[Publius6961]

Anybody who doesn't understand that the last 10,000 years have been an unusually stable global climate (as underscored by Fagan's book) isn't really taking the issue seriously.

Only if you believe that the earth is 6000 years old.

Do you have a grasp of what 6 billion years is?

What percentage is 10,000 of 6 billion?
On what basis can the last 10,000 years be deemed more critically important to the debate than the previous 5,999,990,000?
Because you happen to be here?
What?

[cogitator]

Only if you believe that the earth is 6000 years old.

I don't think you understood what I meant. Fagan's book is one way of noting that civilization as we know it has benefited (indeed, perhaps prospered because of it) from a very stable climate. The Earth's existing ecosystems have become what they are now because of it. Now we have the potential to drastically alter it in decades -- not on the timescales that Milankovitch cycles operate on, 1000s to 10,000s of years.

Paleoclimates of previous eras are very interesting, and no one is disputing that Earth's climate has varied. It's a very enjoyable scientific subject. But the key now is the timescale of rapid change.

[FreedomCalls]

On what basis can the last 10,000 years be deemed more critically important to the debate than the previous 5,999,990,000?

Because that is the time that climate allowed humans to create civilization. Prior to that we were living in caves running around clad only in bearskins and leaves. Is civilization not important to you?

Because you happen to be here?

Of course. It makes it a heck of a lot more important than the year 522,435 BC.