I have no idea where you are in your thinking my friend. Perhaps you were struck by something in that intersection.
I presented what I've learned, including the massive release of CO2 into the atmosphere. Another poster attempted to present a rebuttal, but only established that these releases could stay in the atmosphere for centuries. I have no idea how you have concluded I suggested atmospheric CO2 was not impacted by these events.
Perhaps before you complain about the right and science, you should strive to improve your ability to comprehend what you are reading. It would make the complaint so much more impactful.
To her Wall Street owners: Hillary Clinton: “But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. so, you need both a public and a private position.” - Hillary Clinton: "I'm kind of far removed from the struggles of the Middle Class"
The only way you could ask how those fires did not affect the climate while human activity did is by ignoring the effect both have had on increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. If you considered the CO2 concentrations, you wouldn't have asked because CO2 concentration is the answer - specifically, those fires did not raise the CO2 concentrations higher than they are today.
And if you spent as much time trying to understand how forests have affected the concentrations levels as you have spent on trying to win the internets, you'd understand why human activity has increased CO2 concentrations to the point that they affect global warming but the forest fires you speak of did not. (Hint: because of human activity, there is less carbon locked up in forests and guess where most of it went?)
"You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)