Diversity vs biomass. If AI prefers biomass over diversity we're pretty much fucked ;) If it prefers diversity - at least some of us will remain in ZOOs ;)

Your sources are absolutely irrelevant when your argument has a vast hole that is evident to anyone who has even a little bit of actual understanding about the issue. You can cargo-cult as many sources you like, they do nothing to save a fundamentally broken argument.

You're well aware of the game you're playing, your argumentation is disingenuous. You have reframed and obfuscated the issue of climate change to suit your preferred narrative, and misrepresented the science. You have indulged in ad hominem attack by saying someone here is less educated than you, thereby flouting the site's guidelines while at the same time invoking them to hide behind them.

Regarding the papers you cite, you seem to have misrepresented the views of the authors.

You cite author J Brown [1]. Another of his papers [2] says "increased energy demand and climate consequences of burning fossil fuels will continue to accompany a rapidly urbanizing planet posing major challenges for global sustainability."

You cite a NASA report of a study, saying it denies mass extinction, and suggesting that global warming supports increased life by making polar regions habitable. The report and study do not support your position. The paper itself [3] cites [4] which stresses the importance of minimising climate warming via "net negative emissions". The authors also acknowledge that "most models lack a representation of regionally important ecosystems (peatlands, wetlands)" the destruction of which they note as "negative".

Your citing of glaciation is frankly odd, and again the papers don't support your arguments. For example in [5] the authors say "it was the loss of habitat diversity [...] that triggered a drop in speciation rate, and subsequent loss of biodiversity." Further, they contradict your assertions by pointing out that biodiversity can increase in cooler zones: "cool-water niches were available to be filled, warm-tropical niches did not exist". However, to go further down this rabbit hole would be to indulge in your game of misdirection, and I've no intention of doing that.

In short, your posts in this thread appear entirely untrustworthy and you seem to be acting in bad faith. I notice you've posted climate change 'skeptical' content here previously. You suggest it is others who have been "programmed", but seem reluctant to examine the nature of your own susceptibility to misinformation, which frankly comes across as disdainful and superior.

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James-Brown-37

[2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331075555_The_Centr...

[3] https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004 and https://sci.bban.top/pdf/10.1038/nclimate3004.pdf

[4] https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1783

[5] https://sci.bban.top/pdf/10.1130/G32679.1.pdf