Air Pollution and Global Warming

[cybercoma]

Activists would have you believe that climate change is the most pressing issue facing society today. Former President Clinton called global warming, "one of the two or three major issues facing the world over the next 30 years," and Greenpeace calls global climate change one of the greatest threats to the planet. But what about air pollution? Doesn't that have a serious impact on our health and wellness in the here and now? As I've pointed out in other threads, global warming models show a huge amount of uncertainty towards CO2 concentrations in the future and the cooling affects of particles, organic carbon (as opposed to black carbon), mineral dust, land use changes and aviation induced clouds are virtually unknown. This amount of uncertainty makes it near impossible to determine exactly what the earth's temperature will be into the future and therefore how severe the problem of global warming will be. Chemicals in the air we breathe create a whole list of health related problems to people who live in the most polluted areas of our country, but we don't hear as much about that, why?

Things, in general, are getting better, that's why. There are many types of air pollution but the most important ones are paraticles (smoke and soot...which ironically enough create global cooling), sulfur dioxide, ozone, lead, nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide. These are the six air pollutants that the EPA has National Air Quality Standards for in the United States. The costs per person, in particular the health effects of these pollutants, have actually dropped significantly (from $3,600 per person to $1,300) since the late 70s.

Airborne particles, smoke, and lead in the US and UK have dropped significantly since 1980. One of the many reasons for this is emission standards for vehicles and unleaded gasoline (thank you oil companies for improving our environment *gasp*).

SO2 emissions were regulated throughout the 80s due to fears of acid rain and there has been a substantial drop in SO2 emissions since then

Ozone (O3) is created by an interplay between NOx and hydrocarbons. O3 and NOx are what primarily causes the brown smog you see over cities like Toronto. Ozone is not believed to have any actual life threatening effect though. The UK Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards found that this smog is likely to have no long-term effects. Regardless, peak concentrations in the United States has declined by almost 30 percent since 1977 and in the EU they're estimating crop exposure to ozone (because it damages yields) will decline by 25 percent from 1990 to 2010.

Nitrogen Oxides cause respiratory problems and lung infections in children and asthmatics. It should be noted that it's far less dangerous to human health than particles, lead and SO2 and it hasn't been linked to excessive mortality yet. The concentration of NOx in the US has dropped 38 percent since 1975. In Canada it has been reduced 32 percent since 1980. Catalytic converters in cars have eliminated much of the NOx in the air. The reduction is not greater because the formation of NO2 is dependant on O3 which has also been reduced.

Carbon monoxide has also dropped by almost 75 percent since 1970 (in the US) mostly because catalytic converters in cars reduce CO emissions. The concentration of CO in the atmosphere was never high enough to pose a significant risk to human life.

As you can see the activists want to stay clear of the air pollution problem because it has vastly improved since the 1970s. The advent of new technologies and the costs to companies through regulations and bans have made it such that we are breathing much cleaner air today than we were back then. The gears need to be shifted to a new topic, global climate change. Since our air is much cleaner and healthier than it was, there must be a new bandwagon to jump on. Did they pick the right problem to tackle though? Global Climate change has many variables which are not yet understood. The concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere into the future is mostly a guessing game, the cooling affects of particles and whatnot is mostly unknown, so to determine the actual rise in temperature is near impossible. That's why we no longer hear "global warming" because it is impossible to determine to what extent the globe will warm, another change in gears was needed so they began labelling it "global climate change."

There is no immediate threat to health and mortality rates from global climate change, though. What we need to do is take the time and invest in the science to help us better understand the climate and the seemingly endless interplays between the different elements. We need to have a broader understanding of our climate as a whole and what the severity of the situation actually is. Throwing money at rising global temperatures, even though we don't actually know how much they will rise, is totally irresponsible. Demanding that CO2 emissions be cut may be a good thing, but at what cost? Does the cost of reducing these emissions make the benefits valuable? We're yet to even understand what the temperatures will be if we do nothing...how do we know what affect we're having on it if we do cut CO2?

There are many unanswered questions and we need to fund scientists to find these answers before we go diving headfirst into a solution with unknown affects to a largely uncertain problem.

[jbg]

My view, as is well known, is that climate change is cyclical. It will be a d@manble problem if sea levels rise, given the number of people who inhabit low-lieing areas. To tie that to human activity defies logic.

[gerryhatrick]

My view, as is well known, is that climate change is cyclical. It will be a d@manble problem if sea levels rise, given the number of people who inhabit low-lieing areas. To tie that to human activity defies logic.

With all due respect, your view is irrelavent. You are not a scientist.

The debate is over, humans cause Global Warming. Anyone still attempting to deny that simple truth is either dishonest or unable to deal with the truth.

[cybercoma]

The debate is over, humans cause Global Warming. Anyone still attempting to deny that simple truth is either dishonest or unable to deal with the truth.

Point to where anyone said humans DON'T cause global warming.

[gerryhatrick]

The debate is over, humans cause Global Warming. Anyone still attempting to deny that simple truth is either dishonest or unable to deal with the truth.

Point to where anyone said humans DON'T cause global warming.

jbg called it "cyclical".

And you posted this topic calling Global Warming "activists" frauds and made an attempt to claim that we just don't know if there's a real problem or not.

[cybercoma]

And you posted this topic calling Global Warming "activists" frauds and made an attempt to claim that we just don't know if there's a real problem or not.

You don't know if there's a problem or not. You can't accurately claim what CO2 concentrations will be in the future, nor can you make any claims as to what the global temperatures will be. Having said that, you can make no assumptions on the impact those things will have on the environment or our climate.

Here's a link with a list of people who aren't debating...

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/april2006/15/warming.html

"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase, used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming, and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time, due to natural causes, and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land, and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change, and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.

Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.

Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility, and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.

Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Department of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa.

Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa.

Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards.

Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Department of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario.

Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Department of Economics, University of Guelph, Ontario.

Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant.

Dr. Andreas Prokocon, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology.

Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member, and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa.

Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.

Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Department of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta.

Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.

Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Department of Economics, University of Victoria.

Dr. Peter Chylek, adjunct professor, Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax.

Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.

Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta.

Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Virginia, and Sioux Lookout, Ontario.

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.

Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary.

Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ontario.

Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, New Jersey.

Mr. George Taylor, Department of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists.

Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia.

Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia.

Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review.

Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.

Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand.

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia.

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics and geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.

Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California.

Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville.

Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota.

Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health).

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland.

Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Department of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy and Environment.

Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), and an economist who has focused on climate change.

Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey.

Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway.

Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand.

Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC, and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001," Wellington, N.Z.

Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut.

Dr. Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.

Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.

Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service.

Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society.

Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University.

Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.

Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book, The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland.

Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland.

Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden.

Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California; atmospheric consultant.

Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Oregon.

Dr. Arthur Rörsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food, and public health.

Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist.

Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K

I know...I know....they were all paid off by the oil companies.

[jdobbin]

I know...I know....they were all paid off by the oil companies.

Actually, they are. This has been well documented. And these people well discredited.

Only 19 of these people are Canadians, most are not climate scientists. One of the people who signed has recanted.

A week later, a letter was sent by 90 scientists who are actually Canadians.

http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2006/05/02/Pa...yGlobalWarming/

Dr. Tim Ball was once my professor. He hasn't taught nor had a peer reviewed paper in many, many years.

[jbg]

With all due respect, your view is irrelavent. You are not a scientist.

The debate is over, humans cause Global Warming. Anyone still attempting to deny that simple truth is either dishonest or unable to deal with the truth.

jbg called it "cyclical".

And you posted this topic calling Global Warming "activists" frauds and made an attempt to claim that we just don't know if there's a real problem or not.

I am tired of rudeness substituting for reason. You're quite correct. By vocation I am not a scientist. However, I did enough with weather during earlier periods in my life that I know how to read a document, or an extract or extrapolation from a document. I know enough to recognize the various caveats and hedges in the documents purporting to assert that global warming is a human-caused problem. I also am quite capable of reading and appropriately sampling weather and climate data from disparate time periods to see whether or not there is a discernable trend.

Taking New York City as an example (and I know NYC is not the globe, notwithstanding the views of many of its residents), there were a series of winters in the early 1950's where it barely snowed, and the temperature rarely dropped below -5 Trudeau Units (a/k/a Centigrade). During each winter during the period between the 2000-1 winters and this past winter, except 2001-2, the snowfalls have been over 98 Trudeau Units (cm.) and the temperatures during all of the winters, except 2001-2 and 2005-6, often had days where the daily high stayed below -8 Trudeau Units for days at a time.

Granted. This proves nothing. Neither does melting snow on Kilimanjaro.

[jdobbin]

Granted. This proves nothing. Neither does melting snow on Kilimanjaro.

I think we should let the peer reviewed scientists to demonstrate their claims. The Conservatives though want to avoid any peer reviewed work. They wish to discredit science.

[jbg]

Granted. This proves nothing. Neither does melting snow on Kilimanjaro.

I think we should let the peer reviewed scientists to demonstrate their claims. The Conservatives though want to avoid any peer reviewed work. They wish to discredit science.

As I've said elsewhere, peer review operates to force conformity to current views of political correctness. Back in the day conservatives were autocratic about supposed "commie" influence in universities. Now it's the fascism of the left, punishing any who deign to doubt global warming, affirmative action, or that Quebec is some sort of "nation".

[jdobbin]

As I've said elsewhere, peer review operates to force conformity to current views of political correctness. Back in the day conservatives were autocratic about supposed "commie" influence in universities. Now it's the fascism of the left, punishing any who deign to doubt global warming, affirmative action, or that Quebec is some sort of "nation".

The goal of the right is to claim all science is theory so as to discredit it.

[B. Max]

As I've said elsewhere, peer review operates to force conformity to current views of political correctness. Back in the day conservatives were autocratic about supposed "commie" influence in universities. Now it's the fascism of the left, punishing any who deign to doubt global warming, affirmative action, or that Quebec is some sort of "nation".

The goal of the right is to claim all science is theory so as to discredit it.

No you have that backwards. The goal of the left is to take theory and computer models and hold them up as factual science, while at the same time dismissing real science and discredit those who present it.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

[jdobbin]

No you have that backwards. The goal of the left is to take theory and computer models and hold them up as factual science, while at the same time dismissing real science and discredit those who present it.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

What scientists have put their name to this paper? None.

The publisher of the site Milloy has been discredited with his connections to big tobacco and thoroughly embarrassed FOX News when it was disclosed thus.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_Milloy

http://info-pollution.com/milloy.htm

http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/Dow/junkscicom.htm

Just as the Friends of Science in Canada is paid by oil industry trying to hide in the tall grass, Milloy is paid by polluters.

[Rue]

O.k. so am I to believe the National Science Academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia the U.K. and the U.S. are all wrong? That seems like a lot of idiots...

Am I also supposed to ignore the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well?

I mean these scientists and people like David Suzuki I am supposed to write off as quacks?

Look all I know is there is a hole in the ozone layer bigger then the continent of North America over Ant-Arctica this year and the biggest ever and that there has been a 40% decrease in the ice thickness of the Arctic not to mention it is pretty obvious to all us non scientists that the weather patterns across the Globe have changed dramatically.

As an avid amateur bird watcher I can tell you migratory patterns of birds are completely and absolutely f..cked up.

But let us be specific. The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change if I am not mistaken said in their third assessment report that the planet is expected to warm between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees centigrade between 1990 and 2100 and that over the last 100 years the temperature went up .6 degrees centigrade.

Correct me if I am wrong but the debate is not on whether the globe is warming but whether we as humans are contributing to that warming and making it warm faster that it would otherwise.

Sorry but I just can't stick my head in the sand and not believe industry and co2 emissions and sulphur dioxide and all the other toxic stuff we spew into the air or from burning fossel fuels is not adding to or

exasperating the increase in temperature. It just sounds too much like someone telling me there is no link between cancer and smoking. It just doesn't seem to make common sense.

All my limited pee brain knows from reading is that it would appear everyone does agree that the defininition of problematioc climate change is said to be an increase in the global average surface temperature of 2°C above the pre-industrial level. That doesn't seem too much to me.

Again I admit I am a pee brain not a scientist but I read scientists say there needs to be stabilization of atmospheric GHG concentrations at 400 ppmv of CO2 equivalent to prevent the earth from warming too quickly and to guarantee thi means the world has to find some way to reduce global GHG emissions to somewhere between l30-50% below the 1990 level by 2050.

I have also read industrialized countries will have to reduce emisions by 25-30% between 1990 and 2020 and by 85-90% between 1990 and 2050.

Seems to me we are not only ignoring the above which is a daunting task, but now we have people saying, don't worry be happy.

It just seems to me it is obvious between coal burning, cars, and indutrial pollution we have contributed to warming of the planet far more then would would have ordinarily happened and there is ample proof of that.

Yet some of us just want to carry on ignoring all the obvious signs of nature like we do not have to do anything.

Seems to me we have to find alternative fuel and energy sources, give tax rebates for emission decreasing products and for me again being a pee-head non scientist, I think lowering co2 emissions is part of the same struggle to find a way to stop polluting the air and the earth and its all inter-related not seperate.

But I know. For some of you its no problem if we all just stop farting.

[B. Max]

No you have that backwards. The goal of the left is to take theory and computer models and hold them up as factual science, while at the same time dismissing real science and discredit those who present it.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

What scientists have put their name to this paper? None.

The publisher of the site Milloy has been discredited with his connections to big tobacco and thoroughly embarrassed FOX News when it was disclosed thus.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_Milloy

http://info-pollution.com/milloy.htm

http://www.trwnews.net/Documents/Dow/junkscicom.htm

Just as the Friends of Science in Canada is paid by oil industry trying to hide in the tall grass, Milloy is paid by polluters.

All part of the smear campaign by the gloom and doom industry, fear merchants and scare mongers. The facts are the facts and that can't be changed or disputed. Steve Milloy, freinds of science or whoever have every right to put out the facts and the oil industry also has a right and obligation to see that the facts are presented. For you say someone has been discredited because of association is ridiculous in the extreme. I guess that's all one has when they can discredit the scientific facts.

[Argus]

Granted. This proves nothing. Neither does melting snow on Kilimanjaro.

I think we should let the peer reviewed scientists to demonstrate their claims. The Conservatives though want to avoid any peer reviewed work. They wish to discredit science.

Demonstrated how, precisely?

[Argus]

As I've said elsewhere, peer review operates to force conformity to current views of political correctness. Back in the day conservatives were autocratic about supposed "commie" influence in universities. Now it's the fascism of the left, punishing any who deign to doubt global warming, affirmative action, or that Quebec is some sort of "nation".

The goal of the right is to claim all science is theory so as to discredit it.

Why?

[B. Max]

O.k. so am I to believe the National Science Academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia the U.K. and the U.S. are all wrong? That seems like a lot of idiots...

Am I also supposed to ignore the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well?

If the AP is referring to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the AP should become aware that the IPCC report itself (the part written by scientists) reached no consensus on climate change. What did reach a conclusion was an IPCC "summary for policymakers" prepared by political appointees.8 Most reporters quote only the summary, being either too lazy or too undereducated to understand the actual report. This does not explain, however, why reporters don't more frequently interview scientists who helped prepare it -- scientists such as IPCC participant Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, who says the IPCC report is typically "presented as a consensus that involves hundreds, perhaps thousands, of scientists... and none of them was asked if they agreed with anything in the report except for the one or two pages they worked on." Lindzen also draws a sharp distinction between the scientists' document and its politicized summary: "the document itself is informative; the summary is not."9

http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032204.html

[Argus]

O.k. so am I to believe the National Science Academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia the U.K. and the U.S. are all wrong? That seems like a lot of idiots...

Am I also supposed to ignore the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well?

I mean these scientists and people like David Suzuki I am supposed to write off as quacks?

Universities are places which enforce a terrible conformity, especially on their staff. They are also ideologically left wing with little tolerance for independant views.

A teacher who refused to sign such a document, when pushed in front of him, could see his chances of tenure evaporate,a professor could be mocked and ridiculed, forced to take more classes, see his funding fade.

I am NOT saying this is the reason so many people are so quick to sign such things, but it could well play a part.

You see, Global Warming is not just a science, it is a religion. Its strongest proponents are all political ideologues of the worst order who will attack like rabid pit bulls any scientist who expresses disagreement with any aspect of their holy work.

And again, I am NOT saying that Global warming is not reality, or that it isn't caused, in large part or small, by our CO2 emissions.

I'm saying it has become so politicised that I don't trust what anyone says.

[watching&waiting]

I already posted in a thread earlier where the world's oceans have cooled off quite a bit from 2003 to 2005, and none of the present doom and gloomer could explain that. Not even Suzuki and he wanted to just leave that data out because it did not correalate with the models etc. Shame shame David. I am a biochemist, and I just do not take things that others say. I will say that yes there is global warming, and to a small degree man is adding to that. Most people will agree that mans contribution is very low single digit percentage of the effects. Mans pollution is far worse and by far more important to our health then the greenhouse gases are. Pollution is inthe here and now, and that is where we should spend our time and money. The greenhouse gases are so far off to being critical that is why they use 100 year models. This is not hocus pocus or voodoo science. This is just plain ordinary fact. Anyone that tells you otherwise is lying.

The last time when we had the big black out and they were very few people with power and things were all shut down for a few days, the air quality in southern Ontario was not really changed by much. Now that should tell you some things. Or look at the data when the great ice storm hit and it was almost a week without power etc. The air quality got worse due to people using woodstoves and fireplaces and generators. So how do all these environmantalists explain all this. Their answer, we should have cut back even more and done without less energy etc etc etc. That just make their group sound even more physcho then they are already.

[jdobbin]

Why?

So that evolution can be replaced with intelliegent design, so that smoking can be regarded as not dangerous, so that you can place a smelter in the heart of Calgary and say it is the smell of success.

[jdobbin]

All part of the smear campaign by the gloom and doom industry, fear merchants and scare mongers. The facts are the facts and that can't be changed or disputed. Steve Milloy, freinds of science or whoever have every right to put out the facts and the oil industry also has a right and obligation to see that the facts are presented. For you say someone has been discredited because of association is ridiculous in the extreme. I guess that's all one has when they can discredit the scientific facts.

Milloy is no scientist.

The oil industry tries to hide its funding of activists like Tim Ball. These people don't actually do any research.

[jdobbin]

And again, I am NOT saying that Global warming is not reality, or that it isn't caused, in large part or small, by our CO2 emissions.

I'm saying it has become so politicised that I don't trust what anyone says.

If the government suspects the data, by all mean do research on it. Outside a university if that helps.

But if those people are not trained in science and are economists and the like as the Friends of Science are, their work is not credible.

[jdobbin]

I already posted in a thread earlier where the world's oceans have cooled off quite a bit from 2003 to 2005, and none of the present doom and gloomer could explain that. Not even Suzuki and he wanted to just leave that data out because it did not correalate with the models etc. Shame shame David. I am a biochemist, and I just do not take things that others say. I will say that yes there is global warming, and to a small degree man is adding to that. Most people will agree that mans contribution is very low single digit percentage of the effects. Mans pollution is far worse and by far more important to our health then the greenhouse gases are. Pollution is inthe here and now, and that is where we should spend our time and money. The greenhouse gases are so far off to being critical that is why they use 100 year models. This is not hocus pocus or voodoo science. This is just plain ordinary fact. Anyone that tells you otherwise is lying.

I don't think scientists are deliberately leaving data out. Peer reviewed means that experiements need to be duplicated over and over and deliver the same evidence. If they cannot, they are not science fact.

If there anomalies, let the research examine it and offer up reason for it.

[B. Max]

All part of the smear campaign by the gloom and doom industry, fear merchants and scare mongers. The facts are the facts and that can't be changed or disputed. Steve Milloy, freinds of science or whoever have every right to put out the facts and the oil industry also has a right and obligation to see that the facts are presented. For you say someone has been discredited because of association is ridiculous in the extreme. I guess that's all one has when they can discredit the scientific facts.

Milloy is no scientist.

The oil industry tries to hide its funding of activists like Tim Ball. These people don't actually do any research.

No one said he was. He compiles the research points out the misrepresentation of the junk science. The oil industry is hiding nothing. In fact they have helping to expose the agenda of the anti capitalist one worlders. An agenda we want nothing to do with.