I think countries like Canada, Norway and Russia are welcoming this change, it's just too bad most of the world's population lives near the coast and in warmer latitudes.
There is also a theory that the vast Sahara desert was once a lush savannah with water when the earth's axis tilted closer to the sun some 15,000 years ago, countries like Libya and Mali may experience more rainfall.
We may soon be able to have vineyards in England, Tree farms in Greenland and Tropical monsoon weather in California due to the warming of the Pacific current.
On the bad side, the earth's population is going to have to cope by building ever bigger dams, sea walls and bigger irrigation systems to make up for the more sporadic, yet stronger rainfall storms.
Massive population shifts need to occur to make room for Dams such as have been done in India.
The Southeastern United States and even the Midwest should start preparing by looking at India as an example of the land and people they may have to clear to make room for Bigger Dams to cope with extreme monsoon seasons.

well--- this may not be exactly what you're looking for, but i just saw it the other day:

www.ted.com/talks/view/id/243

i am in no way remotely sexually attracted to the man, but his realizing his perception of the "crisis" did, indeed, cause some "global warming in my pants."

I found it positive to read that the prime ministers of Australia and the UK both are starting to grasp the urgency of the crisis..Only one Anglo saxon leader is still lagging behind..



Act now on climate change
We need a new international agreement that must include all nations - and be effective
Gordon Brown and Kevin Rudd
(Gordon Brown is the British prime minister; Kevin Rudd is the Australian prime minister)
April 7, 2008

The first act of the new Australian government was to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. It was an important signal of Australia's new engagement in international relations. And a vital step in the global effort to combat climate change.

It is now critical that world leaders address the challenge of building a consensus for a new international climate change agreement beyond 2012.

It is hard to grasp the urgency of this challenge. The time lag between the emissions of greenhouse gases and their impacts means that we may not see the full consequence of our actions today for 20 or 30 years. The implications for our children mean that it is unconscionable not to act now. The impacts of unchecked climate change will jeopardise the economic and social aspirations of generations of the world's people. As the Solana report for the EU has recently shown, this could take the form not just of economic and humanitarian crisis, but of risks to global and regional security. Rising temperatures leading to greater water scarcity, sea level rises and extreme weather events may exacerbate tensions over natural resources and cause large numbers of people to become "climate refugees" as they migrate across borders. An effective global response to climate change is therefore essential to secure a sustainable future in all senses.

Global political engagement can achieve extraordinary results. Think of the speed with which nations have responded in recent years to threats such as terrorism, the impact of CFC gases on the ozone layer or avian flu. The international response to these challenges has by no means been perfect. But it has been broadly effective, and it has proved the ability of nations to work together in the face of a common threat.

Climate change demands a level of urgency and scale of response larger than all of these. It requires nothing less than a technological and social transformation: the building, over the next 40 years, of a global low-carbon economy and society. But we are sure it can be done. Indeed, we are convinced that the economic benefits from tackling climate change strongly justify early action. Investment in energy and resource efficiency raises economic productivity. Global demand for low-carbon solutions will create new jobs, new industries and new export opportunities. In the 21st century green technologies will provide new drivers for economic growth as the internal combustion engine and microprocessor did in the last.

But time is running out and it is up to heads of government to show leadership. We need to secure a new post-2012 international climate change agreement - one that builds on the Bali Road Map and the lessons of the first stage of the Kyoto Protocol - by the end of next year. And it must be a high-ambition agreement.

So we must agree on a long-term global goal that can focus action and provide context for national targets. Setting out a clear trajectory to a low-emissions economy is vital if the private sector is to have confidence to develop and invest in new technologies.

All countries with significant emissions must undertake to set ambitious commitments, reflecting the international consensus that our responsibility to deal with climate change is shared in common - but what we do must reflect national circumstances and capacities.

Our relative wealth and historical responsibility for the problem means that the richest countries must take the lead. That means binding national caps on emissions for all developed countries, including the United States. For developing countries, commitments should be commensurate with each nation's stage of economic development. For the emerging economies this could mean nationwide energy intensity targets, or perhaps sectoral agreements capping emissions or adopting efficiency benchmarks in key sectors. Or it might involve other kinds of commitments to promote sustainable development policies. For some countries this could include reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.

Whatever form these commitments take, they will have to be measurable and verifiable, and they must clearly result in lower emissions than "business as usual". The global public will need to see that the post-2012 agreement clearly sets the world on a path towards the peaking and decline of global emissions.

To support these efforts, the developed world has a responsibility to provide finance and technology to developing countries. It is the poorest nations that are the most vulnerable toclimate change and the least able to respond. The World Bank estimates that 20%-4% of all overseas development assistance is at risk from global warming, undermining the recent progress towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals. It is therefore crucial that environmental protection is fully integrated into international development programmes and the multilateral institutions, such as the World Bank, which administer them. We need to assist developing countries define new models of low-carbon, climate-resilient development. The World Bank needs to become a bank for development and environment.

That is why the UK and Australia are committed to scaling up financing - not just after 2012, but now, and why we are supporting the establishment of new funds administered by the World Bank for clean technologies, sustainable forestry, and for adaptation to climate change.

The new international agreement we seek must be effective - so it must include all nations, and must ensure that the world is set on a path to avoiding dangerous climate change. It must be efficient - by using carbon markets to provide incentives to reduce emissions. And it must be equitable - helping poorer countries adapt and to forge their own transition to a low-carbon future.

The task of securing such an agreement should not be underestimated, but the costs of inaction will be far greater than those of action. Making hard choices now will help avert much greater hardship in the future.

Climate change is the great moral and economic challenge of our time. It requires us to put the interests of future generations ahead of the short term costs of acting now. And it requires that we put the interests of those who have nothing ahead of those who have so much.

There is no greater challenge now facing world leaders. We cannot afford to fail. commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/gor...html

Hey not to be a nay sayer, but, periodically the earth does heat up and cool down, and we might be in one of those natural heating up- cycles. Which means there ain't nothin we can do about it. But pollution itself is still a big problem. Mother Nature will do what Mother Nature sees fit.