No one has denied the existence of natural cycles. Quite the contrary. The point is that what is known of natural cycles cannot explain the warming trends and other climate anomalies of the 20th and 21st centuries.

John and Media,realize that the data that you are quoting is coming from the same sources that you say fudge, distort, or otherwise skew their data. Do you see the fallacy of that in so many ways? That's why I posted links to all data sources. If that data was damaging and your conclusions about what that shows were correct (they're not), why would what you consider to be people who are part of a collossal global hoax be so transparent about it? Actually, if you understood the science, you would realize that the CO2 , methane, temperature, and other data from the past confirms, and not detracts, from the conclusions about current global climate changes not being entirely from natural causes. As I said, the climate denial industry of highly paid lawyers will cherry pick data, based on what I have read of theirs, and make it appear to say precisely the opposite of what it really says when considering all the available information.

Anyway, what you are calling the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period have been written about and studied in the legitimate scientific journals and even magazines for years, and in fact they have little to do with drawing the conclusion that the changes in the 20th and 21st centuries cannot be completely explained by natural causes. Further, if the sources you purport are skewing or somehow hiding information, why are there so many legitiamte scientific papers published in which the extent of the Medieval Warming Period is studies profusely? If you would like some references (as I know that you have not read any of the journals), I can look them up for you.

Sammie, to answer your question, there is an entire science known as “Paleoclimatology”, and if you take a look at an elementary text, you will be educated in how scientists estimate the earth’s climate if you are really interested to know. I did a quick Google and see that there is plenty of simple reviews of the science on the internet. Someday if I have more time, I’ll be happy to fill you in. But very briefly, Paleo climate data comes from proxies around the world such as tree rings, ice cores, corals, sediments from all levels of the ocean depths and the world’s lakes, to name a few off the top of my head-- and extend the archive of climate back hundreds to millions of years. Thousands of scientists and engineers around the world have collected this data over the years and it, and their writings, are completely transparent, including estimates of uncertainties and future work that needs to be done through the studies. Meanwhile, astronomical data such as the earth’s tilt, axis of rotation, and orbital eccentricity are known, as are extraterrestrial incidents. There is an enormous amount of data out there from around the world and contributed by numerous countries and organizations. The data is transparent. Notice I said “climate” and not only “temperature”. That includes knowledge of glaciations, which is quite important, carbon dioxide content, methane content, etc.

As far better techniques became available in the 20th and 21st centuries, including recent satellite data, for assessing climate conditions, it could be compared to some of these other techniques. Even within the uncertainties of the techniques used to assess climate millennia ago, the conclusions are quite clear.

These records are important to assess whether climate variability, events, and trends of the 20th and 21st centuries are representative of the long-term natural variability of past centuries and millennia, whether long term or short term. And it is quite clear from all the data and real science that they are not.

Got it, Media? What makes you think that scientists are denying the natural variablitity of climate? Do you really really really think so? Really? Climate scientists? To repeat again and again and again. It is settled science that the variability in climate in the 20th and 21st centuries is not completely from the natural variability of climate. Your cherry-picked and John[s cherry-picked anomalies are not anomalies at all. Further, the higher concentrations of CO2 thousands of years ago fit in quite well with the natural variability of climate, at least if you understood the cycle.

I realize that I am doing what you do a lot, Media, and making declarative statements without substantiating them. But I have posted legitimate refererences elsewhere on this board, and I have tried to keep it simple enough so as not to turn anyone off from looking at it (except for all the linkds to data, which cannot possibly be made simple!).

My input on this is that you guys are going after a lot of the right people for sure, but you are bastardizing the science by believing a lot of the wrong people about it. I mean no offense, but I gotta tell you how I feel.

Perstare et praestare. Per aspera ad astra.