Comments by "seneca983" (@seneca983) on "'What Percent Of Our Atmosphere Is CO2?': Doug LaMalfa Stumps Entire Panel With Climate Questions" video.

@Texas75023 "I an HAPPY to hear someone in CONGRESS actually point out this problem is the size of MOUSE NUTS. 0.04%" But the problem isn't small at all. What matters isn't the carbon dioxide concentration directly but rather how much warming its increase can cause. The warming from human caused greenhouse emissions is large enough to cause damage to human society and thus there is a good reason to limit emissions (even though that's not free either).
4
@johnlacey3857 Climate science has good evidence of it.
3
He seems to claim that the rising carbon dioxide concentration isn't a problem because it's a small part of the atmosphere. However, that's a bad argument. The problem isn't the concentration directly but the warming it can cause which in turn can cause damage to human society.
2
You can't expect legislators to be experts on everything or even most things. Similarly, legislators working on, say, healthcare regulation probably can't tell you that much about human microbiology (e.g. what kind of white blood cells humans have and how they function). Legislators working on chemical industry regulation likely can't tell you the ionization potential of most atoms. Same goes for other fields also. This is completely normal.
1
@DmitryShultz "I heard CO2 is not the main thing to fight anymore" Where have you heard that? Probably not from climate scientists. "Probably because it is hard to argue for this being correlated and being the driver of the climate change number X. Especially when all the X-1 changes happened before humans even existed." It's not hard. We know what wavelengths carbon dioxide absorbs and we can model the effect it has on average global temperatures. That climate has also changed in the past due to reasons other than human activity is not much of an argument. Let's take an analogy. Suppose you have a lake and its water level varies based on e.g. rainfall etc. Then suppose you dam the river flowing out from the lake raising the water level. Could you then argue that you building the dam has nothing to do with the rise of the water level because it has changed in the past due to other reasons? No, that's nonsense. We know how such a dam can raise the water level and we also know (roughly) the effect of carbon dioxide on the climate.
1