An inconvenient truth

[Jcharger]

General science points to a causal link between CO2 and climate, and to a link with the human production of CO2 and atmospheric levels of CO2. These links are framed in terms of the probability that something is the cause. They are not based on proving it.

I agree that much of the argument happening in this thread is because there is concern about money and culpability.

 

[Dipstick]

Here in the US, there really are more trees today than there were 100-200 years ago.

It ain't about the gross number of trees or the number in the U.S. (do you think CO2 stops at borders?) it's about the number of trees versus the number of sources of CO2.

https://www.livescience.com/27692-deforestation.html

 

[themechanic]

I think the oceans convert more CO2 than all the plants on terra firma combined.

 

[Jcharger]

The oceans also take up a lot of CO2 and play a big role in keeping it down. This is one of those things that works in favor. There is a complication in that id acidifies the ocean because CO2 reacts with water to form H2CO3 (carbonic acid that donates hydrogen ions to make bicarbonate). Photosynthesizers (Plants and in the oceans) also respond to CO2 levels, using more as CO2 levels change. These are negative (stabilizing) feedbacks that have worked to counteract the effects of CO2 generation.

 

[Slap Stick]

Speaking of cigarettes, they have PROVEN cigarette smoke does cause damage to the body. They haven't proven it WILL nor have they proven climate change is caused by Man.
Nor will they.
As an aside, in the news recently is the lawsuit about talcum powder CONTRIBUTING to cancer....not CAUSING it. Big difference. But....how does one prove the cancer was caused by talcum? Would these people gotten cancer without using talcum?
Another theory that cannot be proven.
But it can be proven its all about the money.