I don't think we're actually in disagreement at all. I wasn't trying to be very specific even in my original comment when I replied to "Sure once you start ble

I don't think we're actually in disagreement at all. I wasn't trying to be very specific even in my original comment when I replied to "Sure once you start bleeding you die from blood loss but if you're knifed can you really say you died from anemia?", but just note that we should be careful about assuming the blood loss was from being knifed, or being knifed once. Just that societal level changes can be complex as we should leery of accepting a narrative that neatly provides a cause. That doesn't mean it's wrong, it just means we should fight against our own instinctual urge to accept and believe simple answers. > Climate studies in History show how massive, widespread collapse or large scale change happened in times of marked shifts in world climate, not the other way around I'm not trying to argue it's the other way around, I'm more making an case that if climate change contributes 1/10th of the stressors causing a civilization collapse, and the rest is a bunch of other stuff added together, some individual items that might be more than 1/10th the cause, we'll still probably look at it and say ah, climate change caused it, because it's what happened and a bunch of other civilizations collapsed at the same time. Sort of similar to losing your job in a recession. It's most often attributed to the recession, but in reality there's likely a lot of things that contributed, and the recession contributed enough to be the the straw that broke the camels back. Were one of those other things not present, the job may not have been lost. What this means is that we likely attribute the variable that the most distinct entities as the cause, as opposed to the variable that contributes to the cause the most. Calling this out as I'm doing is mostly a matter of semantics, I'm fully aware, but I think it might be important to consider when formulating thoughts on this. If climate change at a specific point causes every civilization to collapse, it's obviously the cause. If it causes an increase in the rate of collapse by 50%, it's very likely the cause. If it causes 20% more, now we're getting into a territory where it's contributing, but very possibly not the largest contributor. I understand that with a population of civilizations as small as we have at any specific time in history that a statistical increase large enough to notice from climate change probably means it was indeed climate change, so I'm not trying to convince you it isn't, as much as call forth a way we put narratives to events. We definitely do often say someone lost their job because of the recession, when the relative change overall to the population can be quite small. People understand the world through narratives, and those those narratives match reality to greater or lesser degrees sometimes.