On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 12:46:26 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 16:28:52 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 2:10:30 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 07:24:04 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 10:00:23 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
writes:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 08:26:08 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 10:22:49 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Which man has only been burning in any significant amount for
about 150 years. Not 8000 years (burning wood is carbon neutral
for all intents and purposes as it is not releasing carbon that
has been sequestered for hundreds of millions of years).

Also factor in that for 95%+ of that period, whatever burning was going
on was to heat a small cave, a hovel, or a couple of ten by ten rooms.

Burning is not the problem, the loss of native vegetation and forest
land is. A farm that is bare dirt or emerging plants for most of the
year is not removing much CO2. When you plow everything under you
didn't eat it is the same as burning it and everything you eat is also
burned. 6.6 billion people belching out CO2 and farting methane is
also not an insignificant amount. That is before we start looking at
their animals.

And again, your scientific illiteracy rears its ugly head. Without
adding fossil carbon to the atmosphere, there would be no excess regardless
of how many people are respirating and passing gas; on any scale that
matters, the carbon usage would be neutral (the carbon being exhaled was
plant matter or meat a few days earlier, and will become plant matter or
meat a few days or months later).

Taking carbon that _hasn't_ been in the atomosphere for hundreds of millions
of years and adding it back _does_ alter the balance, and not in a good way.

It's not just that the carbon hasn't been in the air for hundreds of
millions of years, it's that it took hundreds of millions of years for
that carbon to accumulate as coal, oil, nat gas and now we're burning
in in just hundreds of years. If we were adding it back at the rate it
accumulated, the effect would be minimal too.

When you burn the rain forest or plow up native turf land you are
putting CO2 in the air that has been sequestered for millions of
years. It used to cycle, now it doesn't.

No ****, Sherlock. And the climate scientists that have studied the
overall situation have concluded that burning fossil fuels, not
burning rain forest, is the overwhelming contributor to CO2.
It;s quite amazing that you'd spread that BS, when if you just look
around you see McMansions, families with 3 cars, people spewing CO2.
But heh, tweeet it to Trump, he'll believe it and spread it on.

At this point you are just picking your scientist there are plenty who
just blame "man" for being here.

That is absurd. The overwhelming consensus among climate scientists
who actually are involved with studying global warming is that the
vast majority of the increase in CO2 is due to man burning fossil fuels.
You're the one picking, just like those that wanted to deny that
cigarettes cause cancer or that HIV causes AIDS found some small
number of some kind of "scientists" that said no. And typically
they are not even actual climate science researches, instead they
are in other fields. A good example was a recent post here, where
the poster cited a guy who died 11 years ago at the age of 88.
He was a climate scientist, but not active for years and back in
the 70s, he was one of proponents making the case for anthropogenic
CO2 warming. That was when the earth was cooler, yet as his assessment
came true, for some reason much later in life he flipped. We have
no way of knowing what he would say today, 11 years later.