Disasters, AGW style

So I'm watching this thing on Discovery the other night ... "Fearless Planet" or something, and they're talking about the Sahara desert. About how it's grown, about how it used to be a lush paradise, about how it was once hit by an asteroid, of all the upheavals it's gone through.

Then the narrator (the wife says it was Sigourney Weaver) said something like "but there is a new disaster facing the Sahara." And I assumed, correctly, that that disaster would turn out to be "Global Warming".

Sure enough, that's what she said. But the disasterous effect Global Warming would supposedly have on the Sahara, she went on to say was....

are you ready for this?

... that it would turn back in to a lush jungle!!! *GASP*!!!!!!!

Disaster?

That's right, it would supposedly cool and get wetter due to changing circulation patterns, turning the famous barren wasteland into a font of life and diversity. You know, more lungs for the earth. Undiscovered cures for diseases we're always hearing about coming from our (disasterously disappearing) jungles and rainforests. Habitat for jungle creatures. Livable conditions for humans. Gigantic carbon sink. Disaster!

So apparently any change, anywhere -- in the climate has known for the past few hundred years is apparently a defacto disaster, then, to Enviroligionists.

Part of the enviroligion is the idea that "earth is in a delicate balance". But that is a myth. The earth has been changing from the very beginning. Plant life --- trees themselves -- dramatically "changed" the earth, its atmosphere, its climate. Bacteria. Algae. Huge impact on the climate and makeup of the atmosphere. But somehow, humans are separate. We are a cancer. As if we are not just as much from and of this earth as any other life form we see around us.