1. Ozone smog was much worse in the 1960s, during a time when climatologists were panicked about an impending ice age.

2. Here are some pictures of the "worst flood in living memory" in the UK, also from 1968 when climatologists were worried about an impending ice age.
http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?p=999&gid=3721996&uid=570503

In other words, smog and floods have nothing to do with CO2, but politics and scientific funding has everything to do with CO2.

Why ask? EVERYTHING that is bad is caused by AGW.

It's pretty ironic that AGW deniers are the same people who were against measures to curtail smog many years ago.

As far as England's flooding -- no, no singular event proves AGW. However, the deniers continue to tell us that this flooding proves AGW doesn't exist.

Funny that.

Opportunists or those with a lack of knowledge would automatically link the two. Everything is a "victim" of AGW in this day and age.

Trees are very powerful allies in keeping global warming at bay. They literally take in carbon dioxide and store this inside their wood, releasing oxygen in the process. Smog, which can be acidic, can do considerable damage to trees. You can see how trees become unhealthy in highly-polluted environments.

It's really a shame to see this happening since trees like pine can soak up much of the carbon dioxide in the air even at concentrations predicted in the near future, even as they grow faster as a result of this. The question is if they can survive the stress of living in such harmful air and still be able to do what they do best.

Read about the research on trees in this link to TheNewsRoom: http://www.thenewsroom.com/details/515820?c_id=wom-bc-ar

There's more of this kind of news in TheNewsRoom. Please email jtowns@voxant.com to find out how great news can help you promote awareness on global warming.

- Alvin from TheScienceDesk at TheNewsRoom.com

Last year, when the UK was going through a very dry period, several researchers were quoted by the Financial Times saying that the Brits should get use to it -that AGW will cause excessive droughts all over the world. This summer, the Financial Times has quoted scientists from the same research centers telling Brits to get use to frequent floods- that AGW will cause catastrophic floods the world over.

The AGW alarmists have had to rely on individual weather events to drive home thier points regardless of the scientific absurdity of thier claims. Droughts, floods, blizzards, heatwaves, can all be explained by AGW. The hysteria has been built to such a degree that yesterday, there was a news article from Nevada that blamed rising temps in Reno and Las Vegas on AGW. However, when checking Las Vegas's 65 year trend, one finds that the temps averaged 2 deg F warmer in the 1940s, and that the recent warming in Las Vegas since 1985 was only .2 deg F. Does anybody ever check the facts anymore?

As far as England's flooding -- no, no singular event proves AGW. However, the deniers continue to tell us that this flooding proves AGW doesn't exist.

REPLY: You mean like the 500 dead in Hungary from the excessive heat that you conveniently pointed out in a previous, thread, eh Mark??? You are just too funny anymore!

The Denier

Mark,

You and your ilk keep bringing up how deniers were against regulations of curtailing emissions and cleaing up the air through EPA regulations some 30 years ago. Speaking for myself and others I know , we deniers were not against this for several reasons. It was obvious that all of the pollutants that were spewing from factories and power plants were unhealthy to people and it was a logical request to clean up the emissions. There was no magical boogie man back then, the problem was "scientifically proven and indisputable" that it was unhealthy and the technology was there to scrub the pollutants from the exhaust at a marginal cost. And guess what, it worked. Does it add cost to our daily lives? Sure it does. Replace your catalytic conveter on your car sometime and see how expensive it can be, just as one example. To clean up the air, it is worth it. Mr. Mark, getting rid of CO2 is not cleaning up the air. To try and link this success story back then(in the US and other responsible countries) to ridding the world of something that is healthy for plants and no harm to humans bothers me that you can not see the difference between the two scenarios. No one will tell you that cleaning up emissions back in the 70's was a bad idea no matter how many times you keep saying that we did. Sure CO2 is an emmission, just not a bad one. I refuse to give up breathing or expelling CO2, but I promise that I wont expell any carbon or other harmfull emissions from my mouth, this is my pledge. Quit linking these two and saying, see we are right just like in the 70's, because they are not one in the same despite how much you want to use this as the feather in your all natural fiber hat.

Stephen Sitch of the Hadley Centre in Great Britain states that ozone smog will accelerate global warming by damaging carbon emission absorbing plants and trees.

Yet the weeds in my back yard are growing at an ever increasing rate. The only damage that I've seen is the damage I've inflicted on them with the bush hog.

This article fits the template for producing at least an article a week on the horrors of the Modern Climatic Optimum.

The AGW twits will continue to assault us with this garbage until we, the deniers/skeptic/realists/whatever, submit.

"As far as England's flooding -- no, no singular event proves AGW. However, the deniers continue to tell us that this flooding proves AGW doesn't exist."

Mark, prove that it DOES exist! AGW supporters use this stuff to try to show it exists, but you sure throw in the sarcasm when "deniers" do the same.

Paul,

The Hadley Centre are the geniuses who predicted with 95% certainty a hot summer in the UK this year.

The Prime Minister must have a short memory. The Thames river has a history of flooding, far worse than this event, which is erroneously being deemed as the worst in recorded history. England has had huge floods every so often that make this one look small.

Unfortunately, London is sinking at an alarming rate of approximately 30 cm or 12 inches every 100 years allowing each successive flood to extend further inland, worsening the situation.

Britains Prime minister should bone up on his own history. He must have an alterior, political motive for blaming Global warming, like "let's raise taxes to save ourselves from this dilemma".

Patrick,

Lucky for them that the rains are keeping the temps down, eh?

"REPLY: You mean like the 500 dead in Hungary from the excessive heat that you conveniently pointed out in a previous, thread, eh Mark??? You are just too funny anymore!"

I bring up weather events to mock people like you and Patrick, who post weather events every day as if it somehow disproves AGW. Obviously, the sarcasm is lost on you.

"It was obvious that all of the pollutants that were spewing from factories and power plants were unhealthy to people and it was a logical request to clean up the emissions. There was no magical boogie man back then, the problem was "scientifically proven and indisputable" that it was unhealthy and the technology was there to scrub the pollutants from the exhaust at a marginal cost."

Oh, was it really "scientifically proven and indisputable?" Me thinks you have revisionist history. We went through the same things. Corporate apologists saying polluted air wasn't that bad for you, and making corporations clean it up would do more harm than good. It's the same story with the anti-environment crowd. Heck, we have right-wingers today who defend the liars who told rescue workers the air quality was perfectly safe at Ground Zero.

I'd like to know how many died last winter in Hungary from the cold. I've read several articles that stated a good percentage of the dead from these heat waves are so weakened already from other causes that the heat just finalizes the process. They would have died in a couple of days anyway without the heat. That being the case, the death rate should drop below normal for a few days after the heat wave breaks.

The point of posting low temperature trends (over several months) which defy the climate models, is to demonstrate that the climate models are not yet of much value. Also to cast doubt on the accuracy of broad press releases from certain sectors of the NOAA.

This concept should not be difficult to understand. It should also be easy to understand that a few random hot days in the northern hemisphere in July are not surprising or interesting.

London's all time wettest summer was 1903. Perhaps it was due to all the horse drawn carriages pumping out methane - aka FGW (flatulent global warming)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/weather/article2155410.ece

every health expert knows only too well that the most significant risk to human health is not due to warmer temperatures, but to cold winters and cold stress. In Europe and Russia alone, more than 100,000 people die on average each year as a result of cold temperatures during the winter months.
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-03-10/coldkills.htm

Brett;

The IPCC report makes the following regional projections concerning precipitation:

Likely to increase in most polar and subpolar regions. The increase is considered especially robuts in most of northern europe, Canada and the northeast US and Arctic and during the winter in northern Asia and the Tibetan Plateau.

Likely to decrease in many subtropical regions, especially at the poleward margins of the subtropics. The decrease is considered especially robust around the Mediterranean and in winter of south-western Australia.

Extremes of daily precipitation are likely to increase in many regions, especially in Northern Europe, South Asia, East Asia, Australia and New Zealand.

Since England is part of Northern Europe, he is correct.

Patrick Henry:
Thanks for the link on the cold related deaths.

"This concept should not be difficult to understand. It should also be easy to understand that a few random hot days in the northern hemisphere in July are not surprising or interesting."

Conversely, cold weather in Argentina or Australia or Antarctica isn't interesting, either -- it's winter down there.

Andrew,

The polar regions in both hemispheres have produced persistent and deep polar air masses that have been drive farther south than the climatological norm. Surface station in hundreds of locations in the Southern Hemisphere have reported record cold temps (South Africa, Seychelles, Austrailia, Tasmania, New Zealand, Peru, Chile, Argentenia, Brazil, and Uraguay). Most of North America has seen record low 30 year temp Anamolies this year (especially Summer), and the North Sea, Scandanavia, and Eastern Europe has below normal temps (using raw temp readings). In short, the polar and sub polar regions have cooled in 2007.

That's great JP;

It's good to know that nature is bucking our ghg warming. I hate trends in any direction