Is history just as important to understanding climate change as science?

Absolutely, most knowledge is obtained from past events. You must study the past to understand and/or predict future events.

history... psychology... science... all partners in developing and implementing an effective program to combat climate change.

to know history is to avoid repeating it. knowledge of what has stirred people in the past, the causes they found worthwhile, and their relationships with the environment can all be used to help develop an effective program. examples...what would the chinese be willing to do? are the olympics in beijing a golden opportunity to begin the spread of a greener east? would americans and russians work hand in hand in the arctic ocean to help curb climate change, based on cooperation in space? how did the planting of the russian flag at the north pole change things? and how will the territorial desires of the northern tier of nations affect the speed and intensity of resource depletion there?

knowing what motivates governments, their past actions, and their relationship with their neighbors can help turn a local solution into a global one.

No. Good scientific theories have to pass the test of reproducibility. History cannot be repeated and the information is always incomplete. Scientific instrumentation improves with time so the best data is the most recent data. Historical results more than approximately 100 years old rely on indirect evidence and have much more uncertainty than results that can be measured directly and re-tested and reproduced in a laboratory (or observed repeatedly in nature) today. Historical evidence is better than no evidence, but it is no match for direct observations.

I think if you mean the history of the world and its climate then yes, absolutely.

One thing that makes me skeptical as to how useful the info from ice cores is for detailing how the Earth was in the past is they account for only roughly 800,000 years of that 4 billion year past. This is not to say that ice cores are useless though.

I think the more we know about the past, especially warm periods and their circumstances, the better we can gauge what is happening now and what will be the outcome.

For example, I haven't seen a definite explanation as to what caused the holocene climactic optimum. If we knew more about what led to that event it could shed light on our situation now.

If you mean "recorded human history" the answer is no, it is only slightly useful. Recorded history requires written records, so it is limited in timespan and geographic coverage. In that limited context, it does show patterns of land and resource utilization, which are at least potentially useful data - especially in cross-checking with the physical/geological record, which is "history" in a much broader sense.Most of history is about which military group was on top and what gods they worshiped, which has almost no scientific utility.

It sure cant hurt but it would be nice to know what the exact cause was that changed the climate through out time .

no, because the history of climate is just estimates derived using science. Therefore, science is most important.

Important? Sure. Just as important? No.

Things are very different now than they were hundreds of years ago. These graphs show that clearly:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:2000_Ye...

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate...

So history, while important, is not as important as the current scientific evidence. Technological society has changed the equation.

I used to think so. I was taught the earth warmed and cooled through the ages. I was taught the Ice at the north pole and the glaciers came and went every 5000-10000 years.

So much for our liberally dominated education system.

Well you know the old saying: Know where you come from if you want to know where you are heading!!

But the bad side of history, is that it can have multiple sides depending on where you are located on the planet...