Sammie and VXerick,

First of all, it is good to hear from you again VXerick.

People misunderstand why the term "Climate Change" has been substituted for "Global Warming". It is really simple. "Climate Change" is the comprehensive description of the impacts to climate from non-natural sources, as temperature is only one of the climatological impacts. The phenomenon was initially reported as Global Warming as an explanation of the (recent) rise in temperatures that is not expliable by natural causes alone, such as have impacted climate change since the beginning of earth time that you speak of. It was clear that it is better to describe the totality of the phenomenon by "climate change", because such influences on temperature have been shown to cause:

Increased incidence of extreme high sea level (except for those cause by tsunamis)
Global area affected by drought has increased
Increase in intense tropical cyclone activity in North Atlantic
Shrinking ice sheets
Warming oceans
Glacial retreat and warming Arctic Sea

This is in addition to direct temperature phenomena, such as cold days and cold nights, and frost, less frequent over some land areas, more frequent hot days and nights in some areas, and heat waves more frequent over most land areas

It is the SPEED at which these changes are occurring, or the acceleration over the last century or so since the Industrial Revolution, that (1) has never been seen in geological history, and (2) is inexplicable by natural causes alone, and (3) can be explained by the greenhouse gas effect and correlated with significant, now, satellite and other data from multiple sources around the world. Changes of the order of magnitude that we are now seeing have taken places over geological time and not over a period of decades.

In other words, whereas it is true that climate has been changing naturally since the beginning of the Earth, as you have pointed out, there have been changes very recently that cannot be explained completely by natural causes. Some natural processes that affect Earth's temperature in fact do go through cycles. Examples range from the El Niño–Southern Oscillation, which brings warming (El Niño) or cooling (La Niña) to Pacific waters every few years, to glacial–interglacial periods that can span tens of thousands of years.

But not in a few decades, as we have been seeing.

There are many more causes of natural climate change, ranging from solar activity to additional astronomical phenomena relating to the earth's slow tilt transformations. Several computer models, for example, that consider these natural causes as well as the man-made ones have predicted quite well trends that some highly-paid skeptics point to and say - "AHA! Solar Activity and not Man Made Global Warming!". Obviously, natural solar activity is but one causitive impact on climate among all the other natural and the manmade causes.

But to conclude that because climate is always changing from natural causes and therefore the people who claim that there are manmade causes for climate change are incorrect is far off the mark. Scientists are working very hard to discern the facts and reasons for the anomalies between what we know should be the affects of natural causes, and what are clearly effects that are not natural.

Just remember, at the risk that I sound like a broken record, that THE PACE OF NATURAL WARMING SINCE THE LAST ICE AGE 10,000 YEARS AGO LOOKS TRIVIAL COMPARED TO THE UNMATCHED ACCELERATED TEMPERATURE INCREASES OBSERVED IN THE LAST CENTURY OR SO, AND IN PARTICULAR IN THE LAST 50 YEARS, AS HERETORFORE NON-EXISTANT INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES DUMPED MORE AND MORE GREENHOUSE GASES INTO THE ATMOSPHERE. This is indisputable.

There is now more carbon dioxide in the air than at any time in at least 2.1 million years. Whether in prehistoric times or today, more greenhouse gases mean higher global temperatures. Some of the skeptics and phonies like to show graphical data indicating that CO2 concentration follows temperature rise instead of the opposite. They conveniently leave out the well-known effect that increased temperature has on the release of CO2 from the oceans, and the differences in CO2 isotopes that are measureable to discern which is which. This is climatology 101A, and one of the ways, because it is such elementary climatology, that you can isolate out the people who are trying to decieve you.

The extra greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide produced by human activity, is indeed sufficient to outweigh natural cycles, Sammie and VXerick. This is quite fundamental science that almost all agree with.

My objections are to the people who politicize the science to the point of making false accusations, develop wholly unnecessary "cures", people who represent themselves as experts but who don't know what they are talking about but speak authoritatively with "facts" that are completely cherry-picked or out of context, all on both sides of the political issue. I stick with the science in my investigations.

I hope this helps.

Perstare et praestare. Per aspera ad astra.