WATCH: George Carlin DESTROYS Climate Change Clowns In 90 Seconds! – Police

PO2 Guy Heney - That's 1.1C .. convert it to F...
Also .. it is one of those things called Energy over Time and Differential Energy.
Point being is these changes have NEVER be expressed over this short a time period.
You want to see rate of change of the last 10K years? Here ya go!
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what%E2%80%99s-hottest-earth-has-been-%E2%80%9Clately%E2%80%9D

Capt Seid Waddell - Interesting how you did not cite a reference for that chart. For those of you how are not climate knowledgeable .. Dr. Spencer's paper was published in "Society", a journal that was "Founded in 1962, the journal Society publishes new ideas and research findings drawn from all the social sciences" .. hardly a peer reviewed Meteorological (his area of study) or Climatologist (not his area of study). He is not without critics. https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/roy-spencers-great-blunder-part-1/

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. - SPC Allbright, thank you for providing further statistics to bolster your view. Rather than going online to pull down statistics to bolster an opposing viewpoint, as Capt. Waddell did, I am inclined to quote Benjamin Disraeli - "There are 3 kinds of lies- lies, damn lies, and statistics". As you pointed out, background on statistics is as important, if not more so, than the statistic itself. And cherry picking specific statistics to strengthen a position is as old as statistics. This is not meant to be disrespectful to either of you, just an observation on the ability of a statistic to be molded to fit an argument.
Add to this the list of established "facts" - the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, man can't fly, Eugenics improves genetic quality of human population, etc. Now include some of the predictions of the 60s and 70s - climate models that prove that we will be a frozen tundra by 2000 and at least a billion will have died as a direct result of global cooling and some of the early predictions of the 21st century about global warming that haven't materialized.
This reply is not an attempt to alter your belief. It's just that during my life, I've developed a critical (jaded?) eye toward sweeping proclamations - "Y2K will cripple the world!", "The golden gate bridge will collapse during the huge earthquake that will happen in California in 1973", "The world will end in 2012", "Eggs are bad for you", Eggs are good for you", "Coffee is bad for you", "Coffee is good for you". That the term has been changed from global cooling to global warming to climate change set off alarms in my head. There's no doubt that the climate has changed, and will continue to do so. I'm just not sold that man caused all of it, that it is out of control and we're all going to die within 30 years and we need to do something right away. I could be right or wrong, but I'm going to continue to do what I've been doing my entire life - living in a way that seems sensible to me.
Thank you both SPC Allbright and Capt Waddell for your service.

PO2 Guy Heney Thank yu for your thoughtful response. Healthy skepticism is .. well .. healthy. However the is a tendency to become toooo skeptical give all the bogus data we are assaulted with on a daily basis. I would suggest that sort these "news feeds" into three piles. That which is provided by educational and government sites (.edu and .gov), not-for-profit research (.org) and for-profit (.com. .info, et al). While not being assured of getting better data you can at least begin to figure out the "why" behind the data that is being put out. The climate models from the early 20th century were pretty much dead on as you can see from the 10,000 year data graph. The thing that "proved them to be a lie" was the additional carbon being dumped into atmosphere. With out that additional CO2 it is consensus belief that we would in fact be into a cooling period. So how do we know this? Take a look at this Wikipdia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere. Also look at the sources cited in this entry. Never accept the data without looking at the cited (and used) references!