Air pollution vs. global warming

Obviously, air pollution is bad - - for the environment, for public health, and for simple aesthetics. We shouldn't allow industry to pollute the land, the sea or the air.

But, did politically motivated scientists manipulate the data to exaggerate and expand the threat of air pollution by inventing the theory of global warming to justify more aggressive environmental and economic controls?

Because of some bad scientists, that's now debatable.

A British university that the United Nations has relied on for evidence of global warming said Thursday it would investigate whether scientists at its climate center fudged data to support warming claims. . . .

Phil Jones, the director of the Climatic Research Unit, has stepped down pending the result of the investigation. . . .

Jones' e-mail messages . . . including one in which Jones wrote about a "trick of adding in the real temps" in an exchange about long-term climate trends. Another of Jones' e-mails reads, "I would like to see the climate change happen so the science could be proved right."

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2009-12-03-climate-emails_N.htm

This chief scientist "used a trick" because he "would like to see the climate change happen"? Isn't he supposed to be neutrally observing and recording data, not rooting for one result or the other?

It's suspicious when a scientist say he hopes something bad happens so he's proved correct. That's like an oncologist hoping his patients get cancer in order to prove his point about smoking and red meat. Whatever the truth, this raises legitimate questions as to the nature and extent of any imminent "crisis" on "the day after tomorrow". Let's hope these charlatans haven't discredited the entire environmental movement.