More on Global Warming

[Skilly]

machabby said:

"Hysteria"

It's interesting how many times that word gets used by people questioning the science of climate change. With respect, as far as I can see, the hysteria surrounding this issue is all about how it is a huge conspiracy to make Al Gore money or to destroy "our" way of life by sending "our" jobs and "our" resources to third world countries. With the dire consequences that have been predicted for decades to result (and seemingly are resulting) from not only pollution and "environment related" issues but also from a host of other issues, it's a bit of a wonder that there isn't mass hysteria.

Despite surveys showing that the majority of Canadians expect "the end of the world" to come within their or their children's lifetimes, despite (perhaps exagerrated but not baseless) fears of widespread terrorism, or of massive economic collapse within a decade, 99% of people are living their lives exactly as they always have, saving money and planning their futures as though the world will remain largely the same for decades to come. This is not hysteria. If anything, we're living in a waking coma.

Thats all well and good ... but surveys and opinions and polls are not proof under the scientific method. Show me cause and effect.

Hysteria - an uncontrollable outburst of emotion or fear, often characterized by irrationality, laughter, weeping,

The media is pushing the populations inner fear buttons with all this data they have that they are assuming could be caused by global warming. But it could very well be caused by something entirely different. That's irrational, not logical, very unscientific, and the very definition of hysteria.

[franko]

machabby said:

It's interesting how many times that word gets used by people questioning the science of climate change.

Just as interesting hearing how many times that word gets used by people questioning the possiblity of economic change/collaspe.

With respect, as far as I can see, the hysteria surrounding this issue is all about how it is a huge conspiracy to make Al Gore money

Actually, I have to admire him for being so astute as to grab onto an issue and make it work for him (and I don't mean that in a negative way). Not talking about his movie or being on the speaking circuit, but his green opportunities.

or to destroy "our" way of life by sending "our" jobs and "our" resources to third world countries.

Hysteria breeds hysteria: for every action . . . . It's always the kooks and the way-outers that get the attention. Then again, even the moderates ain't so moderate.

Despite surveys showing that the majority of Canadians expect "the end of the world" to come within their or their children's lifetimes, despite (perhaps exagerrated but not baseless) fears of widespread terrorism, or of massive economic collapse within a decade, 99% of people are living their lives exactly as they always have, saving money and planning their futures as though the world will remain largely the same for decades to come. This is not hysteria. If anything, we're living in a waking coma.

Same as it ever was. The end of the world is near . . . oh, the threat passed, let's get on with life.

It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine

[franko]

ropoflu said:

As its name implies, the Kyoto protocol is not a sealed deal (vs the Kyoto pact or treaty for example) and yes it is mostly symbolic as it is right now.

Someone should probably tell our some of our opposition leaders then.

When interviewed yesterday Elizabeth May continually called it a "treaty"; Mr. Dion says that it cannot be altered and that we are responsible to follow it.

[Cranky]

franko said:

ropoflu said:

As its name implies, the Kyoto protocol is not a sealed deal (vs the Kyoto pact or treaty for example) and yes it is mostly symbolic as it is right now.

Someone should probably tell our some of our opposition leaders then.

When interviewed yesterday Elizabeth May continually called it a "treaty"; Mr. Dion says that it cannot be altered and that we are responsible to follow it.

Imagine the economic destruction that awaits us once any of these fear mongers comes to power. All in the name of FEAR POLITICS.

I use to loathe politicians, now I just simply hate them.

[franko]

ropoflu said:

As its name implies, the Kyoto protocol is not a sealed deal (vs the Kyoto pact or treaty for example) and yes it is mostly symbolic as it is right now. But its still a much needed call for global cooperation. And it's a negotiation process because cooperation can't be forced on entire populations and their governements. The Kyoto protocol has a clause thats specify that it should be adjusted and adapted to new scientific evidence and political evolutions. It's just a mean to determine the means toward the end we want.

disgruntled70shab said:

Suzuki says the government must meet the terms of the Kyoto Accord, but the Conservative plan would only achieve the targets by 2025 - which is 13 years too late.

[MC Habber]

franko said:

ropoflu said:

As its name implies, the Kyoto protocol is not a sealed deal (vs the Kyoto pact or treaty for example) and yes it is mostly symbolic as it is right now. But its still a much needed call for global cooperation. And it's a negotiation process because cooperation can't be forced on entire populations and their governements. The Kyoto protocol has a clause thats specify that it should be adjusted and adapted to new scientific evidence and political evolutions. It's just a mean to determine the means toward the end we want.

disgruntled70shab said:

Suzuki says the government must meet the terms of the Kyoto Accord, but the Conservative plan would only achieve the targets by 2025 - which is 13 years too late.

The kind of "adaptation" that is needed would make the targets harder to achieve, not easier. Adaptation doesn't mean taking almost twice as long to meet the targets as was agreed upon, when environmental conditions have only gotten worse.

[Cranky]

machabby said:

franko said:

The kind of "adaptation" that is needed would make the targets harder to achieve, not easier. Adaptation doesn't mean taking almost twice as long to meet the targets as was agreed upon, when environmental conditions have only gotten worse.

Which enviromental conditions? The great lakes are getting cleaner, the air is getting cleaner. Cars are 100 times cleaner then they were 30 years ago. Sure, there is far more work to be done but the sky is definatly not falling. Or are we talking the all encompassing, all singing and dancing, mutli talented, "human caused iincrease in CO2 causing global warming"?

[Cranky]

skilly said:

Thats all well and good ... but surveys and opinions and polls are not proof under the scientific method. Show me cause and effect.

Hysteria - an uncontrollable outburst of emotion or fear, often characterized by irrationality, laughter, weeping,

The media is pushing the populations inner fear buttons with all this data they have that they are assuming could be caused by global warming. But it could very well be caused by something entirely different. That's irrational, not logical, very unscientific, and the very definition of hysteria.

Don't you know that you are suppose to suspend common sense and drop your IQ to room temperature every time someone mentions "global warming". Bah...soon there will be all night vigils and processions to the Carbon Gods to spare the righteous from the impending end of the earth.

[Skilly]

machabby said:

The kind of "adaptation" that is needed would make the targets harder to achieve, not easier. Adaptation doesn't mean taking almost twice as long to meet the targets as was agreed upon, when environmental conditions have only gotten worse.

So let's say we meet our goals. And the scientists say "great we are all living greener but guess what, the levels are the same". Then what? We go further? When does someone actually sit down and look at this scientifically? And not just make conclusions without going through the scientific process.

[MC Habber]

habsaddict said:

the air is getting cleaner

I'd love to see some evidence for this claim.

habsaddict said:

Cars are 100 times cleaner then they were 30 years ago.

How are you measuring that? Cars today get essentially the same mileage as they did 30 years ago.

[MC Habber]

skilly said:

machabby said:

The kind of "adaptation" that is needed would make the targets harder to achieve, not easier. Adaptation doesn't mean taking almost twice as long to meet the targets as was agreed upon, when environmental conditions have only gotten worse.

So let's say we meet our goals. And the scientists say "great we are all living greener but guess what, the levels are the same". Then what? We go further? When does someone actually sit down and look at this scientifically? And not just make conclusions without going through the scientific process.

I strongly disagree with your assertion that there has not been a scientific process. But, ignoring that for the moment, what would you suggest that we do? It would be completely irresponsible to continue the current practice of virtually ignoring the environmental impact of our actions.

[franko]

MC, I agree that we do not bury our collective heads in the sand. There is a pollution problem. If I recall just a few years ago the world was about to end because of an ozone hole, then global warming, now climate change.

I have a problem with the environmental industry and constant fear-mongering and its-never-enough-ism . . . with an accord/treaty/whatever that puts the onus on countries that are attempting some small improvements while giving major polluters immunity -- and even going so far as to subsidizing their activity (carbon credits to China).

[Carbon credits will not lower emissions. They are a bad idea.]

[Skilly]

machabby said:

skilly said:

So let's say we meet our goals. And the scientists say "great we are all living greener but guess what, the levels are the same". Then what? We go further? When does someone actually sit down and look at this scientifically? And not just make conclusions without going through the scientific process.

I strongly disagree with your assertion that there has not been a scientific process. But, ignoring that for the moment, what would you suggest that we do? It would be completely irresponsible to continue the current practice of virtually ignoring the environmental impact of our actions.

As I stated before ... it is going to take co-operation and not (to rob a Darrell Waltrip word) co-opetition. (Waltrip merges co-operation and competition when talking about Nascar racers helping each other on the track)... anyhoo

I my mind, there needs to be a summit involving the leading reknowned scientists on both sides. Every respected profession has peer review. So lets have all the data that both sides have and lets sit down and discuss. It may take years, but at the end of the process we should have scientific conclusions on the matter. I don't think changing our lifestyle is going to save the environment any quicker, it will show we cared more though, it needs to be done globally - so we need their (other countries who are exempt) and our scientists on the same page, as well as scientists on both sides of the coin. The fact their are scientists speaking out against our effects on the climate, means that the scientific process has not been followed through until the end, IMO.

What did it for me was world reknown glacierists and hurricane monitors whose data were used to prove conclusively that we are affecting climate change and global warming, and then they have to come out and right papers refuting the conclusions saying that there is not enough data to support the claims - that the conclusion was made first. I believe HA posted a story in another thread regarding the hurricanes.

[franko]

Shoes, the environment . . . it's all the same.

[MC Habber]

franko said:

MC, I agree that we do not bury our collective heads in the sand. There is a pollution problem. If I recall just a few years ago the world was about to end because of an ozone hole, then global warming, now climate change.

The ozone hole was not a fantasy. The problem was identified, solutions were put in place, and it has now mostly recovered. It's one of the few times when humanity was able to work together to solve a collective problem.

Global warming is just an instance of climate change.

[MC Habber]

skilly said:

The fact their are scientists speaking out against our effects on the climate, means that the scientific process has not been followed through until the end, IMO.

That's where we disagree. There will always be scientists whose opinions differ from scientific consensus, and that's ok. There are even people who think that gravity is a "pushing" force - that the sun holds us down because it pushes us with more force than the Earth. I wouldn't call those people scientists, mind you, but there are actual scientists who disagree with theories that are widely held in the scientific community. In a sense, there is no "end" to the scientific process; you can't expect to convince everyone.

When it comes to global warming, it's worse, because it doesn't matter how many scientists agree with the findings, there will always be people who will deny it for political/financial reasons and try to create the impression that the science is uncertain. I think there has been sufficient peer review, that the discussions you want to see have already happened, and it's time for action, though the scientific process should continue.

[Cranky]

machabby said:

skilly said:

The fact their are scientists speaking out against our effects on the climate, means that the scientific process has not been followed through until the end, IMO.

That's where we disagree. There will always be scientists whose opinions differ from scientific consensus, and that's ok. There are even people who think that gravity is a "pushing" force - that the sun holds us down because it pushes us with more force than the Earth. I wouldn't call those people scientists, mind you, but there are actual scientists who disagree with theories that are widely held in the scientific community. In a sense, there is no "end" to the scientific process; you can't expect to convince everyone.

When it comes to global warming, it's worse, because it doesn't matter how many scientists agree with the findings, there will always be people who will deny it for political/financial reasons and try to create the impression that the science is uncertain. I think there has been sufficient peer review, that the discussions you want to see have already happened, and it's time for action, though the scientific process should continue.

Have you actually read the IPCC "findings"? Because if you did you will find out that the "consensus" is filled with "can cause", "likely cause" and "probably". And this is straight from the mouth of the "leading world organization on ecology". As far as how many scientist? VERY FEW of them actually stick their neck out and say there WILL be global warming because MOST scientist can not come to a conclusion and in fact many MORE AND MORE scientist disagree with "human carbon caused global warming". THAT IS WHY there is no REAL scientific peer review even by the slanted IPCC.

Read the IPCC "findings" slant as they are and THEN we can discuss the "conclusions".

Read this.......(Skilly, this backs your claim as NO REAL scientific peer review).

~~~~~~~~~~~~
sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/author_pielke_jr_r/000695hypotheses_about_ipc.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hypotheses about IPCC and Peer Review

Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Climate Change

The IPCC is the 800 pound gorilla in the climate debate. It has been the locus of legitimate and credible climate science (salience is another matter, but I digress). It is increasingly coming under criticism in a number of dimensions for some very good reasons. In this post I’d like to suggest a few hypotheses about how the IPCC has indirectly contributed to the politicization of climate science in ways we’ve not discussed here. These are for discussion, and I’d welcome evidence for/against and other sorts of examples.

Laundering Grey Literature

The IPCC has a requirement that its assessments be based on peer reviewed literature. It has not always held itself to this standard, particularly in its Working Groups II and III. I have noticed recently a number of peer-reviewed papers that reference so-called “grey literature” (e.g., agency, company, NGO reports) which hasn’t itself been peer reviewed. Then the peer-reviewed study that cites the grey literature is subsequently cited in another publication to refer to the information in the original non-peer reviewed source. This is a way to give the veneer of peer review to a non-peer-reviewed study. Here is an example of this dynamic.

Fun with Deadlines

The IPCC sets a deadline for when papers must be accepted in order to be considered in a particular assessment report. This guarantees that the assessment won’t have to be continually updated, but it also means that the assessment is automatically out-of-date in some case where new findings have been released. Because editors and journals have considerable discretion in when they publish what papers, the IPCC’s deadline can set the stage for some mischief in the publication process as papers with a particular slant are published before the deadline and other published after. I don’t have any data on this, but it’d be interesting to compare the time-to-publication of key papers cited in IPCC reports with a journal’s standard practices. This issue came to mind as I read this comment from RealClimate,

There are several more papers "in the mill" which we are not at liberty to discuss right now [Ed.- Embargoed, see below], which insure that the weight of peer-reviewed studies available for consideration in the next IPCC report will point towards a strengthening, not a weakening, of the IPCC '01 conclusions regarding the anomalous nature of recent hemispheric and global warmth in a long-term context.
Maybe it is just inartful language, but claims to “insure” previously found results do not make me comfortable about the agendas of climate scientists.

Embargoes as Silencers

This one is not about the IPCC, but Science and Nature. I was recently at a science talk at NCAR and a number of leading scientists refused to discuss their work because it would potentially be under “embargo” with Science or Nature, if accepted. My understanding is that embargoes refer to releasing papers accepted for publication to the media in advance of the artificial deadlines set by Science and Nature to generate news-worthiness. They do not apply to scientists talking among themselves in scientific settings. So when scientists use potential embargoes as a way to silence discussion and debate on their work, it reduces the internal vetting of scientific ideas and makes the leading journals the only place where debate can occur. Since Science and Nature are highly selective is what they allow as far as intellectual exchanges following up papers they publish, the entire process of scientific debate and learning is arguably slowed down. Meantime, this allows findings supporting one view or another to gain much greater standing in political debate than they might otherwise have.

[Cranky]

machabby said:

How are you measuring that? Cars today get essentially the same mileage as they did 30 years ago.

No disrespect meant, but are you NOT aware of what has happened in pollution standards for cars in the last 40 years? And if you are, then please don't try to spin the "carbon emission are the same" because there is a vast difference between POLLUTION and "carbon emissions".

[Cranky]

franko said:

MC, I agree that we do not bury our collective heads in the sand. There is a pollution problem. If I recall just a few years ago the world was about to end because of an ozone hole, then global warming, now climate change.

I have a problem with the environmental industry and constant fear-mongering and its-never-enough-ism . . . with an accord/treaty/whatever that puts the onus on countries that are attempting some small improvements while giving major polluters immunity -- and even going so far as to subsidizing their activity (carbon credits to China).

[Carbon credits will not lower emissions. They are a bad idea.]

There was NO long term study about the ozond "hole". We did NOT know about ozone "holes" a hundred years ago, never mind a thousand years ago. I remember the ozone fear mongering VERY WELL and many scinetist were saying that the ozone "hole" opens and closes due to natural phenomena. IN FACT, in 2002 it was the smallest it had been in decades and then in 2003 ut was the biggest hole EVER. Why? Because of WEATHER PATTERNS! Gee, imagine that, weather affecting the atmosphere"How cna that be? And the sun affecting the earth temperature? Can that be possible? The next thing they will tell us is that the earth is round.

[Cranky]

skilly said:

What did it for me was world reknown glacierists and hurricane monitors whose data were used to prove conclusively that we are affecting climate change and global warming, and then they have to come out and right papers refuting the conclusions saying that there is not enough data to support the claims - that the conclusion was made first. I believe HA posted a story in another thread regarding the hurricanes.

That ALREADY has happened to a few world renown scientist and instead of the IPCC saying, oops, we didn't mean that, they just take out the reports that don't suit views. Of course, eco-Nazis want the sheep to believe that there was a "scientific precess" but that is a complete LIE. The IPCC is a conclusion looking for any twist of facts to back up their point of view.

Of course, in the media you will not hear one iota of any of this. The media bleep "scientist agree" and the politicians bleep "scientist agree" and THEN THE BLIND sheep bleep "scientist agree"....when NOTHING of the sort has happened.

Isn't social manipulation wonderful?

[MC Habber]

habsaddict said:

machabby said:

How are you measuring that? Cars today get essentially the same mileage as they did 30 years ago.

No disrespect meant, but are you NOT aware of what has happened in pollution standards for cars in the last 40 years? And if you are, then please don't try to spin the "carbon emission are the same" because there is a vast difference between POLLUTION and "carbon emissions".

OK, you can have the cars; I'd still like to know why you think the air is cleaner, because everything I've ever heard about air quality anywhere in the world says that it's getting worse. (This doesn't really relate to my previous point anway, because I was talking about increases in pollution since Kyoto, not over the last 30 years.)

[BadCompany]

machabby said:

OK, you can have the cars; I'd still like to know why you think the air is cleaner, because everything I've ever heard about air quality anywhere in the world says that it's getting worse. (This doesn't really relate to my previous point anway, because I was talking about increases in pollution since Kyoto, not over the last 30 years.)

According to the "data" air quality in Canada and the US has improved drastically in the last couple of decades. Some examples:

Alberta[/color]

US Environmental Protection Agency[/color]

California (see page 6 for a summary)[/color]

Air quality IS probably decreasing in a number of places around the world, where pollution and emission controls are not in place, or are, you know, declared exempt in international treaties.

[Manton]

I am looking forward to watching Glenn Beck's special on Global Warming tonight on CNN Headlines News, separating myht from fact...a fair and balanced approached.

Gee I wonder if the school principals will tape the program and force students to watch in order to get a different perspective. Don't bet on it as we all know the educational institutions worship their earth God Al Gore.

[MC Habber]

badcompany said:

machabby said:

OK, you can have the cars; I'd still like to know why you think the air is cleaner, because everything I've ever heard about air quality anywhere in the world says that it's getting worse. (This doesn't really relate to my previous point anway, because I was talking about increases in pollution since Kyoto, not over the last 30 years.)

According to the "data" air quality in Canada and the US has improved drastically in the last couple of decades. Some examples:

Alberta

[/color]

US Environmental Protection Agency[/color]

California (see page 6 for a summary)[/color][/quote]

Interesting. And yet:

Six million Canadians – one in every five – currently suffers from lung disease;

•2.5 million Canadians have asthma, and the rate in children is four times higher than it was 20 years ago;

•COPD – chronic obstructive pulmonary disease – is the fourth leading cause of death in Canada, and the only one still rising;

•One Canadian dies every 20 minutes from lung disease;

•Lung illness costs Canada more than $15 billion each year. This includes the direct costs to the health care system as well as the estimated cost of lost work time and degraded productivity.

thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/832831.html

To mark May 1st ~ World Asthma Day 2007, The Lung Association today cited statistics that show an individual Canadian has a 40 percent risk of developing asthma prior to age 40. The figures come from a study entitled "The Burden of Asthma in Ontario" and conducted by Canadian researcher, Dr. Teresa To of The Hospital for Sick Children. The study was published by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences and examined the total lifetime risk of developing asthma before the age of 40.

The study analyzed databases covering 12 million people from the province of Ontario to determine how many people developed asthma from 1994-1995 to 2001-2002. It found that an individual has a two in five chance – or 40% risk – of developing asthma before age of 40. The risk of developing asthma is greatest during childhood, with 20% of children being diagnosed as asthmatic by 12 years of age, and a further 20% of individuals being diagnosed between the ages of 12 and 40 years.

...

The cause of asthma is not completely understood. Hereditary and environmental factors appear to be the biggest risks for the development of asthma. The increase in asthma that has been seen world-wide over the last 25 years may be directly linked to the increase in air pollution. Additionally, there is a strong association between the exposure of children to tobacco smoke and the development of childhood asthma. Asthma can also occur as a result of a viral infection.

www.lung.ca/media-medias/news-nouvelles_e.php?id=94

(All this despite the national smoking rate being at an all time low)

[Cranky]

badcompany said:

According to the "data" air quality in Canada and the US has improved drastically in the last couple of decades.

What? Less air pollution? How can that be? Havn't you heard? The sky is falling!

Talking about inconvinient truth! LOL! But you know what? You NEVER hear any of this from the mass media. After all, doomsday scenarios and hysteria sells air time and papers, gets certain politicians tons of free air time and makes MONEY for some. Meanwhile the sheep get sheared......and they wonder why they don't have money in to go past two weeks.

[Cranky]

machabby said:

The cause of asthma is not completely understood. Hereditary and environmental factors appear to be the biggest risks for the development of asthma. The increase in asthma that has been seen world-wide over the last 25 years may be directly linked to the increase in air pollution. Additionally, there is a strong association between the exposure of children to tobacco smoke and the development of childhood asthma. Asthma can also occur as a result of a viral infection.

[/i]

www.lung.ca/media-medias/news-nouvelles_e.php?id=94

(All this despite the national smoking rate being at an all time low)[/quote]

MC, you are a good debater BUT you are hunting and hunting....and spinning. LOL!

Your first article attempts to SPIN that pollution and global warming is the leading cause of "lung disease". IN itself, a broad and undefined statement. Hogwash. TOBACCO is the leading cause of lung cancer. Period. End of story. My mother in law died from lung cancer induced by TOBACCO. Two of my employees husbands died from cnacer induced by TOBACCO. I get it that the global warming fraternity will spin anything and everything to suit the religion but it's insulting to the memory of these people to lose focus of the REAL culprit.

Then...........

In one sentance we have....NOT completely understood......hereditary and environmental APPEAR the be the biggest risk.......WORLD WIDE there MAY BE linked to pollution.......TOBACCO may have a strong association....and then the final one....smoking us at an all time low. Therefore what?

What are we talking about? Tobacco smoke or car and industrial pollution?

You claim that air pollution is getting worse. I tell you it is not and it is actually getting BETTER. BC proves the point. You are trying to counter with what happens in SOME third world country? Or asthma? A hereditary and smoke induced allergic reaction? What does hereditary conditions and tobacco have to do with car pollution?

I said it before and I will say it again. We have come a long way in reducing air pollution and still have a way to go. We have come some way in reducing toxins and still have a lot more woirk to do. But NONE of this PROVES that human activity has DIRECTLY caused carbon dioxide increases AND global warming. NONE. ZERO. NADA.The ONLY tenuous ATTEMPT is to link that HUMANS caused increased carbon levels WHICH led to increased global temperatures. That has been discredited, Al Gore$ graphs have been discredited, the "hockey stick" has been discredited. Without UNBIASED and IRREFUTABLE scientific evidence, "human caused global warming" is dancing to the same tune as "creation" (sorry Franko and TH).



.

[Cranky]

WAIT......I may have the answer to..........everything!

The Laffs have not won the Cup for fourty years. Is it POSSIBLE that increased level of Laffian fustration has caused global warming?

Inquiring minds want to know! ;D

[BadCompany]

machabby said:

The cause of asthma is not completely understood. Hereditary and environmental factors appear to be the biggest risks for the development of asthma. The increase in asthma that has been seen world-wide over the last 25 years may be directly linked to the increase in air pollution. Additionally, there is a strong association between the exposure of children to tobacco smoke and the development of childhood asthma. Asthma can also occur as a result of a viral infection.

[/i][/quote]

There is a growing pile of scientific evidence that actually suggests the opposite, that because we are in fact "too clean" that asmtha rates are increasing.

From this article:

The number of people with allergies and asthma is rising. Scientists once thought the reason was air pollution. In the 1990s, a German scientist studied two groups of children. One group lived in West Germany where standards of cleanliness are very high.

The other lived in poorer, dirtier East Germany. The researcher expected the East German children to have more allergies and asthma. The opposite turned out to be true. The East German children had fewer allergies and less asthma.

This study led to a new theory about cleanliness called the "hygiene hypothesis."

Personally I think that like a lot of things, there is probably no smoking gun, excuse the pun, for increasing asmtha rates, and in fact, based on some of things that I learned and studied in school, I suspect that the "real" reason asmtha rates are rising probably has more to do with reporting rates, than anything else. Which isn't to say that asthma rates are not rising, but that at least some of that increase could simply be do to better awareness on the parts of parents, who in the past may simply have just accepted that their kids were wheezy. Especially for the more "minor" forms of asthma. Which is briefly suggested as a possible explanation in this article:

"We're very pleased to see any report that ranks Louisiana at the top of a good list, but it's a condition we are very concerned about," he said. "It very well could be underreported."

Interestingly, Nevada and Maine, too non-industrialized states (comparatively speaking) led the US in asthma rates.

[Skilly]

I call it the "daycare syndrome".

Children in daycare settings are more likely to have higher attendence rates in school than children who do not go to daycare. They get their sicknesses in daycare and build up a resistence to being sick, whereas the non-daycare kids are relatively healthy at home and then get exposed to the viruses and germs in school that the daycare kids are now immune to.

[Cranky]

badcompany said:

There is a growing pile of scientific evidence that actually suggests the opposite, that because we are in fact "too clean" that asmtha rates are increasing.

Too clean? TOO CLEAN? Oh my God! Why didn't you tell me this earlier? From now on, I am NOT donating my old thongs to the Salavation Army, instead, I will burn them INSIDE the nearest school and rum my Hummer up and down the school yard.

A model citizen?? Yes I am!