Yes, mamal life is so fragile and will not adapt, so so sad.

https://www.climatedepot.com/2011/03/04/Greenpeace-CoFounder-Slams-Species-Extinction-Scare-Study-as-proof-of-how-peerreview-process-has-become-corrupted-ndash-Study-greatly-underestimate-the-rate-new-species-can-evolve/

https://reason.com/2016/08/26/most-scientific-results-are-wrong-or-use

I read a study on seeing evolution in bacteria, 50k> generations, what was the conclusion? There's no such thing as evolution. The bacteria "evolved" (adapted to the environment) and subsequently went completely sterile and died off (O no, it went extinct like 99.9999999999999999% of species that ever existed), or they found that the it lost it's adaptability to the environment and the environment killed it (O no, extinction because of the micro liliputians). Another study, grew lactose intolerant bacteria in milk, talk about a hostile environment and thriving. Going along those lines, talk about the numerous species that constantly turn out to not be extinct.

Science suffers GREATLY because of the Certainty that it freely affords itself, instead of exemplifying the great doubt, the inquisitive prowess that reasons and investigates, the great how and why it peddles in conjecture and supposition for many "basis". If it didn't suffer greatly the articles above would have not existed as it would be completely ridiculous notion that these rigorous studies and numerous people could fuck up so much, but one doesn't even have to look for that, only to question well, because exactly like the bullshit of that other person in the comments, claiming that co2 impacts our diet by contributing to nutrition deficiency as plants apparently had less zinc and iron, it had nothing to say to "what about feeding the plants" as it was postulating better genetics, avoiding the obvious.

And yes, indeed, the most adaptable species, human life, won't thrive, because bacteria somehow are "cheekier" when it comes to Thriving.