I see that Mr. Mellon wants to argue dishonestly.....
By using the word "recorded", I was obviously talking about temperatures measured using modern methods. This record goes back to the 1880s, and is considered the "modern" temperature record. Measurements of temperature beyond that are developed using various methods, some more accurate than others (which is why there is uncertainty in some of those temperature ranges). The statement of "what about the last 20,000 years" is as ludicrous as if I pointed out the Earth was so warm 4.5 billion years ago that the rocks were liquid...it's a true fact, but it has nothing to do with the discussion. In fact, statements like that show how insecure someone is in their understanding of the totality of the data, physics, and real questions.
The idea that humans can't affect the climate is also wrong, and we've seen it clearly in the past. Or, not so clearly...Los Angeles had smog that was so thick you couldn't see the mountains from less than 5 miles away, but now it's always clear enough to do so. That's local climate, but we also have acid rain and its effects across the eastern US (caused by pollution), desertification due to cutting forests, and how the oceans are becoming more acidic and running out of fish. And then there is the ozone hole over Antarctica...the chemical reactions that break down ozone are caused by human created CFCs, and reducing the production of those has stopped the growth of the hole. That's a global effect we had, so it's an ignorant statement to say humans can't affect the entire global climate. We already have...the idea that the climate is always changing so we can't affect it is illogical on its face, and ignores millennia of evidence.
And, it's throwing stones in glass houses to call a research scientist job "cushy". It's better than working at McDonalds, but I have yet to fly on a private jet, ride in a limo, or do all those other things wealthy people get to do whenever they want. In fact, I have a lot more in common with the geologists who do oil exploration, and no one would call their lives cushy...unless they wanted to distract from the people who had really cushy lives and were trying to distract anyone from noticing.
Politicizing the science is not being done by the scientists. It's an easy experiment to show that adding CO2 to a bottle of air causes it to heat up faster than a bottle of air alone. It's basic physics, and a lot of the other things involved in climate change are not difficult concepts. The hard part about climate science is all of the interrelations, and how slowly things can change. It's those who will lose their largess if the world community decides to cut back on CO2 emissions to mitigate the effects of climate change who are attacking the scientists personally (as seen above against Dr. Mann) and who bring out lies (it wasn't scientists who said there was global cooling in the '70s, it was journalists) to support their attacks. The same propaganda strategy was used against scientists studying the idea that smoking caused lung cancer. You can tell because people spout off about things like "scientists aren't studying the sinking US east coast!" when in fact that is included in the models of sea rise rates.
If someone is using lies to support their argument (as Mr. Mellon is), then you have to doubt the accuracy of anything they have to say. I can't say that he's knowingly lying, it's completely possible that he's ignorant of the facts, but it behooves everyone to find out the facts for yourselves (from scholarly articles and reputable websites that report the science and NOT the propaganda from either side of the political debate) and decide what is really going on.
Reed