Global warming morphing into climate change is an example of 2 different climate concepts being lumped together to try to give global warming credibility by inclusion as evidence for planetary climate change over millenia is compelling whereas contemporary global warming evidence is not.

I may be mistaken, but it sounds as if you do not believe man-made climate change is occuring.

Okay.

But shouldn't we reduce the cancer causing industrial pollutants being emitted anyway?

The debate (as presented by skeptics) is also presented as if the industrial pollutants being emitted have one and only one suspected negative attribute: climate change.

The skeptics seem to be arguing that since man-made climate change isn't possible, then there is no need whatsoever to reduce industrial pollution.

Why not?

Mecury and a few hundred other industrial pollutants have all been conclusively proven to be "bad" from humans and the environment at large -- yet the skeptics are passionately advocating that stricter industrial pollution regulations are unecessary because these cancer causing industrial pollutants do not affect global weather patterns.

Well that's super but....what about the cancer and birth defects?

Shouldn't we be reducing these industrial pollutants anyway?

What we really have to fight is the totally illogical, yet deeply entrenched idea that doing something about global warming would be bad or even catastrophic for the economy. (See the above posts about Gore trying to destroy us, or about how anyone serious about global warming has to live in a mud hut, etc. - not to mention those who equate people who care about the planet and about future generations with Nazis). - Hans B

Industrial pollution causes a wide variety of health and environmental problems including cancer in humans, lung problems, and birth defects in addition to being suspected of influencing droughts and hurricanes.

Now ask a skeptic if we should pass stricter pollution standards for industrial sites anyway just on the grounds of cancer and birth defects.

The answers is always no.

Their reasoning?

"Al Gore is a commie and wants to destroy America!"

"I'm not living in a mud hut or a cave! That's what those commies want for America!"

"It's all apart of a huge international conspiracy to control America!"

"One world government! One world government!"

Industrial pollution causes a wide variety of problems both to humans and the environment -- and yet the so-called skeptics universally oppose common sense pollution standards on the ground that doing so will lead to the enslavement of mankind by a proto-communistic one world government?

I think it may be time we stop taking the "skeptics" seriously.

Personally I don't buy that the skeptics care one iota about the science. To them this is NOT an arguement about a scientific theory. I also don't buy the arguement that the objection Republicans have is over Kyoto Protocal specifically. Though the Republicans wink and imply that they would whole-heartedly support some vague/undefined pollution agreement at some vague/undefined future date -- I don't believe that.

S'funny how Republicans don't get quite this passionate over any other scientific theory (well, except evolution). Have there been Seantors on the floor pounding their fists on podiums debating the science of whether or not Pluto should be classified as a planet or an asteroid? Nope. Why? Because the political implications of climate change (stricter pollution controls mandated by government) scare the hell out of Republicans and they are fighting like demons to keep those aging, outdate factories in Detroit "as-is".

The Republicans have masterfully framed the disagreement as being over this particular agreement Kyoto -- when the reality is that would vehemently oppose any pollution agreement presented to them (though none would ever been so reckless as to come out and say it plainly)

The fastest way to expose the true agenda is to ask the Republicans what type of pollution agreement they would support. When this question is asked in other forums across the Internet the response is, at first, to refuse to be pinned down to any specific regulations or any specific date for implementation. At first the Republicans will just insist that there exists some far-off mythical "agreement" that both gives businesses total freedom while at the same time, somehow, magically reduces pollution. They would support that mythical agreement. When pressed hard for specifics the answer is always the same: there is no government mandated requirement that they would ever find acceptable. None. Oh, they will support voluntary guidelines, but not requirements. If Congress passed a law simply suggesting to industrial sites that they maybe/probably shouldn't dump 50 metric tons of mecury into our drinking water, sure, they would whole-heartedly support a totally voluntary set of guidelines with absolutely no oversight, enforcement or fines of any kind.

The true agenda of the small government (read: NO government) Republicans is to totally eliminate all environmental standards and oversight. Forget Kyoto, these guys would not support ANY agreement presented to them.

This isn't about the science.

The Republican couldn't care less about the science. What they care about is disproving climate change solely so they can prevent it from being used to create momentum (by Progressive politicans) to enforce tougher pollution standards.