I guess the moral of the comments here is that if I can find a link to a website with an article that supports my view, then I have conclusively “debunked” the other side…
In terms of the thesis of the main article, I take it that historical climate variations are proved; I myself have studied many “liberal” history textbooks from the grade school to the college and post-grad level that refer to these events, even textbooks written by and used by those in the dreaded liberal “academy”. The History Channel has run specials on the “Little Ice Age” and the “Year without a Winter”. So no rational person of whom I am aware denies non-anthropogenic climate change. But just because you have a valid premise doesn’t make your conclusion correct; simply because non-anthropogenic warming occurs does not mean that anthropogenic warming cannot occur or isn’t occurring. The existence of anthropogenic warming would just be much harder to prove and predict (and, for what it’s worth, the current climate change “models” are truly deserving of major scepticism, for this among other reasons). It’s just as fallacious an argument as the argument, oft repeated in the comments above, that because it seems to be getting colder where I live, the world as a whole cannot be getting warmer. Perhaps conservative arguments would receive a warmer reception if conservative reasoning weren’t so often flawed and dogmatic (and paranoid — just who is it who wants a world government, and why? Even if you wanted to control the world, why would you want to control an impoverished one? But then, raving paranoia probably won’t make sense to the rational….)
