>>656492>What I said was that a cycle, which has been going on for a very long time, does not tend to prove or disprove a theory regarding a trend.Except that the theory in question factors in those cycles. That's not something you, mr. armchair scientist with a degree from Youtube university, have discovered that climate scientists somehow overlooked.
>The cycle itself does not, as the cycle predates humankind having the ability to significantly impact climate the way we do now.Indeed, but we understand the mechanism involved (the greenhouse effect) and we are indeed releasing huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere that was trapped underground.
When I run into people who reject some or all of what scientists are telling us about the climate it's usually because they smell a rat.
And they're right, there is one. Just not where they think. The rat is cap and trade, and the notion that it's the only viable solution.
What they've done is bait simpletons into attacking the science (which is fruitless and makes all opposition to cap and trade look foolish) rather than their proposed implication: That we need immediate wealth redistribution.
It's like if I were to tell you an asteroid will impact the Earth (which actually is coming) and the only way to stop it is to transfer your life savings to me. Whereupon you try to prove that the asteroid is a hoax, rather than asking why giving me all your money is a sensible solution to it.