So, the argument goes: global warming is not anthropogenic.
Here’s what I haven’t computed yet. How does that make things better? If there are serious non-anthropogenic factors to global warming doesn’t that mean we need more regulation and less carbon?
If it’s just our stuff, then we just cut back on our stuff. If our stuff is only a fraction–well, then it pretty much needs to be eliminated even to make a difference.
Am I missing something–other than trying to argue with logic against bullshit?