If it comes across thus then I believe it has less to do with what I actually wrote, and more to do with a feverishly polarized discourse fuelled by US party politics where you either have to stay on a narrow path of accepted talking points or you must belong to "the dark side". The notion that climate change has not been rapid before is just one of the misunderstandings that flourish in such a debate climate.
As a matter of fact we will, for all conceivable future, have to be prepared to adapt to rapid climate change for whatever reason, be it because of interstellar events, volcano eruptions or simply because of tipping points reached as a consequence of a slow iterative change. It irks me that I have to repeat me total commitment to the abandonment of fossil fuel and the urgent adaptation of sustainable energy sources, just because I mention some basic facts that don't fit in the current feverishly polarized discourse.
But, for the sake of clarity; I do. The linked article is a prime example of how suppressing facts because they seem inconvenient for "the cause" opens up for the other side to seem "more scientific". It is simply not a good strategy.