Oh please. We don't have anywhere near enough information to be able to say what sorts of fluctuations are normal.
The only long term data we have is "fuzzed" to the point that we can only see long terms trends, not the short term cycles.
Take a look at ANY natural process and you'll see that in the long term it's stable, and in the short term fluctuates wildly. That's EXACTLY what's happening here, and is totally normal.
You're both correct, actually. The "it's all ok" dolts will simply take this as evidence that it's all fine, and it IS the sort of thing that we should expect from global warming... but we don't know enough to say with any certainty that global warming is in fact the cause; there could be lots of other causes behind it that we don't know about.
And we could get another massive volcanic eruption that makes our mucking about look trivial by comparison, rendering the whole debate moot :)
Do not confuse people who don't think global warming is a problem (or even happening) with "it's all OK" dolts. A lot of people, myself included, point out that pouring trillions of dollars into a non-problem does nothing to solve the real problems, such as the Pacific dead zone or massive overfishing. If global warming is not happening or not a threat, those who support it anyhow should earn the same contempt you spew for the "it's all OK dolts", for their opportunity cost of their solutions to non-problems will be the worst thing to ever happen to the environment.
Believing in climate change doesn't make you holy regardless of the evidence.
"o not confuse people who don't think global warming is a problem (or even happening) with "it's all OK" dolts."
You're putting words in my mouth. If you're going to engage in a discussion, that's a mistake, as it invalidates anything further you say, regardless of its merit.
That said, I agree -- and if you're read the rest of my post, you probably wouldn't have felt compelled to respond, since I pointed out that global warming is also not definitively proven...
Plus, it would take some kind of international war to really do something about it. Some of the countries that contribute the most CO2 are the least likely to be concerned about the consequences, and will only take advantage of the surplus energy left over by countries that do try and reduce their CO2 emmissions.
The "it's all OK" crowd may be half right in that they see Earth's climate as a stable system. It is pretty clear that there are many negative feedback loops involved. The question, however, is how far can we push these built-in regulations?
The only long term data we have is "fuzzed" to the point that we can only see long terms trends, not the short term cycles.
Take a look at ANY natural process and you'll see that in the long term it's stable, and in the short term fluctuates wildly. That's EXACTLY what's happening here, and is totally normal.