation between day time and night time temps. It is the secondary effects, on ecosystems, disease spread, weather, infrastructure, etc. which are the concern, and the reason why AGW is very bad news for the long term global economy (which evolved and was developed to operate effectively within long term climatic conditions that are being seriously altered).

Edit: I thought this was too obvious to mention, but since no else has: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_princip... By analogy, there are many positive benefits to catastrophic fires, but fire insurance is widely used because of the negative potential of fire, and the uncertainty about that potential is an important further reason to insure, and it is logical for insurers, insurees and bystanders to pay more attention to the significant downsides than the lesser upsides. http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200602/bac...

Very simply put, we make more money from the positives and the negatives cost us money, so we have to look at how to minimize those costs from the harm regardless of the balance of positives and negatives.

It all boils down to money and economics. On a global scale, not enough money=people starving and dying in other unpleasant and unnecessary ways. If we don't plan, we can't adapt; if the plan anticipates the worst case scenario-as all good plans do-and we find out that the worst case scenario isn't going to occur it is a bonus for us. The trick is to invest in ways that don't address ONLY the worst case scenario, and that's what we're having such a hard time figuring out.

Lmao. "One permanent positive, for example: fewer deaths from hypothermia."

That's like saying the issue with AGW is that more people will die from heat exhaustion.

At what point do we consider every other species of plant and animal that is less tolerant to change than humans?

<Anyone sane will agree that global warming is likely to have both positive and negative effects.>

If you are referring to AGW, there is no such thing. Therefore, it cannot have a positive effect or an negative effect, at least scientifically.

Politically that is another story. People have had many liberties needlessly taken away because of the phony AGW.

Financially, that is another story also. Many people, such as Al Gore, Maurice Strong, and George Soros have made fortunes off of theis scam.

It's only important if you are trying to get ignorant people to believe the snake oil your trying to sell is the cure.

Maybe because the harms of AGW far outweigh the positives. Or maybe it's because of how bad the negative side is. For example, you could argue that it will be more seasonal in Alaska [positive] and totally disregard the fact that Arizona will be completely uninhabitable.

OMG woman almost all the effects of global warming are negative The positive effects will likely be short lived

There are areas that will be able to develop areas for agricultural production like Canada and Russia. Then the pest season will lengthen requiring more pesticides and herbicides which get into the ground water, travel to lakes, rivers and streams effecting aquatic health. And when the heat reaches 115 degrees photosynthesis stops possibly destroying entire crops Additional growing seasons require more ground water which many countries are running out of so they may not have water to drink and water for irrigation (irrigation is responsible for using @95% of all the available fresh water)

As skeptics and "skeptics" love to point out, there is considerable uncertainty as to how much warming we could expect and what its effects would be. Therefore it is dangerous to just assume that the effects of global warming would be beneficial or insignificant.

Some people will point out that they could say the same things about nuclear power as I have said about global warming. Consider my recent discourse with Portland Joe.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=201304...

We debated the contents of this link.

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/05/world-health-...

In this link, even the worst case scenario would mean only a very small risk.

"According to David Brenner, a radiation biophysicist at Columbia University in New York, a dose of 5 mSv would be estimated to lead to one excess cancer per 5,000 people exposed. Given that roughly 2,000 of those 5,000 people are going to develop cancer anyway, this is a tiny increase in risk, and Brenner emphasizes that the uncertainties in his calculations are high."

Compared with the minimal risks of nuclear power, global warming could do some tangible harm to real people, like the asker of this question.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqrW_...

We can always hope that the harmful effects of global warming will be minimal, but how can anyone with any kind of conscience risk it?

Maybe if a Scientist prediction comes true . They base all the scare tactics on Computer models and that leads to mental Midgets like Ed Markey , Henry Waxman and Barbra Boxer want to tax more on something that may or may not happen in a 1000 years,

Alarmists often like to point out absurd things like poison ivy will increase. When you read things like that, it becomes very obvious very quickly that some people aren't really interested in the science or in evaluating the pros and cons and are instead just exercising exaggeration. Then you have to ask why are they exaggerating. Instead of moderating the temperature, as existing greenhouse gases presumably do, we are supposed to believe that moderate increases in GHGs are going to cause drought and floods and cold and hot and extremes and locus and everything catastrophic that can be dreamed up.

I don't know that you can read this because it isn't from a left wing source but I attached in case you have any interest. It is just another example of wackos on your side exaggerating to push their wacko agenda.

http://townhall.com/columnists/jamesallen/2013/05/...