Was acid rain a natural event or man made?
Was SMOG a natural even or man made?
Yes or no?
Acid rain can be both natural or man made.
SMOG can be natural or man made.
But, that doesn't matter. It is well known that man can screw up the local environment. Please note the emphasis on LOCAL. What has not been shown is a man derived signal that shows mans activities increasing global temperatures. What has also not been shown is that warming is in any way bad. Only in the fevered, fanciful imaginations of those who wish to prosper from the 76 trillion dollars it is estimated (by the UN) that would have to be spent to completely alter the energy system of the planet is warmth bad.
All historical evidence ALL OF IT, shows that a warmer world is a better one. We KNOW that the world was up to 5.5 degree's warmer during the Holocene Thermal Maximum and not a single disaster that the warmists bleat about ever occurred.
Not one.
Cool, believe what you want, put your head in the sand and pretend what you know think you known is contrary to those with post graduate degrees.
You mighte even decide to run for office as POTUS for the new Party of the
And, like the typical brain dead progressive that you are, you ignore well known factual data and resort to insults based on nothing more than science fiction.
I hate to break it to you pal, but my insults are based on FACT, not fiction.
Like yours.
As posted, keeping your head in the sand and your mind closed to discernable facts is foolish, and posting an ad hominem without any facts to support your opinion as a denier is laughable.
An authoritative point of view:
Letter: Population, observable facts alone evidence of climate change
[don't discount the letter and claim all University Pro who disagree with your opinions are seeking government grants and thus dishonest].
One picture is worth Ten Thousand Deniers words:
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: IMAGES AND VIDEO
Appeals to authority.....especially those who directly benefit from maintaining the status quo view, are by definition logic fails. But let's look at the "evidence" shall we? On the warmer side we have self described "simple" computer models that are the primary source of "information" that you all rely on. The sceptics on the other hand rely on OBSERVED data. Huge difference.
But further, let's look at the policies that are being advocated for.... The sceptics basically say, leave things alone unless we have real evidence that something is happening which to date, we don't.
The warmers however demand the people of the world impoverish themselves so that a small group of movers and shakers can become fabulously wealthy. They demand that the people of the world give up travel, children, entertainment, and ultimately the progressive model leads to mass death either from direct action (the favorite 'go to' of the progressive) or from starvation as the true nature of a "sustainable" lifestyle becomes apparent.
What is ALWAYS absent from the warmist game plan is an actual reduction in pollution. Have you ever noticed that NOWHERE is pollution control mandated? No, you are still allowed to pollute, you just have to pay wealthy bankers, politicians, and businessmen money for the privilege of living. And all the while they live large (on your money) they control what you can do while they do anything, and everything they want to. All on your dime.
Sounds like a great gig if you can get it.