Re: "Washington Post Accidentally Admits Earth at Coolest Point in the Last 485 Million Years"

On Tue, 1 Oct 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Climate has always varied. And: Most species have gone extinct.

>
Yes! This is often forgotten,

>
No, it is never forgotten, it is well known by scientists.
>
Over four point three billion years, it's not even unexpected.

Wrong again Scott, that's not what I said. You should really work a bit
on your reading comprehension. ;)

when people whine on about species going
extinct.

>
Your choice of emotionally loaded verb is noted.  And dismissed.

Wrong again, it is not. ;)

There is legitimate concern about the _rate_ of extinction.  Compared
to the rates over the last four billion years, the modern rate is
many times larger.

Nope.

I think about 94% of the life that ever lived on this planet is

currently extinct, so it is natural and not something which has to be
stopped at every cost.

>
The _rate_ of extinction is far greater now than at any time
in history (barring certain catestrophic events such as asteroid
impacts).

We're having it better than we ever had, what you say does not change
that. Nature is way more resilient than usenet posters, so just relax
Scott.

>

>

We need to change that.

>
It depends. Could be that the return on investment by letting some small
insignificant species Z, in rainforest Y, go extinct is totally worth it.

>
No, it's not.  How do you even compute the RoI for extinction events?

Depends on the event. It can be anything from trivial, to complex. You,
on the other hand, climate hysteric, refuse to even think about it.
But it is a fact of life, that humans have more value than animals and
plants. Even you believe that, proven by the fact that you live and
breathe in the western world, when the best way to save the climate
would be to dramatically reduce your quality of life and live a medieval
lifestyle as so many fellow hysterics often preach, but never themselves
do.

>
>
We've never had as much food and as little famine on the planet than we
have today. So looking at the trends, we're actually doing better and
better.

>
That is not universally true. Where true, it is entirely attributed
to the use of fossil fuels to make fertilizers.  Which will, inevitably,
run out.   Then what?

That's not what I said. Read again. Your naive question has been raised
since the dawn of capitalism, and alternatives are always provided by
the market.