This is the kind of nonsense thinking that occurs when term definitions are ambiguous. The “climate change” chorus has been using equivocation for along time to push an agenda. There is no static state of climate from which it changes. It is a dynamic system. To say a change is “good” or “bad” is to make a moral judgment on a natural physical system. For anyone else to be compelled to agree with the opinion of this scientist would assume a uniform, invariant, and universal standard of morality. So, what standard of morality is being used here?
This is like saying drinking water is good, and drinking water is bad. It is neither. Drinking water is drinking water. The effects may be good or bad but which you may think it is depends on your presuppositions and the moral standard used.
” “If you’re in Southern Canada, climate change is going to be a good thing. If you’re in Siberia, it’s going to be a good thing. If you’re in Los Angeles and the Southwest, it’s going to be a bad thing,” says Mass. ” click here