are climate change deniers aware of this?

"some of the things they say is ... it was warmer back at some point in the 1800's"

Who said that? I check denier sites. I cannot find any such claim. Instead the claim is that global warming began with the end of the Little Ice Age, and we are still climbing out of that toward the previous high temperatures experienced about 1000 years ago. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the controversy as it actually is. Start by comparing the competing theories about historical temperatures.

Warmist Version 0 AD - 2004 AD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temper...

Skeptic Version 0 AD - 1940 AD: http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N5/Loehle20...

Then check out the reasons for the difference: http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387h/PAPERS/conf...

Note that the skeptic version of history is based largely on bore holes.

Summary: http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N5/C1.php

Abstract: http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/dxk28g4...

Perhaps you were confused by the Skeptic claim that the rate of warming is not statistically different than the rate of warming during a similar period at some point during the 1800's. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670....

Note that Phil Jones, who was being interviewed in the link above about the rate of warming today verses previously, is a Warmist.

Also, note that historical records support the Skeptic point of view, and force the Warmists to attempt to explain away the obvious contradiction with their tree ring data by claiming that the historical data does not count since it only covers a limited area of the earth (just like their tree ring data). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland#Norse_settl...

The oldest continual instrumental temperature record is one called HadCET and runs from 1659, it was another two centuries before there was sufficient global coverage to compile an accurate instrumental global record.

Prior to the instrumental record are the reconstructed ones, these extend back some 542 million years. Data for the last one million years are obtained from multiple proxies but the most extensive and accurate ones are obtained from ice-cores.

Trapped within the ice are bubbles of air, the composition of this air can be isotopically analysed; in particular it’s the oxygen and deuterium isotopes that are of interest as their ratios are very sensitive to temperature changes.

Climate change deniers often make the claim that it was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period than it is now. The MWP was the culmination of a thousand years of naturally induced warming which peaked almost a thousand years ago, during this warming period the average global temperature rose by some 0.5°C, today temperatures are rising 35 times as fast.

It’s often erroneously claimed that the MWP was warmer than it is now. We can’t say precisely what the peak temp of the MWP was but we do know that it was exceeded somewhere between 1972 and 1979 and that current temps are about 0.5°C warmer.

The last time that Earth witnessed temperatures similar to those of the present was some 140,000 years ago and you have to go back millions of years to find a time when temps were noticeably higher than they are now.

I am one who likes to examine evidence on both sides before I make a intelligent and informed decision. To be honest and frank I do not believe either side is convincing enough. However I may be of the scale but my opinion is earth goes through a cycle and we have had the ice age and it will go towards the other extreme where the earth will get really warm. I do not at this time think this is man made as I cannot see enough convincing evidence to say Co2 caused the problem. One fact is for sure a lot of money is to be made from this, specifically in the carbon trading between countries which trade in the billions. Is this just another money making scam, you decide? It is open to debate.

Koch Industries is evil previous degree. (nonetheless Monsanto nonetheless beats them on my record of worst firms in the international.) the priority is Cap & commerce. it type of feels to be the only answer being provided up and that's the incorrect one. it is going to only be an inconvenience to companies like Koch and that they're going to use it to their benefit via buying up each and each of the smaller companies' carbon credit, marginalizing opposition, bribing extreme-up politicians and experts, and then passing that extra effective overhead on all the way down to the patron. The pollutants will nonetheless be there and we are going to be those paying the cost. The "deniers" are the way they are because of fact they are rabidly against lots of those erroneous law. in the adventure that your component can supply up extra suited recommendations, in step with probability their component will stop being so anti-ecosystem.

We have been using 'proxies' to gauge the temperature change, ice cores, tree rings, and other things similar to that, however, the pro agw crowd uses these same proxies, so, who is more foolish, pro agw, or deniers? Or, the rest of us who are just trying to get along as best we can in the worst recession any of us remembers.

Deniers or non believers would have not interest in being aware of anything.

Believers believe without the need to constantly reinforce their beliefs or convert others.

Deniers actively, try to change the minds of the believers.

You don't even need to know the existance of something to not believe.

But I think what you are try to say, is I new this guy, who had a friend, that overheard someone say that something might of happened that people that disagree with me might of said that is totally wrong.

There are records, not official records, there is historical data that directly indicate that it was warmer back in the 1800's. No official scientific monitoring was done then, so you need to go with the facts.

I live in Miami and it is real hot this summer .. I hope hurricanes this yrs don't hit too hard .. That's one thing I'm afraid of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermometer

Around 1700 we had thermometers. Around that time the River Thames regularly froze. The actual climate change deniers are alarmists who attempt to remove any natural change in their temperature reconstructions to exaggerate supposed man made ones. Now who are the actual deniers?

The whole alarmist argument is based off the fact that it was cooler in the 1800s (the theory wouldn't hold much water if it had been warmer). But, as you say, they only have guesses, so by your line of reasoning the whole theory is bunk.