(October 7, 2015 at 11:49 pm)Aractus Wrote: 400,000 years is quite recent history. Humans have been alive and well throughout most if not all of that time. Your graph shows that temperatures in human history have been between 2-4 degrees warmer than present in the past.
The last time CO2 levels were higher than 400ppm was 23 million years ago - and before that they were substantially higher than they are today, but without the temperature increasing to the levels projected by the IPCC.
As for your comment on peer-review process; the quality of the Journal does depend of course - however you have no evidence that Evans is having his papers published in a non-reputable Journal.
Again, all true, but PT already addressed one of the major issues with that statement. A few million hunter-gatherers spread out across the globe (or at least Africa, depending on if you're counting Homo neandertalensis as "human" for this discussion) are in no way as sensitive to the shifts in climate as our complex and billions-strong civilization would be. And even so, we have evidence that climate shift did almost wipe out our species, following the Toba volcanic explosion ~70,000 years ago.
I did not suggest (nor did the article) that the publication process was only flawed in journals that were not "reputable". However, I doubt that the Australian journal to which you referred is on par with Science or Nature. That's not to undercut the journal's reputation, only to point out that it's irrelevant to my claim to which journal he is submitting his paper.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
