The thing denialists don't seem to understand is that the problem is mostly about the *rate of change*, not the absolute temperature. I would be just as concerned if we were just as rapidly going from the climate we had during the days of the dinosaurs to the conditions we have now.
Of course not.
But what does one expect from a bunch of armchair, Dunning-Kruger suffering experts, many of whom don't understand or even plainly reject Evolutionary Science? They simply cannot grasp that approx. 60 millions years ago (the time when dinosaurs became extinct) the world was a very, very different place.
Many don't even realize that our human species is 'only' 200,000 years old and that one important reason for which it started to thrive as a species was the fact that Earth's climate became relatively stable without any major global shifts in short periods of time.
In short, if one is a complete ignoramus (either because of a lack of education or by voluntarily choosing the ignore what once taught), then the World is a very simplistic place where a climate once favorable to dinosaurs simply must be favorable to humans because we've got aircon and refrigerators.
We live on the earth as it has existed for the last few hundred years.
There isn't a land bridge across the bearing straight.
You cannot walk from San Francisco out to the Farallon Islands.
The Mediterranean is a sea, not a dry depression.
This thread has, unfortunately, deteriorated into asking silly questions for points and best answers.
A far cry from a global warming discussion.
...evolved in over a few thousand years. It once said that what is good for General Motors is good for America. Does it logically follow that what was good for dinosaurs is good for American farmers, residents of the Ganges Delta, major world urban centers, or economic well-being of the next 50 generations of homo sapiens.
