A bit late, aren't you? Climate Change, Again

So all the tribal rituals to make it rain was effective.

"(Funded by Koch)" - as in the brothers, Dave and Chuck?

If so, as far as I am concerned no further research is required. I fully accept Professor Muller's conclusions as irrefutable and final

They must have found a way to make money off this.

Man has cut down trees for house-building,furniture & paper making,roadways etc and at the same time emissions from vehicles,power houses,industries etc to contribute to global warming. Another aspect is due to body heat by increase in population of humans and farm animals too global warming increases.

This AGW nonsense is getting beyond tiresome. It's a fraud. Pure and simple. We just hashed this out last week. Tons of evidence put up to prove this is a fraud. AGW proved beyond ANY measure of doubt that scientists are just as likely to lie if it will get them money (or more money) as any other human being. AGW proved beyond any measure of doubt that scientists are just as morally bankrupt as the rest of humanity. Muller switching sides doesn't do anything to change my position. I don't need Muller to look at the data (or pretend to look at the data or look at pretend data) and draw my conclusions for me. I (and most of the readership) am capable of examining the science on my own and drawing my own conclusions. If AGW was for real, the AGW proponents wouldn't need to be lying all the time and this issue would be settled already.

Muller's own team members refute his "work." He's the medical (doctor) equivalent of a quack.

Do I think it's time for action? Yes, the action should be writing to our Congressmen and women and DEMANDING that they defund this nonsense. Politicized science with an agenda on the taxpayer's dime is criminal. This whole scam should be prosecuted under the RICO act.

Fraud?

What makes you the expert?

There's tons of CO² in the atmosphere that would not be there if man weren't on the planet. No cars, boats, planes etc. that burn OIL.

Your position is one of parroting the party line. Coal and petroleum and good for the environment. They must be, they make money for me.

Man's contribution to atmospheric co2 is 3%. Nature is 97%. I'm going to help you out with some simple math. AGW proponents CLAIM co2 is 8% of "global warming." 0.08 x 0.03 =- 0.0024. Multiply by 100 to convert to percentile. ONE-QUARTER OF ONE PERCENT is hardly a significant contribution. Water vapor is much more plentiful and effective greenhouse gas and is actually around 95% of the greenhouse phenomenon, so obviously that 8% figure for co2 is HIGHLY inflated (lie = fraud). Variations in water vapor absolutely swamp variations in co2. That is just one reason why co2 can't be proven to be causing anything, that and the fact that its effect is logarithmic.

What makes me the expert? Simple. Unlike you, I actually investigated on my own the myriad claims of AGW proponents. They don't make sense. I would actually have to lead you by the nose to each simple FACT that proves CO2 is not a driver of climate. I have already done so in the last HUGE discussion on this topic, the facetious "air conditioner sales prove global warming" thread. Help yourself. Review it. Jaworowski and Ernst Georg Beck proved the falsification of co2 levels by AGW proponents. Beck by researching DIRECT (not proxies, real time) measurements going back 200 years. Jaworowski proved the fake hockey stick graph where they time-shifted the data 80+ years because the Siple ice core data didn't fit their predetermined results. At any rate, Lyn, I recognize the tactic. Gonna try to diminish what I have to say by diminishing me. Step up to the plate and prove me wrong rather than engage in character assassination. Never did I state I am a supporter of the fossil fuel industry. Fossil fuels do pollute and we do have viable alternatives which are not being pushed because there is money to be made in fossil fuels and fossil fuels keep people dependent on the system. However, CO2 is NOT a pollutant. IT is an important part of the life cycle on planet earth. Too little CO2 would be a huge problem. This planet has had levels more than 10 times present levels. Show me what the ill effects of those levels were. They don't exist. NORMAL or MEAN co2 level is four times the present level. The entire co2 as the ecological boogey man is one of the most ludicrous ideas, ever, period.

You speak as if you have proven to the world that you are right and all the debates can now stop, because you have spoken.

You speak as if you, and you alone, have all the facts at hand and there is no more work to be done because you have proclaimed it so.

Well, I don't buy your absolute proclaimations that you know all there is to know about the subject. You have a closed mind.

I could say the same of you, the closed mind. Otherwise, you would take ANY of the valid points (actually, you would take all of them) and prove me wrong. Instead, you continue with the attempt to diminish me and, by extension, whatever I have to say. IF AGW was for real, and I do mean IF, then ANY of the so-called "scientists" would accept the open challenge from Heartland and debate this publicly. You AGW proponents are ridiculous. You are the real deniers. You just pretend the rules of science and the laws of nature don't apply to AGW. I lay down simple concrete facts that prove CO2 is not a driver of climate. You all don't address those facts. You call historical evidence (the only evidence there is, BTW) "red herrings." The only thing you have is a possible warming trend of God only knows how long how much (because of all the confusion created by the AGW liars manipulating and falsifying data) and you all CLAIM it is because of co2, but won't prove it. What did Muller say, nothing better fits? Is that how science is done? Co2 doesn't fit at all. The SUN fits. Your team has lied so many times about so many things (lies by omission count) you got no credibility left. If I recall correctly, out of all the valid data Beck found, he revealed that AGW proponents only used about 1% of the data points, the ones that fit their Agenda. I have a physics background and that includes nuclear physics. My math is well above average. I have the personal tools to discern the truth here. IF, IF, IF, co2 was a problem, that would actually be great because fossil fuels like coal and oil (not natural gas) are polluters and we need the petroleum for other things anyway, like lubricants and plastics. IF co2 was a problem, it would make it easier to argue against use of coal and oil. AGW proponents will never accomplish anything positive. Carbon tax is simply a way for the globalists to control entire countries. The atrocities committed in Uganda in the name of global warming SHOULD be a real eye opener to any man (or woman) of conscience. FOLLOW THE MONEY. I noticed throughout these discussions the proponents of AGW won't touch the actual science involved, but you all LEAP onto the SUPPOSED fact of a LONE scientist coming over to your team. What a JOKE!!. Talk about all the scientists who have retired from NASA and other scientific organizations who are speaking their minds now, speaking AGAINST AGW. Would you like some links? One of the former NASA climate scientists has his own website.

If you had bothered to go back and read any of my past statements on the subject you would see that I AM NOT ON ANY TEAM!

Your ego is overwhelming! Your closed mind is obvious.

I will not engage in further discussions with you.

Tropical and temperate rainforests have been subjected to heavy logging and agricultural clearance throughout the 20th century and the area covered by rainforests around the world is shrinking.^[25] Biologists have estimated that large numbers of species are being driven to extinction (possibly more than 50,000 a year; at that rate, says E. O. Wilson of Harvard University, a quarter or more of all species on Earth could be exterminated within 50 years)^[26] due to the removal of habitat with destruction of the rainforests.

Another factor causing the loss of rainforest is expanding urban areas. Littoral rainforest growing along coastal areas of eastern Australia is now rare due to ribbon development to accommodate the demand for seachange lifestyles.^[27]

The forests are being destroyed at a rapid pace.^[28][29][30] Almost 90% of West Africa's rainforest has been destroyed.^[31] Since the arrival of humans 2000 years ago, Madagascar has lost two thirds of its original rainforest.^[32] At present rates, tropical rainforests in Indonesia would be logged out in 10 years and Papua New Guinea in 13 to 16 years.^[33]

Several countries,^[34] notably Brazil, have declared their deforestation a national emergency.^[35] Amazon deforestation jumped by 69% in 2008 compared to 2007's twelve months, according to official government data.^[36] Deforestation could wipe out or severely damage nearly 60% of the Amazon Rainforest by 2030, says a new report from WWF. - wikipedia

I guess that doesn't matter either, does it?

This is exactly the route i like to take when debating with climate deniers. Ill let you ignore the data that has been accumulated as biased and faulty (although i believe otherwise). However, you surely cannot deny the destruction of the environment. Deforestation, massive oil spills, acidification of the oceans etc etc. These problems all result from the massive consumption of energy. So really, whether or not you believe in global warming is a moot point. We should all agree (unless of course your delusional) that the burning of fossil fuels needs to be curbed for our own well being.

Give up. He lives on a flat earth.

Agreed. And doing so based on a lie and thru the carbon tax is precisely the wrong way to do it. People in the US totally got behind the environmental movement of the 70s and great things were done. Then the movement got co-opted by commies, and an insidious agenda emerged with a resultant backlash from the public. I'm not a fan of using coil and oil. BTW, I can't agree with your premise that deforestation is caused by our massive energy consumption. It is more due to expansion of farmland. Poor farming practices are the issue here and could be solved but will not be solved through a carbon tax.

You wrote "BTW, I can't agree with your premise that deforestation is caused by our massive energy consumption."

I agree. I noticed the error after I posted it. I just assumed you would understand my point.

Im not sure what "commies" have to do with the environmental debate? This might be a remnant of McCarthyism.

If you do not put a price on pollution, how do you expect to control it in a free market?

The same way we made progress in the 70s. You may find this to be an uncomfortable fact to deal with, but the US Gubmint is so incredibly corrupt, as are most world govt', and that goes quadruple for the UN, that solving the myriad social issues staring us in the face is probably not going to happen short of a world-wide revolt against the globalists. The situation isn't going to change unless the world can become the VISION our founding fathers had of equality and freedom, not a ruling class that holds all the cards and calls all the shots and a bunch of serfs under them. Greed is an ugly thing. Until greed becomes socially unacceptable or Jesus returns, nothing will change. Greed and a lust for power is at the heart of this issue, the issue of pollution in general, mass consumerism, etc.

You make one of my points. This co2 nonsense is detracting from REAL issues. Everything you touched on, REAL ISSUES. There is no reason man can't build things to last and stop burning through resources like there is a never-ending supply of them. That would be better for everybody.

According to this thread everything old is new again when it comes to the discussion on Global Warming

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Climate swings and CO2 level changes are a fact of nature regardless of what "Man" is doing.

Besides in some cases Extinction can be beneficial. Anyone here care to find a T-Rex in the back yard chewing on Fido for an appetizer and eyeballing yourself as the main course?

"Man's contribution to atmospheric co2 is 3%." That is a quote from you! Where did you find that nonsense? And why would anyone give you a "good answer for writing something like that? One of the rules of good debate is that you do not pluck numbers out of your imagination. It demeans you, and whoever gave you the "good answer" and it demeans and devalues this forum too. Lets face it, your 3% figure is just plain stupid. What makes you an expert? Nothing. And by the way, they have been measuring the rise in CO2 levels in the air fairly accurately since the late 19th century.

"The measurements collected at Mauna Loa show a steady increase in mean atmospheric CO₂ concentration from about 315 parts per million by volume (ppmv) in 1958 to 392 ppmv as of July 2011" That is crazy fast by the way, considering that much of what we produce is absorbed by the oceans.

"Human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation have caused the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to increase by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization." So where the hell did you get 3% from? They have been measuring this really accurately for over 50 years. It is really happening. Really fast. You burn a tonne of oil or coal and it really does produce extra CO2 in the atmosphere!

It all come down to where you get your numbers. apparently ol AG himself got to make up numbers too and given his errors of up to around 10,000% or so I would say 3% give or take isn't so bad.

35 inconvenient truths or just bad math?

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

And, who financed this farce?

All this proves is that both sides of the argument can create hysterical claims that are slanted to "prove" their point.

IMO, The point I saw what tcmtom was making is the political side of it.

That's the problem. It's become a political issue when it should not be. And the problem is that politicians are paid by special interest groups that only want to make money, at all costs to the environment and our health.

So, as long as politicians continue to take bribes, instead of doing what's right, the problem will not be resolved.

As long as the Sarah Palins (Drill baby drill) of the world can spread their irrational disinformation (lies) we'll be breathing this stuff.

Thats it exactly. Once all the political agenda garbage gets plowed off the surface both sides overall information and numbers don't really say much.

Some places got warmer, some got colder, some stayed the same, some ice melted, some didn't, some got thicker.

The oceans, well so far very little gets mentioned about the geological proof that in the past there have been times where the oceans have been both around 120 - 130 meters shallower than today ( ~20,000 years ago) and at other times just over 80 meters deeper as well.

Then to top it off about 14,000 years ago the sea level rose about 20 meters in a roughly 500 year time frame long long before us humans amounted to anything. . http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm

From my perspective what I see is that once political garbage gets scrapped off all of this really has far more solid facts and data from a lot of other areas of science for both sides to consider than just what we humans do or may have done or not done in the world in the last 100 years or so.

I don't think that's all true. It used to be to the victor, is how history is written. Now. It's who is in Political power is who writes history...... Or in this case, the 'facts'. And the power changes, especially In the US is often.

Why is it that anytime the global warming debate pops up, somebody HAS to bring up Al Gore? Because he may be profiteering from GW? Sure, but how is his profiteering any worse than those that profiteer from exploiting fossil fuels? You hardly added anything constructive to the argument, but you get a good answer vote?! Good Grief!

You speak of "scraping the garbage away" while you cite sources such as the Science and Public Policy which is run by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.

The latter having received funding from exxon and also keeping funding private because:

"we believe that ideas about the way the world of nature operates should stand or fall on their own merits, irrespective of the source of support for the person or organization that produces them ... It is self-evident, for example, that one need not know from whence a person's or organization's funding comes in order to evaluate the reasonableness of what they say, if - and this is a very important qualification - one carefully studies the writings of people on both sides of the issue."^[12]

What a bunch of garbage!

It seems you need to sort through yours before you can help others with theirs.

So because I don't filter my sources or care as to what they are or whom funds them or is associated with them or anything else that means what exactly other than I try and keep an open mind regarding plausible information?

Well if keeping an open mind to all sources of info until they prove biased makes me the bad guy so be it.

So according to you which sources are the 'acceptable ones' then?

"because I don't filter my sources or care as to what they are or whom funds them or is associated with them or anything else that means what exactly"

You surely must be kidding! You dont see that this displays a conflict of interest?! Funding is no better indicator of a potential bias.

"So according to you which sources are the 'acceptable ones' then?"

Well to begin, how about an organization that is not funded by the very companies who have the most to lose from changes in energy policy. Thats where i would start. Good luck in you quest for truth!

Well to begin, how about an organization that is not funded by the very companies who have the most to lose from changes in energy policy. Thats where i would start. Good luck in you quest for truth!

MaxT, that is very true, what I have underlined can also be replaced with

The very research facilities that are dependent on the political administration to approve it's funding.

I have found if I have any doubt, to verify on the matter. It's just prudent.

And what tcmtom stated, about filtering, It did sound odd to me at first, unless you look at it as;

All information/data being equal, both good and bad. Because if you filter information, aren't you looking for something to support ones own agenda.

With it not being filtered, only then can you approach it unbiased and then come to your own conclusions........ which is near impossible at this point.....unless you are bias to begin with.

Thanks for letting me know exactly what tcmtech meant by his response. Who better to clarify a response than someone completely different!

And, yes, you must always watch the amt of funding given and from where it comes. However, you statement implies that a political administration will control what is reported. These political administrations are bought and sold by those who have the most power (money). Those with the most money to burn to influence findings are likely wall street, oil and gas companies, and war profiteers. None of which have any interest in investing in highly unprofitable green energies. So i fail to see a motive.

So your telling me that if i want to find out about health effects of smoking, that i should consider what the tobacco industry has to say about it with equal consideration as an independent organization. That is laughable! There is only so much time in the day, i cannot spend it wasting time considering the claims of those who stand to make fortunes. This seems obvious to me.

However, you statement implies that a political administration will control what is reported.

I never said that, just giving another point of view, if you think that is what I implied, that is for you to determine. But you have to consider how the data/findings were financed.

None of which have any interest in investing in highly unprofitable green energies. So i fail to see a motive.

Sounds like a rant from a person who already made up their mind., What you stated is not true. You want motive. Here's motive. btw, I am not for or against it, But there are some of these companies, that did not have a sound business plan and still received money, that also included a sizable donation back to the administration.

An example: On the Solyndra fiasco, the Bush administration held off because of the weakness in the business plan while the Obama administration went ahead with it.

So your telling me that if i want to find out about health effects of smoking, that i should consider what the tobacco industry has to say about it with equal consideration as an independent organization.

Depends on the context..... and by the way, your comparing tobacco and GW is a stretch. But it is a point.

And frankly, that's up to you now isn't it, if you have to or want to trod through it. There are allot of chemicals in tobacco, some may even be useful. But frankly, since I'm not a smoker, because I detest smoking. But being my occupation is stripping smoke, molecule by molecule, I understand that there are good molecules as well as pathogens. But I am not going to get into that because its is way out there and belongs in a thread of its own.

So again, consider the source, the actually source.

I like to add, the link I supplied, was biased with an agenda. Which I believe reinforces tcmtom point that he was trying to make.

Information can initially be based on actually fact/truth to start with, and then spun to meet an agenda.

"Sounds like a rant from a person who already made up their mind"

I havent made up my mind, i have just observed reality around me. Green energies are just not lucrative investments.

You want to talk about motive?! Alright! Lets Talk motive!

Oil companies racked up 38 billion dollars in 1st quarter profits in 2011. Now that's quite a motive! And you can bet top dollar that they will do whatever they can to protect these profits.

- http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/29/news/companies/big-oil-gas-price-response/index.htm

Sure there will be people who try to take advantage of GW and try to make a profit (as we have heard from certain "news" outlets like a broken record- the company Solyndra). It does not suprise me.

However, ignoring the enormous profits of the oil companies (and these profit's potential to influence), while pointing out a small corrupt "green" company as the one truly influencing GW research is illogical.

Actually, no I don't want to talk motive, I was just pointing out to your claim there was no motive.

Trying not to get pulled into motive thing, how much of this 38 billion dollars in 1st quarter profits in 2011 was subsidised? I didn't see it in your link, but then again, I only briefed through it because I didn't want to talk about motive.

actually $38 Billion works out to profit of around $1 a gallon roughly.

The profit on a gallon of milk or distilled water from source to customer is higher.

As far as the oil companies funding research well yes wouldn't you if you had some highly biased political pinheads trying to tell everyone that what you make and everyone needs is bad wouldn't you be fighting it too?

The thing is there is not one single source that can be taken to be 100% honest or accurate in these issues. I have gotten into the debates on other forums a number of times and have been told exactly what research is supposedly unbiased and accurate according to the believers side but yet when I checked out those reference sources I had no trouble finding that they walk on both sides of the line just the same as any other.

When I go looking I don't look at who funded what. I never have and I never will being I really don't care. If the information they provide seem plausible that's good enough for me until I find better information that either supports or disproves that source.

From my perspective anyone who has to first see from whom the funding came from or whom wrote it, or what agencies were involved, or where the data was collected from, or what ever else before reading anything is clearly the biased person in my eyes.

To me that's just like saying if this information did not come from something or someone of my same religious/political/skin color/ethnic group/etc etc belief system then it doesn't count.

The profit on a gallon of milk or distilled water from source to customer is higher.

Poor example, but a good one for taking a fact and twisting it for an agenda.

There are a number of sources for this profit some more than others, of which that is a tax (Value added Tax) that have been tossed around. Back in 1994 and about 2007 or so, the price of milk the farmer recieved was basically the same as he recieved back in the 1977, and that was about $9.00/cwt (Hundred weight). Would you work for the same wages as you did 30 years ago?

I wasn't really looking to twist anything. I was just using two common items most of us use and know what they cost.

Got any better reference or comparisons then?

ok i must be biased for scrutinizing the source of funding of the researchers.

"wouldn't you if you had some highly biased political pinheads trying to tell everyone that what you make and everyone needs is bad wouldn't you be fighting it too?"

This certainly sounds as if your biased then as well.

I am going to leave this argument with this observation:

When someone presents material that threatens another's worldview, rejection of that material should be expected.

"Rejection" is one word, I like to use "Challenge" myself. There is a big difference.

I hope!

If this is fraud then why policy makers frame various international protocols like Kyoto etc.? It needs to be discussed with more open mind .

Take the money out of it. Watch how fast it fizzles. NO carbon tax. NO grant money.

To those on this forum who believe that humans are the cause of global warming, here is some food for thought. At the peak of the ice age the ice that covered the northern part of the U.S. was 15,000 ft thick. There was a glacier in the process of forming the 4,600 ft Yosemite valley. Way before human existence all the ice that was on the North American Continent was gone. Scientists have discovered that during the periods prior to the ice age, tropical type plants grew abundantly at the arctic circle. I looks like to me that the current global warming studies are following a money trail. While what is really happening is that nature is trying its best to put the earth back in the same condition it was in when the ice age started. Mother Nature will eventually put the world where she wants it and we as a species will probably become extinct in the process.

Thought I add a little value to this otherwise regurgitated topic.

It's interesting to say, from the ice pack that covered the northern part of the U.S. The weight of it forced the earth's crust down, and since the glacier receded, the crust is still, with a lack of a better word, "bouncing back".

Ya; maybe, the mantle is only 17 miles thick and made of essentially sedimentary rock.

Bounce? The thing that was left behind was the great lakes.

The actual terminology is called 'glacial rebound'.

Interesting thing about the great lakes. It is shaped in a basin and under that, there is a large salt deposit under the lakes. Trillions of tons.

That is a cool piece of information. I assume that the deposits are not in contact with the water because if they were the lakes would be salt water lakes instead of fresh water lakes. Also, there is not a limitless supply of salt mines. For those who might be interested here is a good history of mining salt under and near the Great Lakes. http://www.helium.com/items/1546172-what-is-the-natural-history-of-the-great-lakes. My only concern is the possibility that we may mine enough salt in just the wrong place and have the roof cave in, so to speak, which would drain water into the salt mines. Not being a geologic engineer, I am probably wrong.

Actually when I first started following h the AGW debate and how the oceans are rising what surprised me it that every major place that was initially used as a reference to 'Proof the oceans are rising at an alarming rate' as many put it were areas directly affected by glacial rebound and a similar geological effect of a sort of teeter tottering reaction of sub plates where one end got pushed down by glacial ice causing the opposite end of that localized sub plate to pop up or plate subsidance zone locations.

Now even ten thousand plus years later many of those sub plate locations that popped up on one end are still settling back down while the other ends that got pushed down are coming back up. So if you take your ocean rise reading from locations that are sinking back down, OH MY GOD! the oceans are rising a few meters a century!

If I recall correctly Scotland has a number of locations that have risen or sank over ten meters in the last ~500 years due to this effect which can be seen by old stone sea port docks that are either far inland now and several meters above sea level or by a few others that are now completely submerged by the ocean.

That has happened when mining under smaller lakes, I'm on my iPad, and it's poor at multitasks, Im sure I can find a link to that.

That's one scientist's comment. You want to alter global policy based on one guy? One study? Statistically altered data sets?

Look at the historical climate record... Notice the drastic swings of up to a dozen degree's, the massive changes in climate in various region of the world... Also notice man wasn't there then?

The planet won't have a problem with our effects on it, we'll at best shift the time scale a bit.

What action would you suggest? Outside of optimizing energy usage there is no action to be taken, outside of eradicating the human species from this planet.

That is probably a bit extreme, and in all honesty, the only possible solution to human's effect on this planet.

Ocean acidification disrupting food chains

what is your claim here lyn?

Claim? Claim? No claim. Just adding fuel to the fire.

They do say that the oceans are becoming acidified, due to higher concentrations of CO² dissolving into the water. Probably just propaganda by some radical environmentalist.

I'm just an ignorant farm boy.

Ha, Thats what I thought..............

They do say that the oceans are becoming acidified, due to higher concentrations of CO² dissolving into the water.

Or from SO₂ emmission combining with H₂O creating acid rain.....H₂SO_4.

I'm just an ignorant farm boy.

Your not alone.

Now we are here having discussions by people, even people like myself, who have a limited knowledge of nature. Here is the url to an interesting article; http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php and a follow up article, url http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php clearly shows that humans are not the only culprits in the war against our atmosphere. When ever we broach a subject this deep, we need to get into the research end from all perspectives instead of arguing from a political point of view. This is also interesting url http://geography.howstuffworks.com/terms-and-associations/ice-age2.htm. There is one section in the last reference that states that one theory of the formation of the Pleistocene era is that Volcanic ash and dust caused the greenhouse gasses that keep our earth warm to diminish. That is the one I believe. I studied Geology in college and that was what was taught. Have fun discussing this.

To say that the Earth naturally fluctuates in temperature as proof that man can't be the cause of global warming is ridiculous. It's akin to saying the wind blows naturally, so I can't possibly feel a breeze by turning on a fan.

Can we ignore visible signs of destruction caused by man like deforestation,greenhouse gases,hole in ozone layer,polluting air,water,land etc,spreading diseases by biological weapons,nuclear disasters and so on?.

No, I think the analogy would be closer to:

It's akin to saying the wind blows naturally, so if I turned on a fan it adds to the huricanes in the gulf.