except for the facts that one very powerful (but slow) optimisation process has been busy adapting the existing biota (including humans) to the climate, followed by an even more powerful and much more rapid optimisation process adapting human capital and expertise to the existing climate.

The first seems insignificant (given the second and the changing climate) and the second seems self-defeating (if we invented air conditioning to deal with the outside not being the correct temperature, it's not at all obvious that local air-conditioning is the best way to manage the climate, especially given the known issues with using local heat dumps in, say, cities).

Which, of course, one needs to weigh against the likely benefits.

This is the point that I think is actually contentious in the wider world, but should not be.