Since the impacts of air pollution are global, at least it would affect everyone the same, not just those along shorelines and in drought stricken or tornado prone areas.

Sucks really for us inlanders already hacking from the Ohio Valley coal smog..

Give a hoot, go and pollute!

"This resulted in a net 10% increase in the amount of carbon stored by the land once other effects were taken into account," she was quoted as saying by the Press Association.

I wonder what the other effects are that need to happen before we get the 10% increase.

This is a bull shit story with no supporting data or information to actually prove what the article is saying.

Yep, pollution is good for the earth, what bull shit.

I wonder who funded this, coal mine corporations and the other polluting corporate hate global warming idiots.

This is a bull shit story with no supporting data or information to actually prove what the article is saying.

Yep, pollution is good for the earth, what bull shit.

#3 | Posted by moneywar at 2009-04-24 12:34 AM | Reply

From the article, which MW apparently did not read ....

"The research was published in the scientific journal, Nature. "

Sorry vern,

but through all of nature and have not found the article, thanks for posting the front page though.

Bull shit article once again with no data to back up what is being said, as usual you vern show again why your a WOB.

Another story wot Spud read earlier on at the Drudge Retort parody site run by that increasingly erratic hermit with the largest walk-in hat closet in all of Florida.

Wot are the odds?

So, the "rock and a hard place" of the GW/CC debate is getting a little more press now?

That's nice thinks Spud.

Ya here's the deal...

If we continue to pollute? The atmosphere becomes increasingly unhealthy and it's a bad thing.

If we decrease pollution? GW starts occuring at a faster rate and that's a bad thing.

Damned if ya do and damned if ya don't.

Give a hoot, go and pollute!

WooT!

Woodsy Owl references FTW!

Be Well.

Bull shit article once again with no data to back up what is being said, as usual you vern show again why your a WOB.

#5 | Posted by moneywar at 2009-04-24 01:21 AM | Reply

I found it just fine (it may be because I'm a paid online subscriber; it's a business-related expense. One of my businesses is recruiting lab assistants, so I like to know what people are working on).

I posted the front page because there are a number of pollution-related articles. I found the one about China's air pollution interesting, in part because I live in Taiwan, and a lot of China's air pollution blows over here.

"Nature" is among the toughest scientific journals to be published in. I've known scientists who consider seeing their research published in "Nature" as a high point of their career.

One guy said that their peer review process is so tough it would make God sweat.

But, I know what I'm talking about. And you clearly do not.

Pollution also fights breathing.

Clearly this a reason to pollute to the max. Also recommended is dumping of toxic waste into the water table.

Clean air and water is highly overrated.

#4 | Posted by vernon

So, according to your logic we can discount anything published by the huffington post, the nyt, moveone.org etc?

Bull shit article once again with no data to back up what is being said, as usual you vern show again why your a WOB

lets consult the greatest bullshiter of all,al gore to tell us if this story is bullshit.

Seems like only yesterday they said pollution was causing global warming.

I feel everyone in America should be paid for wrong assumptions. Or we could send in our opinions to the government for a certain amount of money. Then they can get a real consensus. Better yet, shuffle some of those billions in grant tax dollars the peoples way and let them type up their own press releases.

Now that is change I can believe in.

"Air Pollution May Reduce Global Warming"

So would a nuclear winter. Let's nuke Iran for the environment's sake!

if ya didn't like the "Nature" folks, these guys prolly won't do much for ya either

Haven't y'all seen the Clean Coal commercials on the tube lately?

Burning coal actually cleans the air. Ahem.

Hey did You know some people in olden days used to chew on coal to clean their teeth?? Learned that during a Durango Silverton Narrow Gauge RailRoad ride. It doesn't taste too bad really.

Larry

Sucks really for us inlanders already hacking from the Ohio Valley coal smog..

#1 | Posted by northguy3 at 2009-04-24 12:18 AM | Reply |

You can thank those carbon credits for that.

rwd

Learned that during a Durango Silverton Narrow Gauge RailRoad ride

I took that same train ride in the '60s. They never told us about that, but my sister got a cinder in her eye from the train and my dad had to find a doctor to take her to.

It is physically impossible for You to have taken the same train ride in the 60's cause I wasn't even whipped up baby batter yet.

Larry

It is physically impossible for You to have taken the same train ride in the 60's

I think that train has been running since the 19th century, Larry.

I was watching Glen Beck the other night, and he was hilarious.

He went back and read info from the first Earth Day about global freezing and the predictions, NONE OF WHICH were even close.

So, the same idiots that cannot tell me if it will rain tomorrow are somehow supposed to guess what the temp will be like 20 to 100 years from now?

Oh... and why don't I see more info about that big multi-year UN study that discovered that the global temps had actually gone down?

The dirty little secret is that they don't care about global warming or cooling or aliens that want to probe your ass... they care about gathering power and money.

Doesn't matter if they put and D or an R beside their name... that just gives you a hint on what they want to waste your money on.

But, I know what I'm talking about. And you clearly do not.

#7 | Posted by vernon at 2009-04-24 08:35 AM | Reply

Moneywar?

Hello! KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK!

Are you there? Hellooooooo-oooooo?

we can discount anything published by the huffington post, the nyt, moveone.org etc?

#9 | Posted by chickenrancher at 2009-04-24 07:17 PM | Reply |

I'm sure that Huff, NYT. moveon, etc, take truth and accuracy very seriously. |They each must have dozens of editors poring over stories for accuracy.

After all, you already know that you can trust Huff, NYT and the rest for thoughtful, thorough and honest reporting.

I give just as much credence to this as I do the man-made global warming theory.