>> 2% of CO2 of a gas that is .03% of earth’s atmosphere.
According to your data, the percentage multiplies out to 0.000006 of the Earth’s atmosphere. That’s 1 part in 166,667.
What percentage of the man’s CO2 contribution must be curtailed to satisfy the Global Warming crowd? Let’s say 10% which is an extraordinary amount. If 10% of man’s CO2 emission is responsible for warming, that changes the impact to 1 part in 1,666,667 of the total atmosphere. In order to justify that man is responsible for the stated Global Warming, the methods used to support the theory must have a margin of error that is less than 1 in 1,666,667. Furthermore, all the other sources of CO2 must also be constant in order to fault such a small value. If the CO2 is measured in isolation of the atmosphere, the ratio changes to 1 in 500. I would expect proximity to CO2 consumers to offset the human impact.
Would the pasture be so green not for the flatulent?
Good point. As a Geologist, I can assure you that there have been lots of global warmings and coolings (e.g. climate change), long before man was on the earth. To think that we can spend enough money to change the climate is absolute lunacy. My contention is that since most of the green proponents are not stupid, their agenda is to take over the world economy and enslave us little people.