Second, climate can shift naturally, as you pointed out, and only a chowderhead or an activist would infer from available information that the causes are clear. The science on this is murky, at best. It's more like a bunch of observations shoehorned into a convenient box, with no room for data that conflict. (Ron Bailey and Bjorn Lomborg have covered this part pretty well.)
Tuesday, December 10, 2002
The Other Point: You're right that I changed the subject, but the point is that we're beginning to reduce the side-effects of pollution produced by burning petroleum products. The good news is that we've probably seen the worst of it, and the trend toward cleaner air will continue. As for the Arctic melt, a couple of points. First, you linked an article from an advocacy group, an article that begins, "More ice melted from the surface of the Greenland Ice Sheet this year than ever before recorded..." I don't really trust the advocacy group, particularly since the NYT points out that record keeping is part of the issue. In places where records are kept, the melting resembles what was measured in the 1950s. When the evidence is there for global warming, advocacy groups will no longer have to shade the truth in their press releases.