"100 years is not long enough to measure any "Climate change""
Really? So if it didn't rain somewhere for 100 years you would be telling the residents that there was still insufficient data to suggest that the climate had changed?
Of course, if you were making a prediction that the sun was moving into a period of lower activity, and subsequently the world was going to cool substantially over the next decade or two, you wouldn't need 100+ years of evidence would you? I'm sure that in this case a single piece on Fox News would suffice.
The way people insist on extreme standards of proof for AGW yet almost unquestioningly accept anything agin it is what gives me the biggest laugh.
