It may not have anything to do with the greenhouse gas effect and emission of fossil fuels.
The desertification has to do with farmers planting too much and extracting all nutrients from the soil - same as happened in the 1930s which didnt have to do with cars and cows and methane in the atmosphere.
The overfishing - same thing
The collapse of insect populations is highly unlikely due to the slight aberage temperature changes or carbon concentrations in the atmosphere. It may be due to wireless radio signals, or light pollution, or pesticides and GMO plants.
The collapse of kelp forests or bleaching of coral reefs also has less to do with acidification of the oceans, and more with local pollution and ecosystem collapse.
The extinction of some species is due to hunting.
And so on. You could say the anthopocene is behind all these things — but that is not the same as saying that climate change is CAUSING these things.
If A (human activity) is causing B and C, and nearly all we talk about is C, then it is valid to say that B is more pressing, and that we should focus on A causing B. The response that “C is linked to B” is not enough because C doesn’t cause B and talking about C doesn’t do anything to stop B.
"suspecting" is not exactly the standard that I am looking for when making statements of such importance.
And their "suspecting" is certainly nowhere near good enough reason to not draw attention to other things such as pesticides, light pollution and other radio electromagnetic pollution
The desertification has to do with farmers planting too much and extracting all nutrients from the soil - same as happened in the 1930s which didnt have to do with cars and cows and methane in the atmosphere.
The overfishing - same thing
The collapse of insect populations is highly unlikely due to the slight aberage temperature changes or carbon concentrations in the atmosphere. It may be due to wireless radio signals, or light pollution, or pesticides and GMO plants.
The collapse of kelp forests or bleaching of coral reefs also has less to do with acidification of the oceans, and more with local pollution and ecosystem collapse.
The extinction of some species is due to hunting.
And so on. You could say the anthopocene is behind all these things — but that is not the same as saying that climate change is CAUSING these things.
If A (human activity) is causing B and C, and nearly all we talk about is C, then it is valid to say that B is more pressing, and that we should focus on A causing B. The response that “C is linked to B” is not enough because C doesn’t cause B and talking about C doesn’t do anything to stop B.