Posted by NoMoreBreadAndCircuses, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Jan 6, 2008 at 8:19 pm

It appears fom the article that the "researchers" presumed at the outset that carbon dioxide causes the temperature changes responsible for global warming, although this is hardly a scientifically established fact.

This "study" then simply links increases in temperature to increases in air pollution and therefore the death rate, an already well established connection.

So what exactly do we have here? Not much it seems.

It looks like a case of agenda driven, garbage-in-garbage-out science.

The kind that is all too prevalent today, tailor made to sucker the unscientifically trained mind.

Posted by GetYourHeadOutOfTheSand, a resident of the Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks neighborhood, on Jan 8, 2008 at 9:18 am

NMBAC, The presumption you're referring to is one that 90-plus percent of climate scientists support. What are your scientific credentials?

The name you choose for yourself is ironic. Your "argument" echoes that of the special interests who are trying to squelch intelligent, scientifically based discussion on climate change with circus-style smoke-and-mirror strategies. But your PT Barnum methods don't fool us.

Posted by NoMoreBreadAndCircuses, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Jan 8, 2008 at 4:13 pm

My friend, 90+% is a gross exaggeration. I think you are not interested in a real answer here -just a fight.

However, without trampling on my own or others privacy, I will try to explain my position.

I grew up in a family of prominent scientists. Some were experts in the fields of chemistry and engineering and others were involved in biological and medical research. From an early age I was fascinated by the miraculous functioning of nature. And I deeply admired those who's diligent, honest and ethical work contributed to the betterment of mankind.

I followed my family into a career in research. I went to a prestigious university with a highly rated program in my chosen field.

To my shock and dismay, I saw first-hand there how science can be manipulated to meet the "needs" of publishing schedules and personal or political agendas. I saw the ugly politics of grant awards -what does and doesn't get funded and why. And who benefitted.

My peers and I were forced to either participate in or keep our mouths shut about unethical practices. Otherwise our grades would suffer or we could be dropped from the program. Some of us chose to leave the program in disgust.

Unfortunately this kind of situation was not an isolated one. Today, ten years later, it is becomming much more common.

Yes, I do have the technical background to tell a proper study from a sham like the one above. Not all studies -even honest ones, carry the same weight of scientific certainty and import. And then there is the big game of who and what kind of studies get the grant money. There is pressure to say what is expedient rather than what is true to insure future funding.

You bring up special interests. Are you ignorant of the power and financial resources of political special interests? These are the special interests that have a stranglehold on climate science now -with the cooperation of the corrupt agendas of those who have entrenched themselves in the university setting.

Science itself is being suborned and we are being given "bread and circuses" instead. It seems that the P.T. Barnum methods of the man-made global warming proponents have fooled you.

Quality not quantity of science is what counts.