So explain to me how our destruction of species involved in photosynthesis and nitrification and alteration the atmosphere isn't effecting the climate, because I missed out on that part of your post.

If you're going to use big-boy words, use them in a correct, comprehensible manner. Do you even know what you're saying? Photosynthesis is a process used by plants to turn solar energy, carbon dioxide, and water into chemical energy (glucose) and oxygen. Nitrification is a key part of the nitrogen cycle in which bacteria oxidize ammonia and nitrogen compounds to create nitrite, which is then taken up by plants.

Yeah and that is all relevant to what compromises our atmosphere, so I fail to see how I'm trying to look like a smart ass when this is all a part of the biological processes that maintain a suitable environment for humans to live in.

While plants are the organisms that replenish Earths oxygen supply, they are not considered the key component of "global warming". That theory revolves around humans releasing greenhouse gases (such as methane and carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere. It then traps heat energy emitted by the sun in a back-and-forth bounce between Earth's surface and the atmosphere. The trapped heat then increases global temperature. That's the theory, anyway. If anything, the extra heat and carbon dioxide would HELP plants thrive. This would increase the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere because rain forests are the largest oxygen producers (along with algae and the Northern Russian forests). The only way plants would ever influence global climate would be from deforestation. This is because the transpiration (a key part of the water cycle) would no longer be present. This would contribute to desertification (That's how the Sahara was created). I still don't understand what you're trying to ask me.

>Implying global cooling and global warming are different to climate change >Implying humans cannot accelerate, intensify or otherwise affect a natural process >Implying pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, while removing the instruments which are necessary for homeostasis even without our industrial activities, make no difference

You're so adorable when you attempt to sound intelligent.

Instead of being the most arrogant c­unt I've seen. Why don't you refute my points, you self-inflated shit?

Okay, here goes. *Clears throat* I never said global warming/cooling aren't climate change, They [i]are[/i] climate change. There is no unshakable proof that humans affect global climate. What could you see during the industrial revolution in the U.S, Europe, and other parts of the world? Smokestacks, smokestacks, and more smokestacks. Plus trains. Lots of trains. And what were they burning? Coal. If anything, we released more crap into the atmosphere back then than we do now, despite the lower population. And what happened? "Global Cooling" in the 70's. Now, over 40 years later, we're doing the exact same thing, yet we have "Global Warming" now? It doesn't add up. By "the removal of instruments necessary for homeostasis", I assume you mean trees. Despite heavy deforestation and desertification in some parts of the world, this rising temperature and supposed increase in carbon dioxide would be a field day for plants. If anything, they're going to thrive more than ever, replacing barren tundra with lush forests, and, goody goody, producing more oxygen! Climate change is going to happen no matter what, whether humans influence it or not.

[quote] Smokestacks, smokestacks, and more smokestacks. Plus trains. Lots of trains. And what were they burning? [/quote] How quickly do you expect to see a change in global weather patterns? [quote]"Global Cooling" in the 70's. Now, over 40 years later, we're doing the exact same thing, yet we have "Global Warming" now? It doesn't add up.[/quote] See? You're differentiating the two again. Climate change is neither necessarily warming nor cooling, it is the intensification of weather. [quote]If anything, they're going to thrive more than ever, replacing barren tundra with lush forests,[/quote] To be cut down by us, yet again? Plus, I don't think tundra can just turn into forests in a time-scale short enough to make a measurable difference to us.