Man has little to no effect on the biosphere? you really want to go with that line of reasoning?
You know dante, the more I talk to you guys (warmists) the more I understand how it is that you have been hoaxed so completely. The fact is that you guys knowledge base is so shallow that most of the time you don't have a clue what you are saying, much less what you are being told. The biosphere and the climate are two entirely different things. While the biosphere may be affected by the climate, they are not the same thing. We certainly can alter the biosphere but CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are not altering the global climate.
Facts are we in the USA dealt with acid rain and auto pollution and factory pollution and the evidence is in -- the EPA and state rules have cleaned up the air in many states. The west coast beaches are coming back. Lakes and rivers and mountains...
Acid rain? Seriously? So you fell for another hoax. Completely unsurprising. Have you noticed that only the real wackos even mention acid rain any more? Acid rain has been swept into the historical dustbin with the likes of eugenics. Enough peer reviewed material has been published since the 70's dealing with the myth of acid rain that to even mention the topic seriously labels you as a nut ball.
And you make the typical mistake of believing that polution is somehow climate. Different topics, different, consequences, different solutions. AGW is a non problem that does not require a solution.
Far from putting my head in the sand, people like me actually grasp the science and read the literature and hold a fact based position.
For example, you listed nasa as a good source of science regarding man made climate change. I asked you to point out a single bit of hard, observed, repeatable information on nasa's site that established a real link between the activites of man and the changing global climate. In completely unsurprising fashion, you dodged the question and made no comment because there was no comment to be made. There is simply no such data in existence at nasa or any other so called climate science site. You hold man made climate change as an article of faith then attempt to deride me because I don't have the same faith. Show me data or acknowledge the fact that you are simply spouting your faith.
Anecdotal evidence and intuitive reasoning alone would be enough to convince even a non-partisan moron that man's actions are affecting the planet, but there is also scientific evidence galore of this 'theory'
Anecdotal evidence is useless because it routinely confuses effect with cause or assumes cause to effect. As to intuitive reasoning, again, mostly useless. People like ian intuit that some radiation must reach the ground from the atmosphere as the hypothesis of AGW claims but that intuition is torn to shreds by the second law of thermodynamics. Intuition is not science and neither is anecdote.
Hard observable evidence and repeatable experimental data are science and neither exist on the side of AGW. If they did, you could certainly point to it. And again, agw is not a theory. As I have stated, even as a hypothesis, it is piss poor.
Here, have a gander at the defintions of theory and hypothesis:
Theory - A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Hypothesis - A statement that explains or makes generalizations about a set of facts or principles, usually forming a basis for possible experiments to confirm its viability.
Now I invite you to show me any hard, observable data that would elevate the idea of man made climate change even to the level of a hypothesis, much less a theory. By the way, computer models do not constitute experiments as they are presently based on little more than blind assumptions of how the earth's energy budget operates. If you are going to point to computer models as experiments, you will need to point to hard experimental data that supports the basis upon which computer models are written. Again, there is none.
Arguing that the climate has always changed is a red herring. There is NO counter argument to this fact. The argument is that man is affecting the change in harmful ways.
And once again, you demonstrate that in most areas of knowledge, you simply don't have a clue. Here, from the Nizkor Project, is what constitutes a red herring:
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue.
Since the topic is climate change and it is an indisuputable fact that the climate has always been changing, there is no red herring. Further, the change we are presently experiencing is in no way unprecedented. If the change were unprecedented, you might have a leg to stand on but you can't name a single factor relevant to the current climate in which I can't provide multiple, documented historical examples. Your belief in man made climate change finds its roots in your political leanings, not any hard evidence that has convinced you.
If you believe me to be wrong, then prove it by bringing forward that hard, observable, repeatable evidence that has formed your position.
