Well, actually they do have hundreds if not thousands of years of data. Tree rings from bristle cone pines (the oldest living thing on earth) and ice cores from the artic and antartic going down several thousand feet which represents quite a few years, also...

Right, like from Vostok, (antarctic) which show a pattern of climate change.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...core-petit.png

I don’t know where your graph came from. It looks like one of the ones used in the research article, “Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica”
By J. R. Petit, et al.

Its all very well to look at pretty pictures, but quite another to wade through the science. I won’t inflict the entire article on anyone, but here’s the abstract (emphasis my own)

Anyone who cares to may wade through the mathematics, physics and climatology in this article can click on http://www.daycreek.com/dc/images/1999.pdf

Here’s a snippet for those of you with insomnia:

The overall correlation between our CO2 andCH4 records and the Antarctic isotopic temperature 5,9,16 is remarkable (r2 ¼ 0:71 and 0.73 for CO2 and CH4, respectively). This high correlation indicates that CO2 and CH4 may have contributed to the glacial–interglacial changes over this entire period by amplifying the orbital forcing along with albedo, and possibly other changes15,16. We have calculatedthe direct radiative forcing corresponding to the CO2, CH4 and N2O changes16. The largest CO2 change, which occurs between
stages 10 and 9, implies a direct radiative warming of DTrad ¼ 0:75 8C. Adding the effects of CH4 and N2O at this termination increases the forcing to 0.95 8C (here we assume that N2O varies with climate as during termination I37). This initial forcing is amplified by positive feedbacks associated with water vapour, sea ice, and possibly clouds (although in a different way for a ‘doubled CO2’ situation than for a glacial climate38). The total glacial–interglacial forcing is important (,3Wm2), representing 80% of that corresponding to the difference between a ‘doubled CO2’ world and modern CO2 climate. Results from various climate simulations 39,40 make it reasonable to ssume that greenhouse gases have, at a global scale, contributed significantly (possibly about half, that is, 2–3 8C) to the globally averaged glacial–interglacial temperature change.

That certainly sounds definitive.

It is definitive that we spew billions of metric tons of man-made CO2 emissions into the atmosphere every year.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...e_to_Y2004.png

While naturally occurring CO2 emissions contribute to a natural balance, these excessive man-made emissions do not.

We can wait until there is absolute and indisputable proof of causing (or contributing to) climate change or we can reasonably assume, with a high degree of certainty, that this excessive level of man-made CO2 emissions contribute to environmental and atmospheric degradation....and act in an environmentally and economically sustainable manner now rather than later.

If all the knowledgeable people had a "high degree of certainty", but that's just not true.
We've hashed all the political and monetary factors involved in why certain scientists take the stands they do.
Also, the degree to which these conclusions/predictions that are just plain guessing, because most computer models are guesses to begin with.

We've listened to, "the sky is falling" predictions that didn't come true, so often, we're skeptical. Add that the proffered solutions always seem to make a few connected people a shitload of money, doesn't help.

Granted, it's logical to conserve resources, try to keep the air and water healthy. And working on reducing our dependency on foreign interests is always the smartest thing to do.

Right on Bruce.

Waste not, want not. Give a hoot, don't pollute.
Beyond that, just shut the fuck up already.

And no farting in the elevator. :yelsick:

All scientists? Unreasonable standard.

Every national and international climate-related scientific body in the world has reached the same conclusion with a high degree of certainty...that anthropogenic CO2 emissions contribute to atmospheric degradation and thus impact climate. The "skeptics", for the most part, are industry-funded.

I dont equate their political and monetary interests of professional scientific organizations with the interests of the oil industry and the "no government intervention - industry will act in the best interests of the people" libertarian organizations...perhaps you do.

The bulk of the money is currently still lining the pockets of the status quo.

Personally, I think the extremists at both ends should "shut the fuck up already" and let reasonable people pursue reasonable solutions that are environmentally and economically sustainable rather than bury our heads in the sand and continue blaming those extremists on either side.

it is not just a dependency on foreign interests, it is a dependency on dirty and old technologies.

We can debate the merits and cost/benefits of a comprehensive energy/climate bill.

But please, lets not start with the dishonest distortion of the facts by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (or the American Enterprise Institute) as was the case in Merc's most recent cut/post.

That's bad news for taxpayers. The Obama administration reluctantly admitted last month that cap-and-trade would cost the average American family $1,761 a year.

That is a rosy prediction. A Heritage Foundation analysis pegs the cost at an average of $2,979 a year and as much as $4,600 a year by 2035. Jobs will disappear, energy prices will skyrocket, and the American Dream will become an unattainable fantasy for many.

Talk about the "sky is falling" ..."jobs will disappear, energy prices will skyrocket, and the American Dream will become an unattainable fantasy for many."

:eek:

It's typical of graphs edited by a political agenda. Another example of what happens when White House lawyers rewrite the science.

Actual Vostok graphs demonstrate a scary problem. Jinx picture conveniently eliminates the last 100 years. That citation shows the usual and lesser changes that occur over thousands of years - some directly traceable to extraordinary events. But nothing in earth's 400,000 year history has seen temperatures rise this high AND this fast.

Eliminate political agendas and the junk science reasoning; then science overwhelmingly acknowledges this global warming problem. We know man has seriously changed the climate. Question is how much and how much must change to avert this problem. The trend is well established. All that remains is refining the numbers. Earth has never seen temperatures this high. Earth has never seen temperatures increase this quickly in a hundred years. See the chart that was not edited by political agendas. Notice how the jinx chart forgot to include the last 100 years to manipulate a conclusion.

Yeah wikipedia is practicallly Fox News... :rolleyes:

sorry, though I had the link in up there, forgot the graph on that page was too big.




Homer: Oh Lisa, there's no record of a hurricane ever hitting Springfield.
Lisa: Yes, but the records only go back to 1978 when the hall of records was mysteriously blown away.

“Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.”
~ Mark Twain

Redux - where are the cow farts on that chart of yours?