Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago. "The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland" - Aradhna Tripati, University of California - Los Angeles (2009, October 9).
Doesn't matter; even if we completely stop CO2 emissions it will still rise to the previous level. Looks like something we are going to have to act on whatever happens.
Well actually, the sun has very little effect.
Indeed, if you go back beyond 25 million years, although, there is considerable uncertainty in the data. But this is attributed to major geological causes, such as CO2 outgassing from ocean ridges, volcanoes and metamorphic belts and increased carbon burial, according to the article "Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years" - Paul N. Pearson & Martin R. Palmer - NATURE |VOL 406 | 17 AUGUST 2000.
The article also notes that early Cenozoic levels of CO2 often were often several times modern values, but that a strong greenhouse effect probably contributed to global warmth at that time.
Since the early Miocene (about 24Myr ago), atmospheric CO2 concentrations have remained below 500 p.p.m, according to the authors' estimates.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
I can't be bothered to try to refute nonsense like these plots from skeptical websites with a political agenda. Just stick to the published scientific research, and make your own mind up, please.
Oh sorry, I should have stuck to sources like one of your your previous posts.
"In 2009, the CO2 global average concentration in Earth's atmosphere was 387 parts per million by volume (ppmv). This is 103 ppmv (36%) above the 1832 ice core levels of 284 ppmv" (Wikipedia).
That shows your ignorance again. Check the source. It's published ice-core data! Or are disputing it? For god's sake, give it a rest.
Going back to Deckinghams link, to geocraft.com, I was looking at the graph that they present for the Vostock Ice Core Data.
/proxy.php?image=http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd317/johntheexpat/vostokicecoredata.gif&hash=efbd7182c53e968473cd9cd321ca304e
Doesn't this clearly show a correlation between CO2 and warming over a time scale of 150,000 years?When there was less CO2, the Earth was cooler, add CO2 and it warms up.And what are we doing at the moment if not adding CO2?
Further up from that they state:
They have confused weather and climate. 
Isn't this the same point that is made on practically every page of every thread in this forum?Weather is different from climate.Weather is massively chaotic and difficult to predict, whereas climate is a statistical average that is easier to justify (Others may be able to explain the difference better)
And just up from that they say
I understood it that without the greenhouse effect the day temperature would be up beyond 'boiling point' and the night temperature would be down below -100Cso, yes I guess the average temperature would be -18C, but it would only be that briefly as it passed from one extreme to the other.*
It seems to me at times that people try to discredit the science as rubbish by presenting even bigger piles of crap to support their point of view.
Of course, I could be wrong.......
*IIRC Mike TV gave the figures somewhere, but I can't find them just at this moment
The Wikepidia reference is to a historical CO2 record derived from a spline fit (20 year cutoff averaging) of the Law Dome DE 08 and DE08-2 ice cores and dating from 1988. A somewhat cherry picked piece of data don't you think?
Now, if you look at my post with the graph, you will note that I deliberately made no comment at all - I simply posted the graph. (As it happens, I think it largely meaningless).
Your response to it was as I expected. That is to say that you (like many others) are starting from a stand point where you want to believe in MMGW. Any evidence to the contrary, from any source, is immediately discredited and disguarded. Any evidence in support of your belief, from any source (even Wikipedia), is accepted without question.
Of course, there are also many others who refuse to believe in MMGW and take the opposite tac, discrediting any evidence of it and avidliy accepting anything they read in the media which contradicts the theory.
Some of us, try to keep an open mind and seek out the truth. However, given the extreme bias (political and otherwise) and "belief system" which exists on both sides of the debate, this is very difficult to do.
You'll note that I made no comment at all - merely posted the graph, just to see what reaction it would provoke. Naughty of me I know 