What's the difference between an environmentalist and a Darwin denier?
Less than you think.
Anti-humanists believe that humans are killing the planet and must be stopped to prevent the mass extinction of every living thing that will inevitably result if the temp goes up one degree.
This means, by default, that they reject Darwin.
The globe has gone up one degree already, from the end of the mini iceage (late 1800s), so we know the real world effects of what an increase looks like.
Humanity grew exponentially over this period of warming, most of this growth happened in parts of the world that saw the greatest impact of this increase. These places include Africa, China, and India. Cooler climates also saw increases in population but to lesser degrees and they were less impacted by the temp increase. There was no population explosion in Siberia or Alaska, for example.
But humans were not the only ones to benefit from this warming. Plants, animals, and insects all grew as well over this same warming period. Some, did not. This is how Darwin works. Those that fail to adapt, fall in population, where those that adapt well increase in population. Darwin is based on the real world where change always happens and nothing stays the same.
So, by focusing on the fate of each tree prevents anti-humanists from seeing the health of the forest. A thriving forest is not dependent on a specific plant thriving or failing, it just depends on biomass increasing instead of decreasing. So, if pine trees disappear from forests, that does not mean that the forest is sick, it just means something more fit has replaced pines.
And that is, in fact, what has happened throughout history. The overall biomass of the planet has increased with each degree of warming, while, at the same time, less 'fit' species faded away into nothingness. Darwin suggests that all species will become extinct at some point, replaced by something more fit, and there are almost no species that have survived unchanged throughout history, which validates that idea.
100,000yrs ago, Canada and Europe were covered under a mile of ice. Nothing at all grew or lived on all of that land. All that ice melted, slowly, over the years. This is warming. The globe has been warming for 100,000 years. That warming allowed life in all forms to populate Canada and Europe that couldn't otherwise exist because it was too cold to support them.
Darwin, in action, again. Those life forms most fit for a warming Canada, trees and grass, elk and bunnies, filled in the void that melted-ice left. The biomass -- the total weight of all living things on the entire planet -- went up, easily doubling in fact. This doubling of the amount of life happened ONLY because of the warming that melted the ice off of Canada. If the globe had cooled instead of warmed, no ice would have melted and nothing would be living on Canada.
Warming was always good for life. Darwin, 101.
The little ice age happened (depending who you read) between the 1300-1800. The Delaware and the Thames regularly froze over, something that never happens after the warming continues. During the little ice age, life struggled all over the planet. Biomass shrunk. Populations collapsed of all plants, insects, and animals. Hunting and farming were harder, this fact was recorded in books from those times.
But after the mini iceage ended, populations exploded again. The biomass of the planet continued to increase as the temperature continued to rise.
Now, specific creatures went extinct, Darwined out of existence, but the biomass (the weight of all living things on the entire planet) steadily increases with each degree of warming that is added into the system.
Not once, in the history of the planet, has warming decreased the biomass of the entire planet.
Iceages, on the other hand, have decreased the biomass of the planet each and every time they happens. With each ice age, the biomass of the planet goes down drastically, typically by more than half.
CO2 increases are always followed by explosions in plant growth when accompanied by warming. This plant growth supports increases in animal and insect life. More warmth has always meant more biomass and more life, never less.
Darwin 101: if a species can adapt favorably, it's numbers tend to increase. If it can't, its numbers collapse, sometimes to zero. A species health is often judged by their population numbers. Thus, high population numbers are, by themselves, proof of favorable conditions. Put another way, population increases ONLY happen when conditions are favorable to that creature. Population collapses happen when conditions are unfavorable AND the creature can NOT adapt.
All human high pop numbers are in warm zones with moderate winters (Africa,china,India) all low pop zones are cold (Alaska, Siberia). This is generally true of all plants, animals, species, insects, bacteria, and life on this planet (and any other)
It has never been the case that life flourishes in the cold. Decreasing global temps are always bad.
Coffee plants tend to die if they get below 50, for example.
Now, some argument can be made about deserts 'proving' that life fails when it gets too hot.
Deserts are dry (actual dictionary def), and it's the lack of water that kills, not the heat. California and Vegas are good examples of deserts that flourish with irrigation. And irrigation is one of the ways humans have directly INCREASED the biomass of the planet. It's how we adapt to an ever changing planet (Darwin).
Ice ages kill, warming trends do not. No warming period has ever decreased the biomass of the planet. It simply has never happened. There is no historic proof that warming has been anything other than good for humans AND the planet. HOWEVER, every ice age or 'cold spell' has decreased the entire planet's biomass. Now, warming trends are ended with cold spells and cold spells do kill. But warming is always accompanied by increases in life. All life.
That's Darwin, 101.
Everything changes. Everything must adapt. Those that can adapt, thrive. Those that can't adapt, die.
The endangered species list is, largely, an attempt to break this law of nature. This 'law' of Darwin.
Some creatures should be let go.
Not everything that once lived should be saved.
Giant sloths, sabertooth tigers, and mammoths have no place in today's world, and we are better off without them. I love dino movies with raptors eating people, but that doesn't mean I want raptors walking the streets like squirrels. We are better off without most of the creatures that have gone extinct. This may sound cold, but it is true. I love my grandmother, but if grandmothers never died the planet would be mile high in grandmothers in short order. Everything and everyone has their time, and when their time is over, it's done.
That's Darwin. That is simply the way it is.
If you believe warming or 'any change' MUST be bad, then you are a Darwin denier. Because Darwin is based on change being a force of nature. A needed element for growth to ever come.
And warming has always been good for humanity. Not once in human history has warming cause us harm.