This may sound harsh, but, well, too bad: Don't be a fool.
Let's have a basic lesson here on how scientific progress works, shall we?
Science moves forward by deriving theories that explain the world, and comparing them to existing theories.
A new theory is progressive if and only if
1) it explains more than prior theories
2) it makes predictions that are later corroborated
3) it explains anomalies in prevailing theories
The mere presence of anomalies in a theory doesn't actually prove or disprove anything - progress only happens when competing theories are compared in terms of their explanatory power.
Anomalies will ALWAYS exist in theories - because no theory can ever fully explain the complexity of the real world. That is why it is a theory (a theory is a simplification of reality).
The classic example is newton-einstein-quantum mechanics. Newtown came up with the theory of gravity. But his work wasn't completely satisfying, since while it explained almost everything, it still had a few anomalies. So then einstein came along, and realized, hey, Newton was almost entirely correct, but here's a modification of his work. Ok, great, but Einstein was later supplanted and modified by quantum theory.
So, for example, when people claim that global warming is false simply by pointing to one anomaly ("the earth is known to have been warmer than today with no ill effects ...on human civilization.") then I say: it is completely irrelevant.
What is relevant is a theory that contrasts with current theories of global warming, explains everything they do and more, makes predictions that we can test, and explains existing anomalies.
In all the decades of study, NO ONE has been able to do that. Instead, everyone just says things like "oh, it's just natural that the globe is warming" - there is no theory there, only a knee-jerk rebuttal.
So, prior theories such as 'global cooling' have been supplanted by global warming theories which explain more, explain anomalies, and make predictions.
And it is just plain stupid and shortsighted to say things like "I wouldn't recommend...drastic action (or any action) to counter hypothetical catastrophes predicted by a field as immature and uncertain as climate science" - climate science is NOT immature, much as hunpecked wants to believe it is. It's been around as long as physics.
Hell, hunpecked quotes some climatalogist to attempt to refute Al Gore (failing at it by the way), but then claims that climate science is immature? Can't have it both ways.
And, most importantly of all: this is a big issue, and affects all of us. Our children, and our childrens' children will be living with the decisions our generation makes (or fails to make) regaring climate change. To say that we shouldn't do anything is selfish in the extreme.
Sorry if I sound harsh, or insulting, but it really burns me when people make decisions based upon what they WANT to believe, rather than accepting the overwhelming prepoderance of evidence, scientifically arrived at. Being unable or unwilling to change one's mind in the face of disconfirming evidence is what animals do, not humans.
Here's what I propose to all of ya: provide me with a testable supposition that would convince you that you were wrong. What criteria would need to be met for you to change your mind? Tell me that, and then I'll go and test it. And answer me this: if I meet your criteria, then will you change your mind? If I take whatever reasonable test you propose, and meet it, then do you think it possible to change your mind?
Again, I apologize for sounding harsh and/or insulting. But human civilizations have been practicing and refining science and scpetiicism for thousands of years, and improving our lives and understanding the world through it. Yet this discussion makes it clear that we are still so clearly enslaved to our passions and instincts that I feel I have to face this issue head on. The world is a tough place that may not conform to your belief system about what it should be like. Sorry. But reality is reality. Don’t drag the rest of us down simply because you believe in a reality that doesn't exist.
Thanks,
AMF
PS: Oh, RE: "there are no detailed and accurate ways of measuring temperatures beyond a couple hundred years ago."
This is a false statement, made by someone ignorant of the actual facts of the matter and the science involved, and sounds based on wishful thinking, as usual.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempera...ast_1000_years
Read it all, don't just look at the pretty pictures.