Human activity not only doesn’t significantly effect climate change, human activity CAN’T effect climate change.Humans can *and do* effect the climate. The Ozone hole is a good example of a relatively uncontroversial and measurable example of human's changing the composition of the earth(via CFCs). The climate and atmosphere of the earth have changed significantly over the history of the earth too. Why do you think the atmosphere is full of oxygen? It didn't start that way.This is what frightens the left most. They don’t believe in God so they have no faith in His mercy. This means that if humans can’t effect the climate then it is completely out of control and bounded by nothing. Therefore they experience much greater anxiety than normal people do about the subject.
Environmentalism isn’t a science, it has no respect for the scientific method and views science as just another political implement to be used to generate propaganda. I don’t think it’s a religion either. It’s more of a petty superstition - maybe the wood sprites will stop global warming if we just stop cutting down trees.
>>Humans can *and do* effect the climate. The Ozone hole is a good example of a relatively uncontroversial and measurable example of human’s changing the composition of the earth (via CFCs). The climate and atmosphere of the earth have changed significantly over the history of the earth too.>>
This is a convoluted non sequitur. UV causes CFCs to dissociate, creating free chlorine ions which cause ozone to dissociate, in the laboratory. And CFCs, which are all manmade, are found in the atmosphere. Also the climate and the atmosphere have indeed changed in major ways. That much is rather well-accepted science today.
How CFCs get carried over the Antarctic where the Ozone hole appears, or how they are carried into the mid-latitude stratosphere where the layer is thickest, how much get exposed to UV and dissociate, how much that causes O3 to break down, and how much that affects the O3 layer are all by models, of course. But some of these models are quite coarse, and all are no more than hypotheses. What is lacking is a climate model that actually works.
O3 layer thinning has been measured by satellite, but reported to the public after being subjected to a series of regressions on natural phenomena (e.g., solar activity, seasonal cycles), plus regression on a boot strap prediction from the coarse models of how much free chlorine is present. The result is to show that the layer has thinned around 4% per decade and, not surprisingly, resembles (i.e., is subjectively correlated with) CFC emissions. The data and statistical reduction need an objective scrubbing.
Then the models need to be improved to the extent that they fail to reproduce the closed loop effect of the creation of O3 by UV. As the O3 layer thins, more UV gets through it to create more O3. Is there any evidence that anyone has developed such a model? Is it discussed anywhere? Assuming that it has not been developed, isn’t the model for O3 depletion open loop?
The bottom line for O3 layer depletion is the fear that excess UV reaches the little children. Unsubstantiated claims notwithstanding, this effect has not been measured. Instead of showing measurements confirm their depletion model, investigators rely on UV exposure estimates calculated from the unvalidated depletion model.
Humans probably do affect (not effect) the climate, but the amount is far too small to be measured. And ozone depletion is linked to neither global surface temperature nor global precipitation, the principal climate macroparameters. Not even the IPCC, the rabid promoter of AGW, reaches that claim.