[thecavemaster]

As many proponents of the global warming hoax so often do, you have resorted to tossing red herrings into the debate. Of course, anybody with a basic understanding or chemistry or biology knows that neither gas is toxic to humans, animals, or plants.

High concentrations of CO2 and/or methane in a confined space reduces the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, which can lead to asphyxiation but the victim will die with a healthy set of lungs if they were healthy before death.

FYI, smoke and carbon monoxide are products of incomplete combustion, neither of which have anything to do with the debate over the global warming hoax.

Those of us who believe that the anthropogenic global warming theory is being promoted as mechanism for governments to exert more control over their citizens are generally not opposed to tightly regulating the emission of actual pollutants into the air and water.

Trying to paint opponents of the global warming hoax as anti-environmentalists is a cheap shot but then you already know that, don't you?

I do not know your overall views on the environment. I believe the earth is a living ecosystem. Based on what I've read, which isn't exhaustive nor complete, I think present levels of pollutants are unsustainable... and are amping up warming per climatological trend studies. Am I right in concluding that you think human activity upon the earth has nothing to do with the climate whatsoever? That a human activity correlation/causation theory as to global warming is a sinister plot to move us closer to one world government? Is that close to accurate?