>>What I really don't get is why denial of global warming is such an article of faith among conservatives.
>
>The earth's climate changes over time.
>Nobody can deny that.
>
>The previous interglacial period (Penultimate Interglacial Period ca. 125,000 Years Ago), was 1 to 2 degrees celsisus warmer than our current interglacial period (Holocene, starting about 10,000 yr ago)
>
>The Vikings settled Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period (950AD-1250AD), and were driven out or died out at the start of the Little Ice Age. The Viking settlements seem to be rather strong proof that Greenland was warmer then than it is now.
>
>What conclusions can we draw from all this?
>
>The only conclusions that make sense are:
>1. We are probably going to have another ice age.
>2. The Earth has natural periods of warming and cooling.
>
>The null hypothesis is that we are within normal variations.
>This has not been dis-proven.
>
>Does that mean that "man-made global warming" is false?
>No.
>
>Does that mean that "man-made global warming" is true?
>No.
>
>I think that humans are indeed having a profound impact on the planet.
>
>All the while we are arguing about "global warming" on the basis of flimsy and contradictory evidence on both sides, our oceans are being over-fished to death, and that is not on the news at all....

I agree with you about overfishing. One of my favorite kinds of fish, haddock, was close to extinction a few years ago from overfishing. You couldn't find it anywhere. Due to intervention it seems to be making a promising comeback.