America keeps getting crazier.

Just when you think things can't get any more insane. . .

GOP House Science Chair: Melting Arctic Sea Ice A Win For The Earth

Okay, so if you're keeping score at home, the right-wing idiot response to the very real threat of global warming has moved from:

No it isn't!
to
Scientists are always wrong, they used to say we were headed for another ice age!
to
Well, the jury's still out
to
Maybe it's real, but it's not man-made!
to
Actually, the earth is cooling.
to
Humans can't control the weather
to
There's nothing in the Bible about global warming
to
Hey, there was a big snowstorm in January. I guess we can stop worrying about "global warming!"
to
Al Gore flies on airplanes
to
Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese.
to
Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by the Weather Channel
to
Scientists are lying about global warming so they can get their greedy hands on all that sweet, sweet grant money
to
Um, climate always changes, the earth warms and cools. It's cyclical.
to
But the economy!
and now finally,
But think of all the benefits of global warming!
(And I wish I was making some of these up. I am not. You can google them if you want to be depressed about the stupidity of the human race)

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), noted climate change denier and chair of the House Science Committee, on Monday penned an eyebrow-raising op-ed that argued there are “benefits” to a changing climate.

“The benefits of a changing climate are often ignored and under-researched. Our climate is too complex and the consequences of misguided policies too harsh to discount the positive effects of carbon enrichment,” 

Carbon enrichment? That's not a thing.That's the worst attempt at weasely double-speak spin I've ever heard. That's like saying Socrates probably got a lot of benefits from hemlock enrichment.
And what consequences of environmental policy do you think would be so "harsh?" Like Oh my God, what if we ended up with a bunch of solar panels on rooftops all over America?

Or what if there were a whole bunch of electric cars all over the place?

And what if it turns out that global warming is a hoax and we end up cleaning up the air for nothing?
That's way more scary than the consequences of doing nothing. If we do nothing, what's the worst that could happen? So Florida disappears under water. Who needs 'em? And so what if we can't grow grain in the Great Plains anymore because it's a parched desert? We'll probably be growing oranges in New Hampshire, so it'll all even out! Plus, if we do nothing, then we get all these neato benefits that might possibly happen but we don't know about them because no one is researching them, just like how nobody is studying all the good that might come from an Island of Dr. Moreau-type scenario!

Come on! How cool would this be?

I think we owe it to ourselves to blithely do nothing and see what happens, just in case it's good!

Smith acknowledged that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing and argued that it would help plant growth and farming. He also posited that sea ice melting in the Arctic would open up new shipping routes, spinning ice melt as a positive change for the Earth.

Yeah, new shipping routes! Exactly what we need in the 21st Century! Then we'll corner the market on spices from India and sail back to Queen Isabella's court loaded down with Jamaican rum!
Think about how great this could be. For instance, there would be a terrific new shipping lane right where Miami used to be!

“The use of fossil fuels and the byproducts of carbon enrichment play a large role in advancing the quality of human life by increasing food production to feed our growing population, stimulating the economy, and alleviating poverty,” 

Okay, you have NOOOOO science background at all. Nor are you any kind of expert in agriculture. You have a law degree and a bachelor's in "American Studies," whatever that is. You have no idea what you're talking about. You're like some dumb kid in a 5th-grade science class hearing that plants breathe carbon dioxide and coming to the conclusion that if we just produced more CO2, we'd have more plants. That's not how it works. Carbon in the atmosphere traps heat which fucks up the whole climate. I don't exactly understand it either, but I don't have to. That's why we have scientists. Just listen to the scientists, accept that they know more about this than you do, and follow their recommendations.  You wouldn't take legal advice from a climatologist, why should we take climatological advice from a lawyer? Especially a stupid one?

How about we deal with the facts in front of us and not waste time spinning elaborate scenarios in which somehow disaster ends up having some sort of net positive? You don't say well, maybe my house burning down seems bad on the surface, but what if it turns out that when we start digging for a new foundation maybe we strike gold? Sure, that's remotely possible, but you're better off putting out the god damn fire.