Earth's hottest month on record was July 2016: NASA

No one is, or at least should, be claiming anything to that effect. The impacts of CO2 are, at worst, predicted to make the planet much more dangerous, and perhaps inhospital, for a very large percentage of currently living plants and animals (including humans). But that is mostly due to the rate of change currently being induced by AGW. If the climate adjusted by even 7 degrees celsius (a very, very worst case scenario) over a period of 20,000 years - most of the damage could be adjusted. If that same adjustment occurs over a period of 200 years, well...(*)(*)(*)(*) just got a lot worse.

For example, the Syrian Civil War has been tied to droughts of the fertile crescent induced or exacerbated by Global Warming. That obviously did not make Syria inhospitable, but it did make the country more dangerous.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00059.1

 

And the current climate models have shown how much of a temperature increase and how long before it hits the magical 7 degree mark?

 

7 degrees is not a magical number. Hell, 4 degrees is a scary number.

But you can read about that new study here: http://www.hawaii.edu/news/2016/11/...-climate-is-more-sensitive-to-changes-in-co2/

 

But without the pressure from the environmental groups, the companies owning those well sites would have continued to let that CO2 and other gases escape into the atmosphere. This is the danger. By removing regulations, companies will choose the process that gives them the most profit. We all saw what was happening in China which convinced the Chinese to start being concerned what was happening to their environment and have started some changes, small at the moment

 

And not even that. The 'recorded data' isn't even close to that old, from accurate, global spots. AND, many of those 'spots' are chosen carefully, to produce the desired temps.. near big cities that have grown & expanded in their industrial output, etc.

So the 'data' is still contrived, & is a political propaganda statement, not one of scientific reality.

 

Your clueless fraudulent twaddle was debunked in post #217.

 

No, you merely assert your beliefs, & demonstrate fake science loyalty with ad hominem & insults.

You think posting in huge fonts somehow amplifies your assertions? Repeating them over & over makes them true? That is propaganda, not science.

 

Nope! You very obviously can't understand the science even when it is shown to you. Your problem!

 

Okay, but im skeptical. How reliable and accurate are the temperature estimates from thousands of years ago? Whats the tech, how does it work, etc? Because the entire model relies on that accuracy

 

Those are all great questions. I encourage you to start here: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

Chapter 5 deals with "Information from Paleoclimate Archives"