Add new comment

Human influenced climate change (the term used by climatologists) is at best a working hypothesis.

Nothing either way has been proven, or is even tested enough to be considered a theory. For one thing there is simply not enough good evidence. And, for another the time spans we are trying to measure are far too short for us to say with any credibility "Never, in all the history of the earth that we've uncovered, has the earth undergone such a dramatic change in temperature AND reduction in sunlight."

We know for sure, that in the past the Earth has been both much warmer and much cooler while still supporting mammalian life. Even 800 years ago we have recorded European weather conditions from Morocco to Scotland which indicate a much warmer climate for decades.

Another term to introduce is "abrupt climate change." Climatologically speaking an abrupt climate change is the difference of feet of ocean and hundreds of miles of glacial activity. In paleological terms these abrupt changes happen in the blink of an eye, like tens of thousands of years.

Agriculture society is only about 10,000 years old and real city building didn't happen for another couple of thousand years after that.

So, in climate terms, we don't have a long enough yardstick to see if humanity has affected it one way or another.

Finally, to put things in perspective, in 1883, Krakatoa exploded, ejecting over six cubic miles of solid debris into the air. At the same time, it release more ozone depleting gases and more greenhouse gases, than mankind has breathed, belched, farted, burned, husbanded and manufactured in the last 2.5 million years. We are smaller compared to the Earth, than the prairie dog population is to the state of Texas. And, we have a smaller ecological foot print.

Now, it could be argued that prairie dogs could doom the entire state of Texas to unsteady soil. But, in the same amount of time, they could develop written language, culture and technology.