You are correct that there remains ambiguity in the science. The synthesis report I’ve linked to in other comments categorizes that lack of surety at 10%. That leaves the veracity of the facts and the threat at 90%. Isn’t it government’s constitutional responsibility to act concerning a national threat with such a probability of being realized? Pointing out reasons for the 10% ambiguity’s validity amounts to little more than agreeing with what has been reported on, while being in denial of the other 90%. BTW, are you aware that the League of Conservative voter supported ACES, flaws and all?

I live in the Hudson Valley on the side of the Hudson Highlands. I can concur regarding the improvement in air quality. I can remember how quick the clean Canadian air filled up with pollution when it rolled in, After one day the Catskills were obscured, the second day the ‘Gunks disappeared, and by the third or fourth it was hard to see Newburgh, 10 miles away. Thanks to the Clean Air Act of 1970, 1977, we both experience clearer air.

As an aside I still cannot safely eat freshwater fish as I once did due to mercury levels in them. This condition is caused by Ohio coal burning power plants avoiding the legislative intent of the Clean Air Act and dumping their pollution out of stacks so tall that the lakes from Ohio to Maine are affected. State attorney generals here in the northeast have cooperatively sued the EPA to have the Act enforced as intended only to have new regulations created by executive order to again avoid the clean up. Ironically ACES will again strip the EPA of court enforced powers.

The appearance of the Asian Brown Cloud you reference has its origins with our Clean Air Act. Maine used to be known for shoes, Newburgh used to make pocketbooks. “Made in the Far East/Not in the USA” _IS_ something we did. We’re still (at least until recently) buying the sneaker and pocketbooks from the industries that went East (and took the pollution with them) to avoided the Clean Air Act.

As a blue collar worker, you are right about the US being poorer relative to jobs and their pay. Wall Street, however, is richer. So who is the “we the people” of the Federal Government, Main Street or Wall Street? Doesn’t the Federal Government tend to Wall Street first? If so, to set ourselves free, don’t we first have to reclaim the Constitutional power the Constitution gives to Congress back from Wall Street . . . or do we will only get poorer and pretend this is not the case? To do the latter would certainly be stupid.

Anyway, can I trouble you for some links to blog posts here that layout a systemically better plan that what I have framed with the four Constitutional crises that need redressing should we are serious about protecting and defending the Constitution with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?

DAR
Oh, I found some new information on this so lets smack this favorite hobby horse of Blake’s yet, ONE more time:

***
The supposed “global cooling” consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can’t make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.

The ’70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.

But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.

The study reports, “There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.

“A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales.”

LINK.

And that was 35+ years ago. We’ve learned quite a bit since then. So please update your (dis)information.

D.

DAR
Why would I roast them? I don’t take them seriously and neither does anyone else. I am sure you didn’t notice (I did), that none of them are CLIMATOLOGISTS. You don’t ask a plumber to tune your piano and you don’t look to these fellows for accurate scientific information about the complex and very specialized science of climatology.

BIGD: Or this list of them who doubt GW?>>

DAR
This is more CRAP based upon the model of the Oregon Petition which I have roasted many many times. Including all of the other variants which clueless deniers continue to put together and pass around.
If you had read past the headline at your link (I did), you would know it is filled with “scientists” who are not climatologists. Hell, if you had even read just THE SECOND sentence in the article *at your link* you would have known better than to cite it. To quote:

“It should not be interpreted as a list of global warming skeptics. Inclusion is based on specific criteria that do not necessarily reflect skepticism toward climate change caused by human activity, or that such change could be large enough to be harmful.”

BIGD: [quote] “Professor Tim Patterson testified…”>>

DAR
Yes, I have roasted Tim Patterson to a crisp on our forum, repeatedly. His training is in Biology, and Geology. On climate change, his head is up his arse and he is a prostitute/shill for deniers via the Friends_of_Science astro-turf group which I have written extensively about on our forum (they changed their name when busted for lying about their funding). He has no credibility whatsoever outside of his field of training, which has nothing to do with climate change. On GW he is a politically motivated, hack.

To read a good synopsis of the sordid history of this cast of clowns, see the link above, or use the search engine on our forum.

D.
—————-
As I posted in August of 2006:

“These people are ignorant. Well-meaning, but just plain ignorant,” fumed Ian Rutherford, executive director of the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, which represents 800 Canadian atmospheric and oceanic scientists and professionals.

The Friends of Science are driven by ideology and some kind of a misplaced understanding of how the world works. Many are what you would call paleogeologists…

None of them ever come to our scientific conferences. They know they would be laughed out of the building. The stuff they say, some of it is so nonsensical it’s hardly worth discussing.”

http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3057#p3057

Or this:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, “There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.” Patterson asked the committee, “On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming?” Canada Free Press