You are wrong. Here is the play by play on why.
The analogy is completely wrong and sets up a false dichotomy.. The actual analogy is warm = good, too warm = bad. Our choice is not between an ice are or global warming, it is between some warming or even more warming. You have assume the alternative to global warming and the resultant climate change is and ice age. That is completely false. The next ice age will be in about 50,000 yrs.
You also assume that ancient humanoids would be as numerous and require as much and the same kinds of food that modern people humans eat. Wrong again. We evolved with our environment and food, not separate from it.
You falsely compare the results of the slower, natural warming trend to the rapid anthropogenic warming we are currently experiencing. The rate of warming now far exceeds what humans and the ecosystems the warming we evolved with, so this assumption is also false. The danger is that some species (plants, animals) we are depend on (or interdependent on) won't be able to evolve quick enough and unnatural die-offs will occur. Remember, people in this equation are the most adaptable species because the technology that we have developed over the centuries. Some important species and ecosystem functions could be adversely impacted if they are unable to adapt to the changing climate, and that could make life tougher for humans to thrive in the future.
Did you ever wonder why more humans thrive AWAY from the warmest areas of the earth near the equator? Maybe you should research it a little.
"So, warm=good. cold=bad. Tell me where I am wrong."
When it was cooler, much of the Sahara desert was pretty green.
One would think that if you lived there, you surely wouldn't like what's happened.
Hotter is clearly not necessarily better.
What's good is consistency.
It would be good if we could continue farming where we do.
If it gets hot enough to return to the dust bowl era, that wouldn't be good.
What we'd like is to not have to move billions of people around the world.
To allow everyone to continue to live where they do, we need the climate to stay as it was.
I have to laugh at Bubba's answer rapid AGW hmm 0.8 degrees C in 150yrs I don't call that rapid, the most populous places on earth are places like Indonesia, Philippines, India all very hot. the next ice age will be in 50.000 yrs, hmm interglacials typically last 10 to 12 thousand yrs our interglacial is already more than 12000yrs old.
The fact is we don't know what is the ideal temperature for us humans, I would guess warmer, and I know that cooler periods like the little ice age caused many thousands of people to die through famine and disease.
We know that sheets of ice have covered a big chunk of North America, as well as other places that are less familiar to me. So, when sheets of ice covered Canada, and reached down into Illinois, how much food do you suppose could have been raised in North America? Probably, not a whole lot. However, at some point during the LAST ice age, global warming began. The ice receded and the earth was allowed to become a warm, lush, fertile place where life can thrive.
So, warm=good. cold=bad.
Tell me where I am wrong.
