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.

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?

You can give your money to the world banks to pay for carbon offsets or just go ask Al Gore, he owns a carbon credit outfit. I’m sure he can ease your conscience from turning the heat on, driving your car to work or living by selling you a few, well there will be a small nominal charge… your children’s future. - Dr. Sun

Okay. I admit it! Climate change is all an international hoax.

But that doesn't change the fact that mecury in additional to a few hundred other highly toxic industrial emissions have all been scientifically proven (even by YOUR strict standards) to be universally harmful to the human body.

Shouldn't we impose stricter industrial pollutation requirements anyway -- regardless of climate change -- just on the fact that these industrial pollutants cause cancer?

Okay, fine! You win! There is no climate change! It was all a big lie.

But what about the birth defects caused by industrial pollution?

What about the massive dead zones and fish kills caused by industrial pollution?

What about the cancer caused by industrial pollution?

Shouldn't we be requiring stricter industrial pollution standards regardless just to reduce the amount of cancer and birth defects?

You can give your money to the world banks to pay for carbon offsets or just go ask Al Gore, he owns a carbon credit outfit. I’m sure he can ease your conscience from turning the heat on, driving your car to work or living by selling you a few, well there will be a small nominal charge… your children’s future. - Dr. Sun

Okay. I admit it! Climate change is all an international hoax.

But that doesn't change the fact that mecury in additional to a few hundred other highly toxic industrial emissions have all been scientifically proven (even by YOUR strict standards) to be universally harmful to the human body.

Shouldn't we impose stricter industrial pollutation requirements anyway -- regardless of climate change -- just on the fact that these industrial pollutants cause cancer?

Okay, fine! You win! There is no climate change! It was all a big lie.

But what about the birth defects caused by industrial pollution?

What about the massive dead zones and fish kills caused by industrial pollution?

What about the cancer caused by industrial pollution?

Shouldn't we be requiring stricter industrial pollution standards regardless just to reduce the amount of cancer and birth defects?

Keep in mind: this debate is all about whether we should require stricter industrial pollution standards or not. The so-called "skeptics" are insisting no tougher standards are needed because climate change is all a "hoax." The sole reason they are fighting this hard -- the only reason -- is out of a buring desire for science, but because they are terrified to the point of irrationality about government requiring aging factories in Detroit to upgrade their equipment.

I ask the skeptics: why are you so terrified of upgrading the outdated industrial emission systems in a 65 year old factory in Detroit?

Why does that terrify you?

That is ALL this debate is over.

Note these same people really don't care (at all!) about any other scientific theory. Why do they care so passionately about this one? Because the solution to the problem is upgrading outdated pollution control in factories and for some unknown reason these (*cough*Republicans*coughs) skeptics are terrified of that happening.