The problem is that most of our food chain is going to have major issues adapting at a speed that matches the rate of change. Pesticides and chemicals are certainly problematic as well, but moving the global needle so much over a 100-250 year timeline is a huge issue.

When changes happen on timescales that are slower than forests and ecosystems can naturally grow and spread that's not such a problem because you at least have a mostly-stable ecosystem at any given point in time.

We have no evidence of prior exiting of ice ages. Also, The sun and magnetosphere play a much larger role in earth temps than anything we do.

Higher CO2 and slight (<4C) should increase overall yields, local production will be the primary issue.

If by "earth temps" you mean contributors to global warming, no, that is not correct: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-wo...

Think of how much the earths tilt impacts weather of the seasons.

That being said, 1880 - 2020 is an almost meaningless range of time. Temperatures are seasonal and that’s only 140 data points per season. It may not even be statistically significant and our historic measurements weren’t necessarily super accurate.

We have had a lot ice melt during that timeframe (but it’s been melting for thousands of years). we are exiting an ice age, we should expect the temperatures to naturally increase. The sun could have increased output 10k years ago, but it’s taken this long for all the ice to melt.

I’m not claiming certain things such as CO2 don’t make an impact. I’m saying what you linked isn’t proof, it’s evidence. There’s still many unknowns and we can’t make absolute determinations.

For reference, I’ve worked on weather models.

These models are notoriously bad at generating predictions historically. Today, we have better modeling, BUT they rerun the models over and over again tweaking them to get the results they want. Then they don’t do corrections such as Bonferroni correction.

At the end of the day, the data isn’t there.

Finally, the funding and scientific community have a bias. Good luck trying to come out with a paper showing the community is not taking everything into account or has made a mistake.. you can only do that with new data, which takes years or decades

The sun grows stronger over millions of years (and it got colder over the last 200 years), however that doesn't matter because the earth is a balanced system where an equal amount of energy enters and leaves the system. The CO2 concentration will automatically adjust so that temperatures can fall within a narrow band.

Therefore it is completely unsurprising that CO2 levels have been higher in the past, they had to be higher to reach the same temperatures. If we reach historic CO2 levels today then we will also reach higher temperatures than in the past.

OTH nobody would use medicine daily and call that a natural state of being (unless you're acutally or chronically sick).

Our food supply depends on these plant-medicines becuase without our cultivated crops aren't strong enough to survive or yield significantly less.

“Weaponized term” doesn’t necessarily matter. I own a farm and agree our food supply is necessary on them. BUT I think the feds need to look into this. There are likely safer pesticides than others. My farm uses none.

Depending on source, roughly half of Americans regularly take prescription drugs. (Which I think is a crazy state of affairs.)

It's amazing how casually we throw around these "observations" which completely and conveniently memory hole our indigenous friends and neighbors, whose traditions of plant medicine nearly universally include routine relationships with plant medicines in sickness and in health.