Today I read this Politifact piece discussing one of Marco Rubio's latest assertions about climate change. My blathering tonight isn't precisely a response to this piece; I love Politifact and appreciate the work they do and the background provided even when I quibble with the exact rating they give. Nevertheless, the piece reminded me of something that bothers me in the climate change discussions: Even if you believe that much of the increase in global average surface temperatures and increase in greenhouse gases over the last century-plus is due more to natural variation than to human activity, you have to be willing to admit that human activity produces greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, and acknowledge that, even if other processes are leading to the current period of climate change, it probably isn't a good idea for humans to do anything to exacerbate the effects.

Doesn't that make sense? Does it really matter how much of an effect human activity has had in the past when we know, beyond any reasonable doubt, that human activity can and will have an effect, and when we know beyond a reasonable doubt that the climate has been changing and will be changing? Shouldn't we be working our asses off to do what we can both to lessen our impact and to prepare for what's coming, no matter which is the case?

And, yes, I am rather naïve. I have a lot of trouble trying to sort out people's possible motivations for saying something other than what they believe, or sorting out what they might really believe, so I tend to assume that people are speaking more or less sincerely, even if they're politicians or pundits. I realize there's a very good chance that the people who say they don't believe human activity is the primary or a great contributor to climate change in the last century are saying that because, at least in the States, it doesn't sound as nuts as it ought to and it's a good cover for not giving a shit.