I’ve remained more or less agnostic on the question of anthopogenic climate change since, hey, what do I know? The reports and argumentation in the public square have always tended to confuse me, such as thisCalifornia’s drought linked to greenhouse gases, climate change (Sept. 29, 2014)“California’s extraordinary drought is linked to the abundance of greenhouse gases created by burning fossil fuels and clearing forests.”versus this:California drought: Past dry periods have lasted more than 200 years, scientists say“Through studies of tree rings, sediment and other natural evidence, researchers have documented multiple droughts in California that lasted 10 or 20 years in a row during the past 1,000 years — compared to the mere three-year duration of the current dry spell. The two most severe megadroughts make the Dust Bowl of the 1930s look tame: a 240-year-long drought that started in 850 and, 50 years after the conclusion of that one, another that stretched at least 180 years.”(Note that the stories both originate with Mercury News and not with rival organs of propaganda.)Similarly, I recall being up the Mendenhall Glacier in Alaska a few year back and being told by the guide that the Glacier (which has obviously shrunk considerably) was evidence of ACC. But when I asked when the Glacier has begun melting, I was told “about two centuries ago”. I replied, “That would place the beginning of climate change before the Industrial Revolution, wouldn’t it?” To which a woman pursed her lips and hissed, “The Chinese were burning a *lot* of bamboo back then.” Clearly, I was profaning with my question, so I piped down and observed the pieties quietly.Which reminds me: because of this bafflement and ignorance about the science I begin where most people begin, not with the stuff I don’t know about,