Vicodin. Vicodin side effects. Buy vicodin no rx. Liquid form of vicodin. Vicodin no rx….

Except that is not the case. You must have read that in a newspaper or on a blog.

The science would be every single peer-reviewed academic paper published on the subject. It would be the extraordinarily simple-to-understand mechanism by which carbon emissions raise the global mean temperature. It would be the obvious implications of those temperature rises, in the range they are projected to reach.

Your comments here, with their ultra-narrow focus on pollution that you, personally, have witnessed, are very telling: you are clearly not capable of looking beyond anecdotal evidence at the big picture. I have many political sympathies with libertarians, but their glib dismissal of the scientific method (when it suits their ends) is a fatal flaw.

Posted by: MikeF | Jan 17, 2009 8:13:13 PM"

MikeF,

and, that science would be, what?

Everytime I begin to think that there might be a socialist with two brain cells to rub together I am brought back from the brink by simply reading anything a socialist might attempt to write.

I am Brother Torquemierduck of the Church of AGW. You DO NOT want to get to know me. Or my Inquisition.

The world is getting warmer and it is the fault of the human race! Your science is meaningless to us! We know AGW is true because His Holiness: The Divine Prophet Algore I says it's true!

Surrender your liberty! Surrender your wealth! Or Mother Gaia will surely die! You have been warned…

Oh yeah! LOL, someone had some time on their hands, but we have all heard just about every one of those being blamed for global warming at one time or another.

Our part of the world is much cleaner than it was 30 years ago or even 60 years ago. We should be proud.
Posted by: John Dewey | Jan 16, 2009 9:28:09 AM"

I don't argue that point John, I realize that. However, when I can climb the mountain benches west of Boulder, Colorado on a Sept noon, and at the altitude of approximately 500 feet, look back East over the city and see a dense dirty orangish brown pall over the entire front from Denver to the South, to North of Boulder, then I would argue that we could do more.

Let me also mention that I can see that same pall, less dense but unmistakable, hanging over Houston on many days when I drive in from the South from my home. I used to see that pall, as dense, hanging over Salt Lake City and even coming around the point of the mountain to cloud the Tooele Valley.

Those palls over places of high population density come from something, John, and it isn't my imagination. So there is still much work to be done and work that can be done if the will is there.

Here is a point, John, in the 100 years plus that humans have been using the internal combustion engine remarkable little progress has been made towards making them more efficient and less polluting.

And I speak here of an "in comparison" with other wide spread technologies, such as electronics, medicines, physical fitness philosophies and mechanical aids, weaponry, etc. Our science and devotion to improving those to perfection is evident but when it comes to the internal combustion engine, not a lot has been done to improve the basic technology. After 100 years I would rationally expect really interested people to have come up with something like zero emissions by now.

Look at the way humans handle their waste, and ask yourself just how much progress has been made in the last 100 years in improving reducing the pollution caused by that. There are some serious problems developing in this arena. We have stuff today that simply will not breakdown for an extremely long time, if ever; it's not like it was back in 1909 when the problem could be solved by hauling it to low density places and tossing it. Too many humans and too much waste because of them. Even if we all actually heeded good manners and put all of our waste in trash bins for collection, we still have a serious problem.

Anyway back to the dirty air, yes it is cleaner, no it is not clean. If good scientific minds aren't focused on the problem of finding solutions then it will very likely get worse again as the population increases.

Vidyohs: LOL, hey STrUmPiT, repeated Katrinas, dustbowls, famines, (skin) cancers, deaths, etc., etc.

Damn dude, you forgot acne, sexual dysfunction, unpopularity, bad breath, pigeon toes, hangnails, ingrown toenails, knockknees, rush hour traffic, slow elevators, rude cops, crooked courts, rough-riding horses, dull movies, political correctness, Tv of all kinds, bad referrees, Official review, damn them libertarian global warming deniers anyway. Just be the ruination of the world, eh sprout?

It's even better than that. Here's an exhaustive list.

Use preview and hover your mouse pointer over the link text and check the address in the status bar.

Link?

Here's a nice one:

http://tinyurl.com/create.php

This allows you to take a long URL and convert it into a short URL. Makes posting links a lot easier.
.

Well, there is just one problem. According to multiple satellite measurements as well as radiosonde measurements from balloons, such warming is NOT occurring. Go here and see for yourself: Satellite Measurements of the Tropical Troposphere

Now, what do the global warming people say about this? They say those satellites measurements do not disprove global warming theory, because out of the 13 major climate models they are using, some of those models predict little or no warming. Think about that for a minute.

So their explanation for the satellite data depends on the fact that their collection of models includes some models that predict little or no actual global warming. Go here and read this if you don’t believe me: LINK

Nothing wrong at all with reducing air pollutants. Over the past 38 years we've done exactly that in the U.S. One rarely hears good environmental news via the mainstream media, but its out there to report.

Way back in 1971, Congress charged the EPA with reducing the airborne levels of six primary pollutants. Since then, the U.S. population has grown by 50% or more. Vehicle miles traveled have doubled. Real U.S. manufacturing GDP has soared. Yet the U.S. emission levels of the 6 primary air pollutants have been cut in half.

Response from the left? Gotta find a new "pollutant" – CO2 – and new "theories" to scare the nation into ceding more control to the central planners.

Our part of the world is much cleaner than it was 30 years ago or even 60 years ago. We should be proud.

Sorry, I was driving Eddie Van Halen’s 1956 Chevy Nomad around the block.

Had to refill twice….

Bjorn Lonborg is not an economist with professional ethics. It only watches you what it happens in the rest of the world as the andean glaciers defrosting and the water sources are lost for million of Latin American people. Its opinion (Lonborg) is not important in Latin America. We reads preferent to Stiglitz, D. Aceglemu and others very importants economist.

Jorge

Reduced quality of life wasn't very well received in the November elections.

That being said, and dismissing global warming in all its factors from the rest of my comments; what would be wrong with eliminating smog in cities, airborne chemical pollutants from plants, finding a way to actually create workable benchtop nuclear power plants that free humans from the control of oil, there are things that can be done if people can ever harness government and bring it back to its primary purpose as stated in the Constitution.

I don't see human produced pollution as a threat to the global climate, but the case can be made that it is a threat to humans at ground level.

We have a suburb of Houston where most of the chemical plants are, and that suburb is called "Stinkadena" instead of Pasadena. On most days it lives up to that label. I kind of think that if government wasn't protecting those plants that those plant owners could find a market based solution to the release of chemical pollutants. Especially if an irate consumer base used the boycott method of persuasion. It might cost them and cut into their profit margins, but personally I have no problem with that.

The one thing about the ability of market based solutions to be effective is drawn so sharply by the illegal drug industry. The government has sunk billions and billions into the (so-called) effort to close those markets and the government has not made even a dent in the availability or the price. Marke based solutions would fix the pollution problem if government would just GTF out of the way.

In the 300 mile or so thickness of the atmosphere, human produced pollution in uncomfortable or dangerous levels is concentrated in the thin layer next to the Earth's surface, from ground up to maybe half of a mile, after which that pollution thins out rapidly so that only small amounts of gases or pollutants ever reach the upper regions of the atmosphere. Here I might mention that one only need to reflect on the past brou ha ha over the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctica that caused us to ban Freon to have sufficient doubt that such miniscule pollutants have only a very tiny effect on the climate.

Could we make that 1/2 mile thin layer we live in cleaner? Absolutely. Could it be done without draconian governmental laws, regulations, and coercion? Absolutely.

Think about it. Like any reasonable mule people will follow someone leading them; but the same people, like the mule, will kick the shit out of anyone who gets behind them and starts pushing.

We don't have a damn soul in D.C. that I'd trust to move my mule without him/her getting hoof prints on their body.