Possibly so
But the trouble I have with the climate change people is that the science really doesn't seem to be there yet...
Only a fool believes the climate doesn't change. There are all those U shaped valleys round England for a start.
And within recorded history there are big climate swings. The Vikings successfully dairy farming in Greenland for instance. Then it was impossible, now its possible again.
Where I get all worried is that the science really doesn't seem to be there yet to explain what's going on. Its phenomenally complicated stuff. Much more so than brain surgery or rocket science. And we also know that what we are experiencing is well within the known bands of natural climate variation. Speed of change might be another matter, but there I <em>really</em> don't see any evidence that there's good data. If you're nmot sing the same measurement system for all your data you really are pushing your luck, especially if its mainly derived.
But the assumption that it must be artificial and not natural seems to be sending down all sorts of bad alleys. Some things are obvious. Burning oil and coal for fuel is a damn silly idea, and the sooner there's a sensible replacement the better. Wind power is not a sensible replacement: Seven hundred years of pre -industrial history tells us you only use it when there's no alternative. Filling the atmosphere with pollutants is a bad idea too. But ultimately if the climate is changing <strong>sufficiently</strong> so as to cause disruption (and history tells us that it often will) then whether its natural or artificial isn't such a big deal as to work out what to do about it. And if your only remedies are based on "oh well, lets stop civilisation" like the dumb greens then we're stuffed whether the change is all natural, partly natural or all artificial.