My link shows a smaller graph below the main graph showing 400K years, but still shows current situation to be literally OFF THE CHARTS!

Bob

>Well that just hits the nail on the head: "Lies, damn lies and statisitics". Anyone can point to a graph and get the results they want. If you take the "Long look" in Bruce's citation, then it looks like cooling; if you take the short look then it looks like warming. If the presentation had been the other way round (showing the short data 1st then the long) then it would leave the reader with the conclusion that trhe last decade or 2 has just been a glitch and that we're heading for another ice-age (as all the clamouring was back in te 70s). There are scientists today espousinhg the GW theory who were all for the "2nd Ice Age" theory back uin the 70s. If that graph could be extrapolated out several hundeds, or even 1000s of years, then it could show that the last century, as a whole, shows a down trend.
>
>>And this
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_History_and_Flux-2.png
>>
>>(see I can point to graphs also ;)
>>
>>
>>>Bob,
>>>
>>>Take a look at the graph here:
>>>
>>>http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html
>>>
>>>Do you honestly see any difference between 'today' and the peaks 130,000, 240,000 and 330,000 years ago? Those dramatic rises in CO2 concentrations were in no way related to industrial pollution. As I've stated before, I'm all for reducing emissions but I hate to see bad science.
>
>...