re: Glacial melt has tripled in the Amundsen Sea

Not one GW alarmist has yet even attempted to address the following two questions.

1)What are the anticipated benefits of a warmer Earth?

2)When comparing the cost of trying to stop GW with the costs of merely adjusting to it as has been necessary for all of world history, how does that comparison come out?

Oh. And, a corollary. Assuming that the cost of dealing with it is greater than the cost of stopping it, how does that cost-benefit analysis look when one then looks at the answer to #1 above?

When people look at a thing that absolutely MUST have both positive and negative effects and ONLY address one side of that equation and refuse to even acknowledge the other exists, they should be summarily tuned out.