No, just showing Edmund the proof he required. I said the fossil record made my case and he said I needed to show a past warm period with as many people.
It's funny that inno accuses people of being too partisan, quits the thread for a bit (nothing wrong with taking a break, to be clear), and then gets quoted by two of the most politically-partisan voters in OT.
Fair, non-partisan Democrat: The evil Republicans are killing people
Most partisan voter in OT: The Democrats are killing people too
Fair, non-partisan Democrat: Thats whataboutism, you're hyper partisan
He literally thinks entire countries disappearing under flooding is supporting more people lol
There's far more land that becomes inhabitable and arable in a warmer world
I actually think that if this had happened with Clinton in charge there's a good chance it would have been 'discovered' much earlier, at least treated as a threat much earlier, and the US would hopefully have tried to lead some international cooperation in dealing with the virus in China, before it could spread around the world. If that had happened the world could look very different now.
It wouldn't have mattered who was President if they followed the advice they got from the experts about downplaying the threat to avoid panic buying of PPEs. We have video of Pelosi and other bigshot Democrats doing exactly that (come visit Chinatown)... and then blaming Trump of course.
The human population has been increasing rapidly for a long time, clearly not related to current global warming. The human population started to rise after the last Ice Age. Your original point was that humans would do better in a warmer climate then now. You have presented no evidence to back this claim up. Either present evidence that global temperature rises of 3c or higher then current would support more human life then currently, or admit your point is worthless.
I have presented evidence, you dismissed it because the warmer world I cited didn't have as many (or any) people as today. So now my evidence is today, yesterday, tomorrow, next year... There will be more people in a warmer world.
You seem to describe the last ice age as 'temperate' and temperatures since then as 'global warming.'
The last ice age was on the severe side, the global warming that followed was interrupted by the Younger Dryas cold reversal (12,900-11,700bp) but when it resumed the temperature rose far more far faster than what we're experiencing. Up to 18F in Greenland in a few decades. Your own link shows the early Holocene was warmer than today.
"most of the world's population live in areas with a mean annual temperature of between 11 and 15 degrees Celsius (51.8 to 59 degrees Fahrenheit)," with global warming likely to move us away from this desirable temperature range.
Sounds like a San Francisco summer. What do you set your thermostat at?
I also fear the Greenland temperature ranges you are quoting might be based on faulty information?
The data I've seen estimate the YD warming was 10+-4C or 18+-7F within a few decades.
