Here's a Global warming moral dilemna for you
 

The whole thing is amusing to say the least.

“The decrease in aerosols probably accounts for at least half of the warming over Europe in the last 30 years.

It seems that the leading man-made cause of global warming is environmentalism; specifically, efforts to improve air quality by
reducing pollution, New Scientist reports.

Since 1980, average air temperatures in Europe have risen 1 °C: much more than expected from greenhouse-gas warming alone. Christian Ruckstuhl of the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Switzerland and colleagues took aerosol concentrations from six locations in northern Europe, measured between 1986 and 2005, and compared them with solar-radiation measurements over the same period. Aerosol concentrations dropped by up to 60 per cent over the 29-year period, while solar radiation rose by around 1 watt per square metre (Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2008GL034228)

Clean Air Causing Global Warming?

http://outsidethebeltway.com/library...Study-2008.pdf

Correlation and causation.

Global warming is a scam, and this article sounds like one too. :)

Will Al Gore's head explode now? Please tell me Al Gore's head will explode now....

The sky is Falling, The sky is falling. Funny thing is you don't hear much about that volcano spewing billions of tons of gas and its significance to global warming. I bet if they could figure out a way to blame man for the eruption Al Gore would write another book. Although that Iranian Cleric did say women who wear revealing clothes are responsible for earthquakes. Al Gore, individuals and groups screaming Man Made Global Warming is almost as ridiculous

That is funny

:popcorn: :D we can only hope & wait

I must have missed the memo when stopping pollution took a backseat to global warming, but I guess it must have been the same memo that said throw out science and logic and just believe what we tell you :stickpoke

Why is Climate Change such a hard sell?

Why climate change is such a hard sell - The Globe and Mail

Some excerpts from the article:

• Why has the environment appear to have become another political lobby and why has it become mostly a left wing issue?
• Some of the great environmentalists in the last century were Republicans in U.S. politics and in many ways the underlying environmental idea is that we like to conserve things roughly the way they are. That’s a small C conservative value.
• The public debate should be about how much we want to spend now to protect people 50 to 100 years from now or how much we care about nature on a big scale. They are values in a central way that are not subject to science. Instead the debate is about whether the climate scientists are right

The comments after the article in the link are worth reading as well, a lot of discussion about the industry of doubt, and who drives the polarization of the issue

As an interesting aside, why is this even in the politics forum? - Why isn't it in a science forum? Why are we letting policiticians set the agenda here? And who gives a damn what Al Gore thinks? If he wants to make money out of climate change, does that mean that climate change is a myth? What happened to the scientific process?

Quick, I know you posted the first link as a laugh, but it is a perfect example of what happens when we give idiot journalists a platform. If we had real science education in our schools, people would read the links and laugh at the authors.

JCL:

Sorry I missed the science forum!
Still I'm glad you get it..

I have no dog in the Environmental policy fight.
For me, the whole debate either for or against
is an exercise in irony which leads to pure entertainment.

Some time ago I posted what I thought was the biggest
threat to the environment. (I was joking of course)
Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO<SUB>2</SUB> from cars - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent

True or not I'm still in stitches over the cow fart Climate Change, Environment connection.