Replies

It matters not how long men may argue about the number of angels that may dance on the head of a pin - the fact remains that it is not possible to resolve the question.

There are far too many variables for men to accurately assess what degree the activities of mankind may or may not affect the overall climate of the entire planet. What the theorists seem to miss, is just how BIG the earth is, and of all the living mass on its surface, just how insignificant the sum total of all the humanity on the planet is, as compared to ALL other forms of life that exist simultaneously.

So we produce a little extra carbon dioxide. Does that carbon dioxide then continue to accumulate endlessly in the atmosphere? Not as long as ther are green growing plants greedily sucking it up and converting it back into oxygen and some form of carbohydrate. Is the proportion of oxygen suddenly and otherwise inexplicibly being reduced by the presence of all this new carbon dioxide being produced? Not that anybody has recorded, which seems to support the hypothesis that the carbon dioxide is being pulled out of the atmosphere (and from where it is dissolved in water as well) at just about the same rate at which it is being generated by the combustion of so-called “fossil” fuels.

Man simply does not have enough influence, so far, to change climate except on very small scale, like the microclimate of an otherwise arid valley, when water is diverted there and crops are grown by irrigation. Or in the heat sinks that are the modern version of a city, where the overall output of energy may affect the storm tracks of very large masses of air, but only a little to one side or the other.

Boasting about the power and influence that mankind has on the climate of the earth as a whole is like the flea on the back of an elephant riding on a barge, who then proclaims, “Raise the drawbridge, I’m coming through!”

Get over yourselves, you self-important heralds of climate change. You are vain popinjays and of little intellectual attainment.