End result was the same. Broadcast as news, represented as fact. Still relatively unimportant from a survival perspective. Some places will end up worse off due to climate change, some will do better. I can easily imagine pulling 60 bushels an acre of hard red winter wheat out of Central Alaska, or growing corn in the Yukon. Climate change is inevitable, and unless and until someone can say for certain that we are going to experience something new that hasn't happened here before, I am not going to worry about what might be in 20 years, or not.

Of greater significance is a realistic answer to the question of what can be done about it. Burning up hydrocarbons seems to be the fundamental issue. You might be able to persuade a handful of nations that it is in their best interest to work at a huge economical disadvantage and deplete their gdp chasing the alternative energy rabbit, but no one is going to tell China and other heavily industrialized nations that are becoming increasingly dependent on the combustion of fossil fuels to give it up. So as we diminish our consumption, they will continue to increase theirs. Right now there are several European countries that are experiencing what existence will be like without cheap fossil fuel to burn, thanks to Russia's gas embargo. Media are conjecturing this as a prelude to war.

So knowing the problem doesn't mean it can be fixed, or even avoided. I'm not saying give up, but before we go hit the claxon knob, it would be nice if someone had some sort of practical notion of how to deal with what may, or may not, come to pass. For my part, all I can say is look for those places that will benefit from climate change in the manner suggested, and plan to relocate there if things go as projected.