Because:

1. The status quo is a powerful force on both an economy and politics
2. Debating real facts about the effects of certain types of human activity is important
3. You don't know what "bogey man" means.
4. Because coal is cheaper in the short term, not accounting for externalities, and climate change is becoming increasingly clear as an important one

I have a crazy proposition for you:

There are multiple human beings who identify themselves as environmentalists, and not all are as informed as others. And not all are as spirited as others. And contradictions can arise within a community, as ideas struggle for dominance.

Did you bother to note the rather important fact that none of our modern crop foods were alive during that time period. Adaptation of plant and animal life to major geologic changes doesn't happen in a century.

The problem we face isn't one of extinction of life on earth, but the inviability of meta-stable ecosystems we and our economies rely on.

No, we're definitely looking at 2-3 degrees C at least. Which is going to suck in a bunch of ways.

So to bring it around, what does that have to do with this specific observation in the article, because I can't quite bridge that connection in my head.

I get it. Not being as half stupid as you is the same as living in Jonestown. It's not a complicated idea you're articulating.

Plants are not the primary living consumers of CO2 on this planet. That'd be ocean-borne algae.

I'm sorry, I don't see how "you get better at a job with practice" supports the original thesis. That's so normal for any profession that it almost represents the antithesis of the original argument.

Oh, also, do consider this ruling cause to reconsider your positions?

Since you're the first denier to reply in this thread, it's an important test case for my hypothesis.

"Someone disagrees with me, to the absurd bullshitmobile"

Demonstrating your ignorance about how cults operate, in order to draw a false parallel, just continues to reflect how unstuck in reality your positions are.

And let's be clear here, people disagree with you because your beliefs are straight up antithetical to observable reality. This is a relatively simple case of you being wrong. You could choose to be not completely wrong, but, for reasons completely beyond me, being scientifically wrong is important to you.

I have an idea backed only by my imagination.

What if those galaxies are proof of symetry, and they're some of the few that are made of both matter and anti-matter, and the high energy ejections we're seeing are from that collision. Maybe half the galaxies in the sky are made of anti-matter and the non-particle-scale properties of antimatter are otherwise identical to matter.

Maybe. Cults are a little different, and I'm wary of people who use the term too freely.

There's a lot of social manipulation built into the structure of cults. You know things like "ostracize those who speak to outsiders", "venerate central personality who makes all decisions", or "target and harass ex-members".

Identity politics aren't new and unique to climate change denialism, and treating that as the most identifiable aspect of cults misses the real damage actual cults do to people.

You're like an old man whining about nail guns(because what are those new kids going to do when they can't use a nail gun for a particular job).

Oh right, WYSIWYG like COBOL, riiiiiiiiight.

And lots of people are using IDEs. Far more than were ever being used it the times the author the article is wishing for.

A fun thing about reversing climate change, pointed out by a climatologist in an article I recently read.

If we cut new human emissions to zero, and found a way to stop the methane emissions from thawing permafrost and other positive feedback loops, historical evidence indicates that it might take a century or so for the planet's natural CO2 regulation methods to actually return to postindustrial levels.

I mean, that'd be fine, because our situation today isn't broadly disastrous like another 4-5 degrees C would be. But there's good reason to be concerned about the actual target stabilization temperatures of the plans we're not even implementing yet.