You do realize that chart also cuts off 200 million years ago where CO2 was 4 times present levels, correct? No one stated you wanted a static climate. But if the thesis is that climate change is somehow inherently nefarious, then one can deduct that lack of change is preferable. Invective? Ha, ok. You start the sophist parroting and I simply throw it back at you. Lastly, your camp starts from the premise that more CO2 is conveniently a direct result of industrialization (capitalism), when the chart I posted alone should at least entertain the concept that correlation does not equal causation. But no, you ignore the other "inconvenient truths" that don't fit your agenda. For all the prattling on about the science, I see a lot of religious-like conviction. Do you think devolving to a pre-industrialization society would help the spread of disease or quality of life? Do you think tornadoes in spring, hurricanes in the fall, flooding would suddenly reverse? I see you keep parroting the line that these things are somehow worse than some idealistic condition or time that you fail to pinpoint. But I have seen no objective data to support any of that. It's purely subjective conjecture and based on more fear mongering than facts.