|
|
|
|
|
by phkahler
879 days ago
|
|
There is a narrative that melting permafrost is new and some kind of global catastrophe. That narrative falls apart if we point out that there's really nothing new going on. Sea levels have risen more than present levels in prior interglacial periods too, but that's another related catastrophe. |
|
Second, and most fatally, yes there was a lot of vegetation there. There was also a time when there were plants on the antarctic. The sea levels were 20 meter higher back then, which may give you a clue it could be a slight problem, as you yourself indicate.
There were mass extinction events before. Natural or not, some people might say they would feel humankind going extinct or almost so is exactly what a catastrophe is, pointing out something similar has happened before doesn't make it any better.
So no, the narrative doesn't fall apart. Furthermore, it is not a narrative in the first place, it is a risk assesment based on scientific understanding. There is no drama, just facts and theories. The hand-wavy 'it is all natural thus its good because we live in a just world and that magically makes everything okay and eco-logical and stuff', now that is a narrative.