Are man-made carbon emissions off the hook? One scientist thinks so

If you're like me, you're probably somewhat tired of all the climate change/global warming misinformation coming out of the talking heads all over the world.

For me, it's not a very difficult issue to comprehend:

Has there been an increase in the temperature of the globe of late: Yes.

Have we seen marked, if still mostly subtle, changes in global climates: Yes.

Who's responsible for most of it: Not us.

Honestly, it's the height of human arrogance to suggest that we, the people of earth, are so significant that we could be responsible, in any substantial way, for global warming (or global coolng, for that matter).

Recently, a geologist in Australia made the case that the "recent rise in temperature around the world is caused by solar cycles and other 'extra terrestrial' forces."

Imagine that, forces outside of our charge and (and even our planet) are responsible for a faux phenomenon that we've been trying to take the blame for all this time?

An economist would approach the issue this way: How much are we responsible for (i.e. what we can control)? Once we've established that, do the benefits of alleviating our miniscule role in global climate change outweigh the costs of the alleviation? The answer, most likely, will be a resounding no.

Some have suggested that, at minimum, 1.5 percent of global GDP should be reserved for reversing global warming. That's 1.5 percent of $61,000,000,000,000.00 folks. We'd be better off investing in giant plastic ice cubes.