Foreword: Whatever its cause, I think climate change is a serious problem, and humankind is the only species on the planet that is capable of solving it (even if that involves putting nature to work on the problem, i.e. planting trees or bioengineering or whatever).
Ignoring the reduction in land area caused by rising sea levels, isn't it supposed to take a few decades for the actual climate to be a major problem, and several more to reach biblical proportions? As in major problems by around 2050 and Brazil goes all Mad Max by around 2100?
I thought animals, in general, tended to react to climate changes on the scale of just a few years? I.e. gradually migrating away, toward more appealing regions as the average climate shifts (to say nothing of how animals react to issues like a heat wave, large-scale flooding, or forest fires).
For that matter, as the phrase goes, "nature abhors a vacuum" -- so wouldn't an area abandoned by migration tend to be either taken-over by incoming animals that find the abandoned land appealing, or just by whatever didn't leave?
I mean, even the Australian Outback, Death Valley in the southwestern US, the Sahara Desert, and the hottest parts of the Middle East, all have some native wildlife, and I'm pretty sure climate change isn't going to make those areas any worse than they already are.
We all know the "boiling frog" thing is a myth, so, without RTFA, I can't help but wonder: just how fast is "fast enough"?
Secondary to that: ignoring for the moment ideas of morality or ethics or whether it's our fault, why does it matter one iota if one or many species become endangered or go extinct? That's happened many times on this planet, yet life still thrives here.