>Bob,
>
>Take a look at the graph here:
>
>http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html
>
>Do you honestly see any difference between 'today' and the peaks 130,000, 240,000 and 330,000 years ago? Those dramatic rises in CO2 concentrations were in no way related to industrial pollution. As I've stated before, I'm all for reducing emissions but I hate to see bad science.

Why is it "bad science"? As I read the site you reference above there is still a big question regarding the RATE of change compared to the (paleo) historic record. Seems reasonable to me that something that may have occurred over 1,000,000+ years has the potential for significantly different results if it happens over 5,000-15,000 years.

That graph does not show "bad science".


>
>
>>Well it really depends on how pollution is defined. Many things are just fine in some concentrations in some forms, but become problematic in larger quantities or in different venues. For example, radioactive elements in the ground usually isn't considered a pollutant (I know Radon may be an exception) and when properly controlled in a reactor, again not considered a pollutant, dump some in a drinking water reservior, hugh pollution.
>>
>>So if you would provide a definition of what you think pollution is and some examples of what you consider real pollutants, that would be helpful.
>>
>>Bob
>>
>>PS: This graph indicates to me that CO2 risies to a level of concern.
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CO2-by-country--1990-2025.png
>>
>>
>>>Saying that CO2 is a pollutant (let be honest, it happens in pro-warming circles, implicitly- all times) is scientifically wrong. It's the same as saying that nitrogen or oxygen are pollutants. Too much of those gases will kill you too, if it's something that you're trying to imply.
>>>
>>>>Almost anything in too large a quantity can be a pollutant. The point was never simply that CO2 is a pollutant, it's that generating too much CO2 is dangerous to the planet. I take it that you feel there is no such thing as too much CO2.
>>>>
>>>>>My point was specific to one gas only: carbon dioxide. Is it a pollutant or not? Consider it as a simple scientific question.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hello Ed,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Kinda surprised on your take,
>>>>>>Try asking the folks in Los Angeles their take.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I do not go overboard towing the global warming line..
>>>>>>It's sorta like religion, hard to prove or disprove, but that doesn't mean you should stop trying to convience people that less pollution is good, better stewardship of the planet is good, consuming less resources is good.
>>>>>>(like not killing is good, not stealing is good, helping the less fortunate is good)...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No matter how you slice it, pouring out tons of dangerous gasses daily while draining the worlds reserves by wasting it and/or not caring is not good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Bob
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Bush and Exxon are in public relation business so they have to look more flexible than ordinary web posters. Certainly, less pollution is good, but when carbon dioxide is called a pollutant the question is what's the next? By this 'scientific' appoarch anything or anyone could be called a pollutant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>John,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Even Bush and Mobile/Exxon have backed away from that position! But we should take your word for this over the vast majority of scientist. At any rate, producing less pollution and using renewable resources and trying to improve things for the next generation are worthy goals, regardless.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Bob
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Hello Terry
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I agree it's hypocritical, but at least he is bringing attention to the problem while others hope it just goes away quietly (like the Iraq Mess :)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Bob
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Assuming there is a problem. Global warming is junk science to garner political attention for research grants/money.