So what.
One large meteor strike, one large volcanic eruption, one large solar flareup, etc, will have more influence on our atmosphere, than a thousand years of man's influence.
This global warming bloviation is all about trying to restrict OUR private property rights. Do you believe the U.S. should sign the Kyoto treaty, restrict property rights, or regulate the type of vehicle (IE SUV's) we can drive, etc, in the name of "saving the planet"?
IMO, we have far more important things in life than worrying about the planets temperature changes.
I spend a lot of time in the ocean, friend, and I've seen temp changes of 10 degrees from one day to the next, just because of up welling. I get a little tired of chicken little scientists who have an agenda of obtaining more govt. funding, and in the process, lining their own pockets with these taxpayer funded studies. Hey; if we humans can't affect atmospheric conditions......than who needs the study? See the agenda?
You science guys that look at this planet as if it were some little biosphere bubble, are so narrowly focused, that you can't see the forest for the trees.
-> Which, btw, we have more of today than anytime in history, thanks to modern firefighting techniques.
Regards
We can't do anything about circumstances and events that are out of our control. If we got hit by a meteor large enough to cause global climate change, climate change would be the least of our problems. As for volcanoes, change your adjective "large" (Kuwai, Tambora, Krakatoa, Katmai and Pinatubo were "large") to "supermassive" and then you can talk about effects lasting more than a couple of years. Solar flares cause problems; there would have to be a significant change in the total luminosity of the Sun to have a major climate impact. (On that note, you might look up the science fiction story "Inconstant Moon" by Larry Niven.)
This global warming bloviation is all about trying to restrict OUR private property rights. Do you believe the U.S. should sign the Kyoto treaty, restrict property rights, or regulate the type of vehicle (IE SUV's) we can drive, etc, in the name of "saving the planet"?
No.
I believe we should respond appropriately.
Appropriately means first recognizing that there is a situation requiring a response. I believe that the scientific understanding of the climate changes occurring now is at that stage. The second step is formulating appropriate response strategies. In my opinion, that is what we -- the United States, other countries -- should be doing now. As more data is gathered, as the science continues to improve, selection of the final set of response strategies to implement will be facilitated. Implementation is the third step. Evaluation of the implementation effectiveness is the fourth step; modifications to the iniitial implementation would be the fifth step. And so on.