What huge and blatant  lie?

That there were WMD in iran? Sorry i mean Iraq, sorry i mean North Korea!!!

One should read this before reading whats on that website

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

Yeah your name calling website used to deny the truth.

The evidence is THERE! Yet you wish to deny it based on following a propoganda site for your side.

Junk Science comes with evidence for all their claims.byour inability to examine their content comes at your own bigotry.

> Junk Science comes with evidence for all their claims

Except their "evidence" makes no sense.

As I already pointed out, their "evidence" is based on subject reaction to only <TWO hours of exposure to pollutants.

That's like saying if you get shot once and survive, then repeated gunshots also won't hurt you. Does that sound logical to you?

Flint, your source is 100% trash! This is a fun website, c&p from the content:

What is junk science?

Junk science is faulty scientific data and analysis used to advance special interests and hidden agendas.

Examples of special interests include:

    The media may use junk science to produce sensational headlines and programming, the purpose of which is to generate increased readership and viewership. More readers and viewers mean more revenues from advertisement. The media may also use junk science to advance personal or organizationsl social and political agendas.
    Personal injury lawyers, sometimes referred to simply as trial lawyers (as in the American Association of Trial Lawyers or ATLA), may use junk science to extort settlements from deep-pocketed businesses or to bamboozle juries into awarding huge verdicts.
    Social and political activists may use junk science to achieve social and political change.
    Government regulators may use junk science to expand regulatory their authority, increase their budgets o advance the political agenda of elected officials.
    Businesses may use junk science to bad-mouth competitors

"Does it really surprise any one what this "study" has found? Affects of air pollution on health isn't something reproduce-able by sticking someone in a polluted environment for 23 min - 2 hours."

So why did the government run the test at all?

> ~Wornstrum~ wrote:

> > Justinian I wrote:

> Global warming is obviously false. However, there is climate change, except it's global cooling. Next ice age coming up!

And what evidence do you have to support this theory?>

Over the past ten years, average local temperatures have a pattern of dropping.

> Purin wrote:

> One should read this before reading whats on that website

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

Win

Also, the years before that it was hotter on average...I think anyhow (do not have time to research this thoroughly today), but I do remember some rather hot years in the 90's (droughts and such in Australia...still is droughts in some parts)...so what you are saying, is that there WAS global warming, and NOW global cooling of the start of an Ice Age? Wouldn't be better to plot the highs and the lows of every station and then not measure averages but the movement within those targets? I mean, if station A has a historical high of 46C but also had years that occured where it never got above 20C, seeing a year where the average was 39C might see it above average but nowhere near the hottest on record (Yo, Global Warming. Imma let you finish, but Venus has the best greenhouse of ALL TIME). Furtheremore, doesn't solar output of the sun also factor into the heat of the Earth? I say this because most of the last 10 years we were in solar minimum

So I ask again, why do you think there will be an Ice Age? (I wonder if anyone knows the reason for the last Ice Age? and if there is a recurring pattern now?) There is nothing to back up your claims that the Earth is cooling (just because we see some cold years, were they the coldest on record? do we see a downward trend of temperatures? etc)

"Wouldn't be better to plot the highs and the lows of every station and then not measure averages but the movement within those targets? I mean, if station A has a historical high of 46C but also had years that occured where it never got above 20C, seeing a year where the average was 39C might see it above average but nowhere near the hottest on record (Yo, Global Warming. Imma let you finish, but Venus has the best greenhouse of ALL TIME)."

You're thinking like flatearther denier..."Show me the data"...only a denier would demand the data!! You have the consensus! That's enough! Obey!

Unlike the Ozone Layer crisis, which could be measured by taking a UV meter outdoors anywhere on earth and comparing your reading with the one from 1950, the Global Warming Theory is only seen by running meteorological data into a computer that corrects for errors you would make if you did it with books and a roll of butcher paper, for instance, giving each thermometer reading equal weight.  You noob; clearly some air temperature is more equal than others.

Anyhow they CAN'T try your stone age antiscience method of comparing station by station.  See back when Stalin was trying to kill 3 million invading Germans, he noticed his aircraft kept vanishing behind friendly lines.  This was because his pilots had to make journeys over a thousand miles on schedule - or people got shot for inefficiency- but the USSR didn't have enough weather stations to give accurate readings for 1000 miles.   So Stalin gave the job of tracking weather in the USSR to the military.  Which they did up to 1991.  Then 2/3 of their weather stations were closed.  So we don't HAVE the same weather station reports from that 1/8th of the earth's surface.  Don't worry, the Global Warming Batcomputer can "correct" the averages for this human error.