> Arctic ice seems to be trending downward, and fluctuation more rapidly.
Your link doesn't support that conclusion.
> But that's rather immaterial too, since much of the expected and currently visible sea level rise comes from thermal expansion of the oceans. This is a pretty clear temperature link.
And yet, you don't bother to provide any water temperature argument or tell us the magnitude of the sea level change from said temperature change.
> Perhaps the most relevant limits of which I speak are regarding the extent to which we are willing to change our world.
You're assuming that we're producing significant changes.
> but as long as people continued to be confused, lazy and stupid about what kind of future we want,
Your position appears to be "now is best" but I've yet to see any supporting argument.
> the loss of biodiversity acceptable,
There's no loss of biodiversity from CO2 unless there's climate change, so you don't get to throw that in.
> three quarters of the land based biomes on this planet have been dramatically influenced by our actions.
That's a combination of poverty and population. Reducing poverty increases CO2 emissions. Since you oppose that, you're arguing for reducing population. Who do you think should get to live?
Which reminds me - we're not significantly changing the amount of cultivated land. That ship sailed 1000 years ago. (We are destroying it in the third world, but that's different.)
> and our gambling with the ecosystem immaterial,
and you're back to assuming man made climate change.
If, as seems increasingly likely, the CO2 changes we're making are irrelevant to climate, you're advocating spending tons of resources on non-problems.
Acting as if something in particular is happening is a huge obstacle to finding out what is going on. You claim to want to know yet ....