the Holocene has been a period of climatic stability.
A period of climatic stabilty means climate instability over a longer horizon. As you pointed out, timescales matter.
Exactly. And over a long enough period, we have time to adapt. But, like I believe I have said earlier, it is not the long timescale we are worried about. In the long term, we're all dead, and all that.
Now we're seeing change over a much shorter period of time,
Taking your advice earlier, if you look over a short enough period of time, you have climatic stability! Guaranteed.
Of course. And if you look at a short enough period of time, Zeno can show that Achilles can never catch up with the turtle. But we all know that Achilles still outruns the turtle every time, and we're not interested in arbitrarily short spans of time that are "short enough" to make a clever argument on a forum either.
We, as in "the people who live on this planet", do worry and should worry about what will happen to the generations ahead.
and timescales matter.
Absolutely correct. Extrapolating based on a few decades' experience over a horizon of millions / billions of years isn't probably wise, especially among other competing priorities.
Agreed. But that is not what happens in climate science. What is actually done is closer to extrapolating a couple of hundred of years of increasing CO2 and temperatures to about 50-100 years forward. And that's when we see a problem, in the medium term.
For example, who's to say that we / the earth wouldn't thrive in a hotter climate? You sure will help cure famine for example.
And who's to say you wouldn't thrive if your house burned down? Doesn't mean you shouldn't change the batteries in the smoke detectors.
I mentioned exactly this point. At some point in time, we reach a new equilibrium and we adapt. But that doesn't mean that everything is fine if agriculture and ecosystems crashed in the time leading up to that point.
We should pay attention to climate changes, as it impacts our long-term well beings and the survival of all of us as a being. However, we should have a rationale and honest discussion, we should evaluate all of our options and get everyone behind it.
The current global warming discussion is anything but that, because it is dominated by a bunch of religious bigots who refuse to let science and rationale work its magic, or who are more interested in lining their pockets with other people's money.
I agree with those two paragraphs 100%. Of course, we disagree on who the bigots are, but if we can agree to go where the data leads us there is at least hope.