huntmmup wrote:Any greenhouse gas we are releasing. The only question is how much we should be concerned.
Since the only two real things we know for sure are that greenhouse gases cause temperature increase and we're releasing greenhouse gases, all we need to do is try to stop releasing greenhouse gases. If we dont I dont think anything catastrophic is going to happen like a lot of scientists are saying, but I dont get why we shouldn't try. Even if there's just a tiny tiny chance scientists are right, we should try. Really we should try to stop releasing all chemicals into the environment any time its practial, and if it isn't practical we should try and make technologies that will make it practical.
So you can't pinpoint which gasses are of primary concern, and to justify the claim of things being "warmer" you assume all else is equal, which you can't prove. You simply can't prove whether or not the earth can compensate for man's creation of CO2 (I specify CO2 because that's where the leaders of the climate change movement are making their money).
While I'll agree doing what we can to reduce our impact on the environment makes practical sense in some cases, you must agree you can't prove man is the primary or a statistically significant driver of global warming or cooling. As such its a fools argument to try to change human behavior because of the potential effects of warming/cooling.
Doing so in the states is destroying our ability to compete globally. The greenies took too big of a leap on this one. Aiming lower and going after provable threats makes more sense. Take emissions and smog for example. Hard to argue our higher standards aren't of value when you compare Beijing to New York air quality.