Why does the Universe exist?

why the emphasis on the ‘diversity of life’? 99.9+ % of it has already disappeared from earth. Clearly, we and the environment are doing fine without them. Why consider diversity first?

What if 10 to 14 degrees warmer is good for humans too?

The same will be true of CO2 and climate change.

I just can’t understand why the climatologists in conjunction with biologists would not be promoting this ideal temperature goal. Why do you think that is?

Maybe Farmerman could help us here.

Leadfoot Quote:
"The same [as with the ozone hole] will be true of CO2 and climate change."

Olivier replied:
What the expression? The triumph of hope over experience?

Well, if you believe the prevailing sentiment,. . .

You're an old man so you probably don't care if future generations will be able to grow enough food to eat, but some of us have children.

This problem is significantly more serious. Why do you think we've had so much freak weather recently.

You're an old man so you probably don't care if future generations will be able to grow enough food to eat, but some of us have children.

So how do you know this is the ideal temp.

The Sahel region - which includes Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, Chad and Mauritania - comprises some of the world's poorest and most fragile states, and is regarded as the most vulnerable to climate change.

On a visit to northern Mali with the ICRC, it was startling to see how the consequences of climate change are woven through the fabric of lives in what has always been a harsh existence on the edge of the encroaching Sahara desert.

"The fragility of Mali stares you in the face," remarks Mr Maurer as we stand, surrounded by a vast crowd, in a cramped camp for families fleeing insecurity and hunger in communities across northern Mali.

"The whole attention of the international community is on high visibility conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Yemen, but the fragility here has lasted for decades."

Mali is now lurching between droughts and floods. They are both lasting longer and inflicting a huge cost on crops and livestock.

And that means farmers and nomadic herders, from different ethnic groups, are facing off over shrinking resources.

"There've always been small clashes between cattle herders and cultivators but water levels are decreasing and that's creating a lot of tension," explains Hammadoun Cisse, a herder who heads a reconciliation committee trying to mediate between communities.

And Islamist groups are also fuelling these fires by meddling in this combustible mix.

"They come in as protectors of communities and then try to impose their way of living on us," explains Mr Cisse.

"We don't accept this kind of Islamic culture with jihadi ideas so this creates another conflict."

Every story we heard in northern Mali was a tale of multiple threats, all terribly tangled.

The argument for clean air alone justifies getting rid of fossil fuels.

If it's the temp that most life forms can survive within it, it's about as good as it gets. The earth's temp is never static. We've already experienced two ice ages. The burning of fossil fuels is damaging our atmosphere. It needs to be reduced ASAP. Governments have a responsibility to future generations

Why are you bothering arguing the flaming obvious with someone who is being deliberately obtuse?

This is an article on the effect of globalisation in Mali which has lead to shrinking resources, conflict and fundamentalism. How anyone can even think it's not a bad thing is beyond me.

But I just provided evidence that there were more life forms in the past at a considerably higher temp than we are now experiencing suggesting that the ideal temp for life is higher.