Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
309
Meteorologist Jim Ott, formerly of WTMJ-TV in Wisconsin, a member of the American Meteorological Society and a former lecturer at University of Wisconsin, expressed climate skepticism in 2007 of climate fears. "There is no question that the past 25 years have been warmer than average. There is also no question that background levels of carbon dioxide, or CO2, in the atmosphere have shown a slow but steady increase since the late 1950s, when measurements were begun in a remote spot in the Hawaiian Islands. That is where the certainty ends and the questions really begin," Ott, who hold a masters of science, wrote on February 10, 2007. "Evidence buried deeper in the Earth suggests that there may have been four major glaciations in North America, with each period of cooling followed by warming. Theories abound about why the climate changed enough to form the glaciers and then to melt them, but the fact is no one knows for sure what caused those climate changes. One thing we do know: It wasn't anything that humans did. And if we really don't know the answers, isn't it possible that the same factors that caused those climate changes could become active again?" he wrote. "More questions: If CO2 levels have been increasing since the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century, as many scientists surmise, why have we seen some major changes in weather patterns over that time period that don't fit the global warming theory? For example, why were the 1930s much warmer than the 1960s? And why were some of our most severe winters in the late 1970s and early 1980s? Weren't CO2 levels rising during those times? Obviously, other factors besides man have an impact on climate," he added. "If we conclude that from now on only human activity can affect climate change, we are ignoring factors that we don't understand. Could we be in for some unexpected surprises if we assume that the Earth's climate will only get warmer in the coming decades?" he wrote. "Assuming that 25 years of warmer-than-average weather constitutes a long-term, irreversible climate change ignores other periods of anomalous weather that were only temporary. Assuming that human activity is the only factor that will affect the Earth's climate, and that what is happening now will continue in the future, leaves some big questions unanswered," he concluded. (LINK)

3. You have ignored the fact that the Clean Air Act reduced pollutants drastically

Much like traffic regulations are mainly for the rush hour.

Much like traffic regulations are mainly for the rush hour.

What issue was it, what page?

1. You have given no evidence that this was actual science
2. You have ignored evidence of masks being worn in cities because of pollution.
3. You have ignored the fact that the Clean Air Act reduced pollutants drastically from the 1970s by setting standards that cities had to meet in the US. Clean air standards required the reduction of pollutants from automobiles. Since 1970, pollutants from automobile emissions have been more than cut in half despite there being more vehicles on the road

Quote:

What issue was it, what page?

January 1970 Walter. As for the date and page number, I don't know but who gives a ****.
It was nearly 40 freaking years ago for F**k sake.

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=scientists&x=21&y=6
Main Entry: sci·en·tist
...
1 : one learned in science and especially natural science : a scientific investigator <what distinguishes the scientist is his ability to state problems, to frame questions, so that the technicians can make the machines yield facts that are significant ... >

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=science&x=17&y=6
Main Entry: sci·ence
...
1 a : possession of knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding : knowledge as a personal attribute <I speak from science and the voice is fate -- Alexander Pope> b : knowledge possessed or attained through study or practice <science crown my age -- Thomas Gray>
2 a : a branch or department of systematized knowledge that is or can be made a specific object of study <the basic tool sciences of reading, writing, and ciphering> <learned in the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <skilled in the science of evading work> <little interested in cards and such like science>: as (1) obsolete : a trained skill (as in an occupation) (2) : FENCING (3) : BOXING c : studies mainly in the works of ancient and modern philosophers formerly taught as a group or field of specialization (as at Oxford University) d : any of the individual subjects taught at an educational institution in one of the departments of natural science <required to take two sciences to complete a minor> <students majoring in a science> -- compare HUMANITY 3c
3 a : accumulated and accepted knowledge that has been systematized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws : knowledge classified and made available in work, life, or the search for truth : comprehensive, profound, or philosophical knowledge; especially : knowledge obtained and tested through use of the scientific method b : such knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a branch of study that is concerned with observation and classification of facts and especially with the establishment or strictly with the quantitative formulation of verifiable general laws chiefly by induction and hypotheses <mathematical science>
5 : a system based or purporting to be based upon scientific principles : a method (as of arrangement, functioning) reconciling practical or utilitarian ends with scientific laws <husbandry is a science> <a student of culinary science>
...

"Recently I was foolish enough to try to reason with an environmentalist. But it became obvious that he had his mind made up and didn't want to hear any evidence to the contrary. The Pope is more likely to have read Karl Marx than an environmentalist is to have read even a single book that criticized environmentalism."--Thomas Sowell

I am not satisfied with partial quotes and no reference to the science.

I doubt any science projected that a reduction in CO would cause people to wear gas masks. This shows how dishonest your argument is.

All you have done is shown that science CAN reduce pollutants with the help of government regulations. That would be an argument FOR government regulation of CO2.