yours is fine, but you should probably use the whoel quote about the 0.00022% because it is more specific- and cite the fellas who stated it too, and where their quote is found- Here’s the blurb on that:
[[Khilyuk, L.F. and Chilingar, G.V., 2006. “On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?” Environmental Geology, Vol. 50, pp.
899-910.]]
and here’s the quote:
[[the total anthropogenic CO2 emission throughout human history constitutes less than 0.00022 percent of the total CO2 amount naturally degassed from the mantle of the Earth during geological history.]]
The following 100 reasons why man isn’t causing climate change is worth reading (Note, some of the reasons aren’t actually valid ie: 97) India plans to reduce the ratio of emissions to production by 20-25 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2020, but all Government officials insist that since India has to grow for its development and poverty alleviation, it has to emit, because the economy is driven by carbon.- this isn’t a reason why ‘man isn’t responsible’ but it’s an itnerestign fact that shows how climate regulation WILL and IS hurting natiosn across the world)
However, most are legit reasons why man isn’t the cause, and why CO2 is NOT the driving force behind climate change
http://www.bradmesser.com/climate100.html
Yes, I would use the whole quote. It makes sense. As for the 100 reasons link, many are just facts that debunk various myths like “CO2 is too high” (it is not), “we will reduce CO2 output back to early 1900’s levels” (we will not without killing 99% of the population), “reductions in CO2 would make a difference in temperature” (they would not). That list is good not for “proving” CO2 doesn’t cause warming but for proving that CO2 makes no difference whether or not it causes warming.