Your quote is from November 28, 2006

Mine is from June 13, 2017

Apparently Doug has had the scientific decency to change his views on new data. Or, to use his words:

Surely we’ve earned our place in the pantheon next to the greatest ecological catastrophes of all time: the so-called Big Five mass extinctions of earth history. Surely our Anthropocene extinction can confidently take its place next to the juggernauts of deep time—the Ordovician, Devonian, Permian, Triassic and Cretaceous extinctions.

Erwin says no. He thinks it’s junk science.

“People who claim we’re in the sixth mass extinction don’t understand enough about mass extinctions to understand the logical flaw in their argument. To a certain extent they’re claiming it as a way of frightening people into action"

“Many of those making facile comparisons between the current situation and past mass extinctions don’t have a clue about the difference in the nature of the data, [...] as scientists we have a responsibility to be accurate about such comparisons.”

- Smithsonian paleontologist Doug Erwin

https://www.theatlantic.com/sc...

From the paper:

Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of
the Holocene temperature history.

True, of course (maybe with some slight adjustment to the exact timing). The idea that the globe is ever static is a problem when talking about "survival" of species.

The Great Barrier Reef is about 500,000 years old, but it hasn't always looked as it does today. Reefs on Australia's continental shelf have taken on many forms, depending on the sea level, and the current formation is about 6,000 to 8,000 years old.

According to the Australian Institute of Marine Science and other scientific research, the current reef began to form during the Last Glacial Maximum. This period, which occurred from about 26,500 years ago to 19,000 to 20,000 years ago, ushered in significant environmental changes in the region, including a dramatic drop in sea levels.

The land that forms the base of the Great Barrier Reef is the remains of the sediments of the Great Dividing Range, Australia's largest mountain range. About 13,000 years ago, the sea level was 200 feet (61 meters) lower than the current level, and corals began to grow around the hills of the coastal plain, which had become continental islands. The sea level continued to rise during a warming period as glaciers melted. Most of the continental islands were submerged, and the coral remained to form the reefs and cays (low-elevation sandy islands) of today.

https://www.livescience.com/62...

There is absolutely no science whatsoever that indicates any climate effects that will support a statement like "the people are fucked".

(IPCC AR5 WGII is a good start for more information on the subject)

Coral reefs are indeed very old. The timing I referenced in my post was ~8000 years ago (feel free to read the scientific paper I sourced) and ~115000 years ago.

Apparently coral reefs have no problem surviving warmer temperatures than what we have now.

It was warmer than now during the early parts of this interglacial (source: Marcott et.al 2013). Also, the previous interglacial (the Eemian) was warmer than ours.

What happened with the coral reefs then?

“We did this calculation; if all the ice in the world melted—Greenland, Arctic, Antarctic, everything—and then we had the world's largest recorded tsunami right in front of the seed vault. So, very high sea levels and the worlds largest Tsunami. What would happen to the seed vault?” Fowler says. “We found that the seed vault was somewhere between a five and seven story building above that point. It might not help the road leading up to the seed vault, but the seeds themselves would be ok."

http://www.popsci.com/seed-vau...

The designers knew the difference between "hottest year ever _recorded_" (that is, within the last few hundred years) and the hottest years _ever_. The arctic has been a lot warmer than now during _this_ interglacial (source: Marcott et.al 2013) - not to mention the previous interglacial, the Eemian.

I don't understand your comment. Politifact have done their homework and fact checked the statements.

The fact-checkers seem to agree with Trump regarding what the MIT study claimed.

According to John Reilly, who co-directs the Joint Program on Science and Policy of Global Change at MIT, the Paris agreement would reduce global temperature by two-tenths of one degree Celsius compared with earlier climate treaties.

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

I'm sorry, but the scientific method cares little for nationality ;)

During the Holocene Climatic Optimum it's likely there was no or little summer sea ice in the arctic. I.e, we likely didn't have as cold winters as we've had recently.

Arctic Ocean sea ice proxies generally suggest a reduction in sea ice during parts of the early and middle Holocene (6000–10,000 years BP) compared to present day conditions.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...

(Please feel free to counter my science-based posts with links to scientific research articles rather than just claiming that it's "nonsense" based on your own personal views)

The rate of temperature change is according to climate scientists the fastest we ever had on the planet.

I'm sure you can find scientists (persons) saying that, but it's not what the science (as created by following the scientific method) is saying. Or rather, barring so-called catastrophes (meteor impacts, maybe basalt flooding etc) it's simply unknowable. We do not have proxies of enough resolution to know. However, even if we use the best we have, we find sudden temperature changes to be common.

"Climate shifts up to half as large as the entire difference between ice age and modern conditions occurred over hemispheric or broader regions in mere years to decades."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

My point was not about "nitpicking" about insects. I simply pointed out that your original statement cannot be true. The warming we've seen since the coldest part of the whole Holocene (i.e, since about a few hundred years back) is not exceptional for the Holocene (see previous post for scientific reference) and thus cannot be responsible for a demise of insects.

Please let us know your views on PoS vs PoW - and what Ethereum will decide to use at some point. Also, please explain how it will solve scaling issues since it's more wasteful with block data than Bitcoin.

(Not knowing how to secure the blockchain should be a showstopper, but alas ... )

During the Holocene it was basically everywhere in Europe colder than it is right now

We're in the Holocene, right now. However, during the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Bronze Age Warm period it was warmer than now in Europe. Additionally, during the Holocene Climatic Optimum it was warmer, globally, than now:

Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history.

source: Marcott et.al 2013

The rate of temperature change now does not surpass previous periods, during which insects had no problems surviving.

Until a few decades ago it was generally thought that all large-scale global and regional climate changes occurred gradually over a timescale of many centuries or millennia, scarcely perceptible during a human lifetime. The tendency of climate to change relatively suddenly has been one of the most suprising outcomes of the study of earth history, specifically the last 150,000 years (e.g., Taylor et al., 1993). Some and possibly most large climate changes (involving, for example, a regional change in mean annual temperature of several degrees celsius) occurred at most on a timescale of a few centuries, sometimes decades, and perhaps even just a few years. The decadal-timescale transitions would presumably have been quite noticeable to humans living at such times, and may have created difficulties or opportunities (e.g., the possibility of crossing exposed land bridges, before sea level could rise)

source: Sudden climate transitions during the Quaternary (Adams, Maslin, Thomas)

Now tell me, since everything above is known and non-disputed climate science, why do you believe differently?

(And which "earth ages" have I "mixed up" specifically?)

My point was simple: Your anecdote does not constitute a valid hypothesis, considering northern Europe specifically is not warm compared to several other periods during the Holocene.