&#62; Arctic ice seems to be trending downward, and fluctuation more rapidly.<p>Your link doesn't support that conclusion.<p>&#62; 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.<p>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.<p>&#62; Perhaps the most relevant limits of which I speak are regarding the extent to which we are willing to change our world.<p>You're assuming that we're producing significant changes.<p>&#62; but as long as people continued to be confused, lazy and stupid about what kind of future we want,<p>Your position appears to be "now is best" but I've yet to see any supporting argument.<p>&#62; the loss of biodiversity acceptable,<p>There's no loss of biodiversity from CO2 unless there's climate change, so you don't get to throw that in.<p>&#62; three quarters of the land based biomes on this planet have been dramatically influenced by our actions.<p>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?<p>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.)<p>&#62; and our gambling with the ecosystem immaterial,<p>and you're back to assuming man made climate change.<p>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.<p>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 ....