Replies

Liberals only celebrate that which can destroy the US economy.

Earth day, yes let’s not pollute the earth even though man on earth has the potential of polluting the earth like an amoeba has the potential of body slamming a whale. 5000 trillion metric tons of atmosphere 80 miles high, oh yes we can affect that. The percentage of CO2 is 0.04% which is zero point zero.

If we try hard enough running every car and factory 24 hours a day 7 days a week for the next 1000 years maybe we can get that level up to 0.05% which would still be zero point zero, because as we all know a level of zero point zero is extremely dangerous.

5000 trillion metric tons of atmosphere 80 miles high, oh yes we can affect that.

1. um, have you been to Beijing( I have)? I think you might rethink our ability to pollute the atmosphere. Besides your claim is ignorant. The 80 miles of atmosphere is NOT well-mixed vertically OR horizontally. Its highly stratified (layered) so only a few miles are really relevant....
2. Your "argument" works even worse with the oceans because most trash we dump in the ocean, settles in the upper thermocline(ocean layer) and in specific places (the ocean gyres). In fact coastal pollution is a relevant problem because the ocean doesn't just mix everything uniformly, inspite of your "intuition". Ocean currents, coastal gyres might concentrate most pollutants near the coast and affect fishing, beaches etc. These are NOT obvious questions , especially something ignoramuses can comment flippantly on.
3. The CO2 is insignificant but the question (and debate) is not CO2 directly but the feedbacks between CO2 and watervapor (which is massive). Its plausible scientifically, just nobody has shown it be true (hence the climate change debate.) In fact the debate is focused on the notion that models overestimate the feedbacks and hence climate change due to CO2.
The comment about "tiny" is irrelevant because you don't know what it means. If someone gives you a tiny nudge on flat ground it does nothing, but if you were standing on the edge of a cliff, it would be catastrophic.
4. If not for the often absurd (but sometimes correct) Environmental movement, all these would be the subject of NORMAL scientific debate (pollution, AGW etc) instead of a ridiculous global propaganda war.