Climate science and potential spurious fitting of data

Comments on Lenore Taylor “Plimer the toast of Copenhagen sceptics meeting”, 10/12/2009, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/plimer-the-toast-of-copenhagen-sceptics-meeting/story-e6frg6so-1225808821955

In the article, you have:
"But over at the Bella conference centre, the consensus, and the evidence, that humans are causing a dangerous change in the climate is really overwhelming.

Added to it is new evidence from the World Meteorological Organisation showing 2009 is likely to rank in the top 10 warmest years and the decade of the 2000s as the warmest decade since records began in 1850.

The more than 100 world leaders showing up next week buy the science, and so do the UN officials, with UN climate change executive secretary Yvo de Boer yesterday declaring the science of climate change "rock solid".

The scientists are more convinced of their evidence than ever."

From 1850, there have been only 160 years. How does it compare with the length of the earth?

Declaring the science of climate change "rock solid", how solid is it? Isn't there a danger that such a short period of data and the complexity of climate changes may render that “science” “spurious”?

I don't understand the science, but the wild variation in earth temperature and logic tell that the causes of climate changes are anyone's guess at the moment.

One can also argue that it "is" due to purely the increase in the number of human beings on earth. You can also get a good "fit". Can anyone draw a conclusion that by the logic of that so called science, the only way to prevent human catastrophe is to reduce the number of human being?

Isn't that ridiculous?