Global temperatures have risen by anomalous rates in recent years. On this we can all agree (though there are serious objections to the methodology and pinpoint accuracy). But there is a huge question regarding the underlying causes. Many scientists definitively blame man-made emissions for most, if not all, of the warming. In fact, this diehard notion was what prompted the harsh critique over last week’s remarks from EPA administrator Scott Pruitt: “I would not agree that [CO₂ is] a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. But we don’t know that yet. We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.”

His message, all-too-predictably hijacked and grossly distorted by alarmists, is easily understood and right on the money: The variables that contribute to rising temperatures are likely numerous, and many are yet to be discovered. So how can we state unequivocally that CO₂ is the primary driver? Case in point: Just this week, a new study vindicates Pruitt’s views by challenging how much man contributes to global warming. Chronicling a paper just published in the journal Nature Climate Change, Reuters reports, “Natural swings in the Arctic climate have caused up to half the precipitous losses of sea ice around the North Pole in recent decades, with the rest driven by man-made global warming [emphasis added].” If true, this completely contradicts the idea that humans are overwhelmingly to blame.

Reuters adds, “The study indicates that an ice-free Arctic Ocean, often feared to be just years away, in one of the starkest signs of man-made global warming, could be delayed if nature swings back to a cooler mode.” Still, the University of Reading’s Ed Hawkins, who independently reviewed the study, responded, “Looking ahead, it is still a matter of when, rather than if, the Arctic will become ice-free in summer.” What’s more startling than the records set by either temperature or ice is the record number of times scientists claim the science is settled (when clearly it’s not) and delaying the apocalyptic effects. What Pruitt and fellow climate skeptics advocate is a long-term examination for better understanding. But statist-driven leftists know time is not on their side.