The site is interesting but irrelevant to global warming. It doesn't matter what the climate was like 200 million years ago, what caused it to change then.
Climatologists look at what's causing this change. Trying to find out why the earth's climate is changing now by looking at the creataceous period, is a bit like investigating 9/11 by looking at who tried to blow up Parliament in 1605.
Ahhhh...when talking about planetary climatology...geologic time matters, mh8782.
So, millions of years ago would be appropo.
Searching for man made causes to assign to a normal global phenomnenon is folly.
That's the charts point, that there is no anomalous cause ...
That there seem to be a natural long term earth warming/cooling cycle...
That we are just coming out of the bottom of a long term cooling cycle and we are just started up a normal long term warming trend and that, on average the earth is warmer then it is now.....
We have in effect passed out of the coldest days of "winter" headed to "spring" and have people contending it's something we are doing that making spring & summer come.....
Is that the case? I don't know but the chart does seen to indicate that it's the norm for the earth to be warmer than now
Actually, it's very relevant. The global warming folks all have kind-of physics based approximations (models) of how they think various factors interact to affect climate. The most important single step in modeling is validating your model against known data. Otherwise, you are just dreaming stuff up and running your computer.
The assertion by the global warming folks is not just that the climate is warming but that human CO2 emissions are causing it. Given a history of hundreds of millions of years where climate demonstrably changes when there were no humans, the question is why the present is somehow different than the past--that is, in the past, stuff warmed up and cooled down all on its own. Isn't that the obvious explanation for today's climate change?
So the burden is on the ecofreaks to establish that somehow this is different. And that is where there models fall apart on the validation problem. They have only one data point for human effect on the environment--the modern industrial era. There are no previous periods of industrialization that correlate to temperature increases (because there were no previous periods of industrialization).
One data point is laughably insufficient to validate a model. So what the ecofreaks are doing is, quite literally, dreaming stuff up and running a computer and it deserves about that much respect.
Deep down, some of the better statisticians on the eco freak side know this. That's why you hear so much about the 'precautionary principle.' Effectively, what they argue by way of the precautionary principle is that even though the data is insufficient to support their position, they might be right so we should shut down our economy. That's a fine argument if you hate western civilization and want to destroy capitalism and replace it with a statist economy. But it's no way to preserve markets, wealth, and freedom. Plus, I think it underestimates the adaptability of humans.
Big picture. So what if oceans rise 3 meters? Do you think our survival as a species (or even our prosperity) is threatened. New wealth will be created as we will adapt so long as we are free.
Sounds cut, but your statement makes no sense and is ridiculous analog. Anyone with training in the Scientific Method would understand that it is quite important to study and understand the past climate cycles.
Actually, the study of evil and its causes would lead you to the understanding and cause of both acts of terrorism. Your analogy is fatally flawed--on both counts.