State of the Air 2019 Report packed with climate alarmist propaganda

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

The American Lung Association recently released its State of the Air Report for 2019 which continued the scientifically unsupported hype from its 2018 Report falsely alleging that “climate change” driven global temperature increases are creating increased high ozone days across the U.S.


The report further and falsely claims that the failure of the U.S. to implement Obama’s unnecessary and costly government mandated Clean Power Plan (CPP) aimed at coal plant reductions were impacting both increased CO2 emissions that drive global warming and increased particulate emissions.

Specifically the 2019 Report notes:

“The State of the Air 2019 report adds to the evidence that a changing climate is making it harder to protect human health. The three years covered in this report ranked as the hottest years on record globally. High ozone days and spikes in particle pollution zoomed, putting millions more people at risk and adding challenges to the work cities are doing across the nation to clean up.”

“As climate change continues, cleaning up these pollutants will become ever more challenging. Climate change poses many threats to human health, including worsened air quality and extreme weather events. The nation must work to reduce emissions that worsen climate.”

“Ozone pollution worsened in much of the nation. Of the 25 most-ozone-polluted cities in the U.S, 17 had more high ozone days on weighted average during 2015- 2017, than in the 2018 report that covered 2014-2016. Eight of the 25 cities had fewer days, three reaching their fewest days ever.

Increased heat in 2017 likely drove this increase in ozone. Warmer temperatures stimulate the reactions in the atmosphere that cause ozone to form, and 2017 saw the second warmest temperatures on record in the United States. All three years covered in this report rank as the three warmest years ever recorded.”

“To protect public health, the nation must act to fight climate change. This means dramatically cutting carbon pollution. Unfortunately, the current EPA has taken steps to dismantle our nation’s best federal plan to limit carbon pollution from power plants, the Clean Power Plan, and has proposed a weaker approach that would increase harmful emissions.

Scientists tell us that carbon pollution contributes to a warming climate, enhancing conditions for ozone formation and making it harder to reduce this lethal pollutant. The increased ozone problems reflected in this year’s report came in large part because 2015, 2016, and 2017 represent the three warmest years in global history. Climate change also leads to particle pollution from worsened droughts and wildfires, leading to many of the high particle pollution days recorded in 2015-2017 and documented in this report.”

These ridiculous claims are nothing but climate alarmist driven propaganda and indicate that the American Lung Association is pushing a political climate alarmist campaign instead of addressing solid science.

The Report tries to make a completely erroneous connection between recent global temperature anomaly measurements and increased high ozone days in the U.S.

UAH satellite data, the most comprehensive, accurate and proven global temperature anomaly measurement data, shows the top ten global temperature anomaly years with 2016 being the highest with that years temperature anomaly driven by the huge naturally occurring El Nino event of 2016.


The 2019 report makes no mention of the naturally occurring El Nino event driving the 2016 global temperature anomaly nor does it mention the naturally occurring El Nino events of 1998 and 2010 that also drove increased global temperature anomalies during these years. Nor does the 2019 report mention that since these naturally occurring El Nino events of 1998, 2010 and 2016 the trend in increasing global temperature measurement anomalies has leveled.


Most importantly the 2019 report fails to note the fact that the global temperature anomaly measurement differences between years 1998 and 2016 are statistically insignificant and lie within the measurement uncertainty ranges indicating that as Dr. Richard Lindzen noted warming during this period has ceased.

“The emphasis on “warmest years on record” appears to have been a response to the observation that the warming episode from about 1978 to 1998 appeared to have ceased and temperatures have remained almost constant since 1998. Of course, if 1998 was the hottest year on record, all the subsequent years will also be among the hottest years on record, since the temperature leveled off at that year and continued into the subsequent years—all of which are now as hot as the record year of 1998. None of this contradicts the fact that the warming (i.e., the increase of temperature) has ceased.”

The 2019 report also fails to note that the global temperature anomaly measurement data has fallen since the peak in 2016.

Notwithstanding the flawed attempt by the 2019 report to falsely claim that rising global CO2 levels are driving global temperature increases the report in an even more significant flaw completely ignores the temperature anomaly record of the U.S. which shows absolutely no connection to the trend of global temperature anomaly global measurement data thereby making a mockery of the reports claims that global temperature anomalies are increasing temperature anomaly trends and high ozone days in the U.S. [1]


Compounding the reports obvious shortcomings in trying to falsely fabricate connections between global temperature anomaly measurements and U.S. high ozone days is the reports absurd claims that the failure of the U.S. to implement Obama’s costly and unnecessary government mandated CCP requirements aimed at reducing coal plant operations has allowed CO2 emissions to climb driving global warming and increased particulate emissions.

It is painfully obvious that the writers of this 2019 climate alarmist propaganda report are clearly ignorant of what has happened to U.S. CO2 emissions and use of coal fuel as a consequence of the extraordinary market driven benefits of low cost and increased availability of natural gas brought about by fracking technology.

The U.S. has significantly reduced its CO2 emissions levels since its peak year 2007 levels largely through the increased use of natural gas which has replaced through economic market forces the need for increased coal fuel use.

The U.S. is leading the world in reducing CO2 emissions while lowering energy costs and increasing energy reliability with its CO2 emissions forecast to be between 870 million to a billion metric tons below peak 2007 levels through year 2050 as noted in EIA data presented below.


Furthermore the U.S. has significantly decreased the use of coal fuel with higher efficiency lower cost natural gas thus decreasing particulate emissions as a benefit. The 2019 Report claims about increasing coal fuel particulate and CO2 emissions reflect extraordinary incompetence by the reports writers.


An additional major flaw contained in the 2019 report is the premise that actions taken by the U.S. to further reduce its CO2 emissions will lower global warming and that such reductions represent a valid justification for “fighting climate change”. This claim is completely idiotic.

The CO2 emissions reductions achieved by the U.S. already lead the world’s nations. The emissions levels of the U.S. are already irrelevant to future global CO2 emissions growth that are overwhelmingly dominated by the world’s developing nations. Those climate alarmist activists who constantly clamor about the need for the U.S. to take on more costly and economically burdening actions to reduce CO2 emissions to “fight climate change” (clearly one of the most politically contrived and dumbest climate alarmist claims ever made) are completely out of touch with the reality of global energy needs and future growth.


The 2019 report also completely ignores the facts always concealed by climate alarmists that the incredibly costly and massively bureaucratic proposals represented by the Paris and Obama’s CCP government dictated schemes will do essentially nothing to lower global temperatures as addressed by an analysis by Bjorn Lomborg.

“This article investigates the temperature reduction impact of major climate policy proposals implemented by 2030, using the standard MAGICC climate model. Even optimistically assuming that promised emission cuts are maintained throughout the century, the impacts are generally small. The impact of the US Clean Power Plan (USCPP) is a reduction in temperature rise by 0.013°C by 2100. The full US promise for the COP21 climate conference in Paris, its so-called Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) will reduce temperature rise by 0.031°C. The EU 20-20 policy has an impact of 0.026°C, the EU INDC 0.053°C, and China INDC 0.048°C. All climate policies by the US, China, the EU and the rest of the world, implemented from the early 2000s to 2030 and sustained through the century will likely reduce global temperature rise about 0.17°C in 2100. These impact estimates are robust to different calibrations of climate sensitivity, carbon cycling and different climate scenarios. Current climate policy promises will do little to stabilize the climate and their impact will be undetectable for many decades.”

Unfortunately the American Lung Association in its 2019 State of the Air Report has allowed politically driven climate alarmism activists to botch up how this report was developed so that propaganda that contained completely erroneous information falsely addressing global climate and energy issues was incompetently included in the report.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 28, 2019 5:44 am

“It is painfully obvious that the writers of this 2019 climate alarmist propaganda report are clearly ignorant of what has happened to U.S. CO2 emissions and use of coal fuel….” – Article.

No, they are not ignorant. They chose to ignore it. Big Difference! Big! Huuuuge!

Reply to  Sara
April 28, 2019 11:29 am


“Another important observation is the corruption of institutions. The green movement has been taken over by radicals, as described in 1994 by Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace. That takeover by radical greens has now extended to universities, scientific associations, professional societies, media and governments.

April 28, 2019 12:38 pm

Yes, this is an appalling propagandist diatribe. Climate change on nearly every line. All assertion, not fact based science.

17 had more high ozone days on weighted average during 2015- 2017, than in the 2018 report that covered 2014-2016.

Red flag for statistical manipulation going on here. What is this “weighting” they had to do to force the data to say what they wanted?

If they want to suggest a link to ozone, why not directly look at the 25 worst case cities and do some scientific analysis on the days it was hot and the days there was an ozone spike. Just making handwaving comments about the last three years of global average is beside the point. Local ozone spikes are not created by global averages.

Carbon Bigfoot
April 28, 2019 12:54 pm

This will attest to AIChE’s takeover:
From: Tom
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2019, 1:03:11 PM EST
Subject: Invitation to join The Climate Solutions Community

Dear Colleague,

You are one of 1,745 receiving this advance notice of a significant event. To avoid reply-all problems, all are bcc’d. The attachment provides information on each of you, with email addresses expunged. I have noted your engineering or industrial scientific degree which is pertinent to the subject of this email, but may not be your highest degree.

On March 31, the American Institute of Chemical Engineers will issue a press release to announce the launch of The Climate Solutions Community (TCSC). I am providing this press release to you in advance for two reasons.

1. We need your expertise. TCSC will be an inter-disciplinary initiative, including engineers and industrial scientists from all disciplines. TCSC will lead efforts to identify viable solutions to mitigate, adapt, and become resilient to the effects of climate change, and to develop a portfolio of technical and government policy solutions necessary to address both industrial and community challenges. Become a TCSC member by registering here:

2. On April 2nd, TCSC will hold a half-day workshop (1:30-5:00pm) at the AIChE Annual Spring Meeting in New Orleans (March 31 to April 4). Although many of you receiving this email had not planned on attending our Spring Meeting, quite a few of you are resident in Louisiana and nearby states. Consider taking a short drive to New Orleans to join us at this workshop; Hilton New Orleans Riverside, Two Poydras Street, New Orleans. We will have a panel of experts speaking on chemical manufacturing energy efficiency, biofuels, and electricity generation and distribution; each of these focusing on mitigation. After a panel Q/A, we will break into three groups to discuss (a) climate change issues that affect the work of engineers and industrial scientists, and (b) commercial climate solutions, focusing on those same three areas: manufacturing energy efficiency, fuels, and electricity. Although mitigation will be the focus of panel presentations, TCSC will work on adaptation and resiliency. Our breakout discussions will most certainly touch on adaptation and resiliency.
How do I know you?
• I have known some of you since my early college days (1972 BS ChE, University of Arkansas).
• Some of you were my coworkers in the Chicago area 1972-1993 (Honeywell UOP in Des Plaines, Amoco Research Center in Naperville); in the Houston area 1993-1997 (investigation of industrial accidents, Kingwood TX); and in Saudi Arabia 1997-2009 (loss prevention, Saudi Aramco).
• I met some of you in my process safety consulting work during retirement (U.S., Europe, Middle East, Africa).
• Many of you I met in my AIChE volunteer work in southeast Texas and in AIChE Safety & Health Division work.
• Many of you are AIChE local section leaders. Late last year I gave you a heads up about this initiative. Twenty-five of you said you wanted to be involved. The seeds of TCSC core leadership have been steadily building. You among the 1,745 are welcome to join that leadership. There is much work to be done.
• I met some of you in my involvement with the Citizens Climate Lobby, the Future of Energy Initiative, the Business Climate Leaders, and other organizations concerned with climate change.
• Many of you I met at engineering conferences/events. Just last night I met three engineers at the Houston Engineer of the Year Gala who are each concerned about climate change. In their areas of expertise, they can make significant contributions. Each of you can make significant contributions.
We are all in this together. We all live on this planet. We engineers and industrial scientists solve problems. Let us solve this one. TCSC will work to bring genuinely viable climate solutions forward to commercialization. Will this be easy? No, it will be very difficult. The challenges are numerous, including policies, legislation and public misinformation that result in poor climate solution decisions made around the world that have been and very likely will continue to be economically damaging and counterproductive to solving this problem.

Contrary to recent lofty aspirations, this problem will not be solved by 2030. It will not be solved in my lifetime. The transition will take decades but we must begin now. Please join us.

For those in southeast Texas, please see an AIChE South Texas Section climate solutions messagebelow my sig block.


Thomas E. (Tom) Rehm, Ph.D., PE, CCPSC, CSP
TERehm Consulting LLC

Chair, AIChE South Texas Section

Founding Member, The Climate Solutions Community, AIChE Institute for Sustainability
David Middleton this is in your neck of the woods—know anybody in AIChE to get involved?

April 28, 2019 12:58 pm

“Patrick Moore Did Not Found Greenpeace”

Reply to  Mike Borgelt
April 28, 2019 1:51 pm

Patrick Moore WAS a co-founder and Past-President of Greenpeace.

Your problem, Mike, is you believe and quote a statement made by Greenpeace. How utterly foolish of you!

Every scary prediction made by the radical greens has failed to materialize – they have a perfectly negative predictive track record.

Nobody should believe radical greens about anything, and nobody should quote them either.

April 28, 2019 9:09 pm

GREANPEACE itself says that Patrick Moore was NOT a founder. If you have evidence to the contrary please post it.

April 28, 2019 9:12 pm

Moore was never the “president” of Greenpeace.

April 29, 2019 8:09 am

GreenPeace’s own internal documents and public statements from the time.

April 30, 2019 8:54 am

Borgelt, you’re a ding-bat !

Greenpeace has rewritten
history because Moore
is a real scientist, who
went “off the reservation”,
and for leftists, and leftist
organizations, truth is not
a value they care about.

Dr. Moore also served for nine years
as President of Greenpeace Canada
and seven years as a Director
of Greenpeace International.

Is that enough for you, Borgelt ?

R Shearer
Reply to  Mike Borgelt
April 28, 2019 2:11 pm

Semantics and I think the statement was “co-founder”and Greenpeace itself used to refer to him as among co-founders and first members.

Reply to  R Shearer
April 28, 2019 9:15 pm

Being a early member dose not make him a “founder.”

The parent organization existed before he became a “member.”

Reply to  R Shearer
April 29, 2019 8:10 am

Interesting how the troll ignores the first part of the statement in order to say something without meaning.

Reply to  Mike Borgelt
April 28, 2019 3:50 pm

Patrick Moore was certainly heavily involved in Greenpeace when I joined in 1971.
I left 1980, didn’t like the direction the Trotskyites were taking it. Patrick left ~1985 ?

Reply to  saveenergy
May 1, 2019 3:35 am

Mike B – don’t be such a “privy member”.

Reply to  Mike Borgelt
April 28, 2019 7:09 pm

To bad the data shows that he was.
Greempeace lies. As usual.

Reply to  MarkW
April 28, 2019 9:10 pm

What data?

Reply to  MarkW
April 29, 2019 8:12 am

GreenPeace’s data.

Reply to  MarkW
April 29, 2019 10:39 am

Post link to said data MarkW

Greg F
Reply to  Mike Borgelt
April 28, 2019 7:32 pm

Patrick Moore Did Not Found Greenpeace

The Wayback Machine says otherwise.

Reply to  Greg F
April 28, 2019 9:18 pm

Your link says: ” The committee’s founders and first members ”
Moore was not a founder, but was a “first member”
The WAYBACK link doesn’t differentiate between the two.

Craig from Oz
Reply to  Greg F
April 29, 2019 12:07 am

Mike? Don’t forget to point out that Patrick Moore has always been at war with Eastasia.

(Greenpeace however has always been at peace with Eastasia… and Eurasia. But not Oceania, cause screw those guys!)

Shaun T
Reply to  Greg F
April 29, 2019 2:08 am
Lewis P Buckingham
Reply to  Greg F
April 29, 2019 3:20 am

Mike,who were the founders of Greenpeace?

Reply to  Mike Borgelt
April 29, 2019 4:23 am

Your link says: ” The committee’s founders and first members ”
Moore was not a founder, but was a “first member”
The WAYBACK link doesn’t differentiate between the two.

It’s on the “Founders” page. It doesn’t differentiate because they are one in the same. The first members are the founders.

Reply to  Sara
April 28, 2019 11:51 am

CO2 “emissions” are NOT important Sara.

Clean air is important.

CO2 is the staff of life,
not air pollution.

CO2 at triple the current level
would not be dangerous to humans,
in any way, but C3 plants would love it,
and those are theplants that people and
animals eat.

Are YOU against more food for people
and animals, from more CO2 in the air,
or do you believe there is already
enough food ?

OTHER emissions from burning fossil
fuels without modern pollution controls,
could affect health.

THOSE emissions are relevant.

They most likely cause measurable
health problems in most large Chinese
and Indian cities — some Chinese air pollution
actually drifts over to the US left coast,
where it causes IQ’s to decline by one point a year
(well, something causes that, if not Chinese pollution).

I date the start of the current global warming period
to the cold 1690s, during the Little Ice Age —
in the 300+ years of global warming since then,
with over +2 degrees C. of warming
based on real time measurements
in England, humans have had HUGE increases in
health and prosperity — good news all the way.

Why is it that PAST global warming is always
100% good news … but FUTURE global warming
is always predicted to be 100% bad news ?

I prefer to make statements based on reality,
the climate change that has already happened —
not wild guess, always wrong, always bad news,
predictions of the future climate.

The US has done a lot to clean its air.

Many other nations, mainly in Asia, have not.

Why is it that US environmentalists never seem
to care about REAL pollution in Asia ?

I believe because their goal is not reducing
real pollution — their goal is more political power
for the always power-hungry leftists.

My climate science blog,
with over 2,000 page views
in the last month:
the future

Joel Snider
Reply to  Sara
April 29, 2019 12:31 pm

‘No, they are not ignorant. They chose to ignore it. Big Difference! Big! Huuuuge!’

Sara, you are very right. I used to think a lot of this was pig-headed, but natural sociological trends – stupidity doesn’t really need to be directed to achieve idiocy – but there’s too much that is deliberate for simple happenstance to even be a ‘primary forcing’.

Spencer Christian
April 28, 2019 5:52 am

“Climate alarmist activists . . . are completely out of touch with . . .reality.”

I could not agree more.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Spencer Christian
April 28, 2019 11:24 am

Something “from reality” that was missed in this report is to show how asthma has changed as the air quality has improved over the last 50 years.

Given that this is the “Lung Association” you’d think they would take the time to show us the relationship between PM2.5, which they want to eliminate, and asthma, one of the most important lung conditions in anyone’s normal experience.

Why is it missing? Because as the air has become cleaner, the asthma rate has exploded, rising ( I read) 17% per year some of the time. How was this overlooked?
They should put some science on the table if they want to be believed. Show us a plot of PM2.5 and a plot of lung diseases. Show us how improving the air by “banning coal” improves the PM2.5 count, and how that affects “lung disease”. Asthma is a lung disease. There is a strong, undeniable correlation between ever cleaner air and ever more asthma. Why? Is there any causal relationship? If there is no causal relationship, why are they advocating the goals they set? If the Lung Association does not know what causes more asthma, why should we believe anything they have to say about “climate change”?

Ivor Ward
April 28, 2019 5:56 am

You can’t argue a political statement with facts.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Ivor Ward
April 28, 2019 8:02 am

You can’t argue science fiction with science either.
You couldn’t watch Star Trek or any SciFy movie without suspension of science for the entertainment.

Most of that ALA Air report is science fiction in the same way.
Just like CAGW it is science fiction.

April 28, 2019 5:57 am

ALA pining for money.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Jimmy
April 28, 2019 8:08 am

ALA gets EPA grants.
The EPA is forbidden by law to lobbying Congress or write junk science like that.
So the eco-mafia infiltrated and took over the EPA, and gives tax dollars to ALA to do what the EPA can’t do. Career GS types are damn near impossible to fire.
Best to just cut EPA by 50% using budget cuts to its funding so it shrinks in size every year until it is about 10% of current force size.

Dr. Bob
April 28, 2019 6:00 am

Hydrocarbon emissions in the atmosphere are converted to ozone and NOx amongst other chemicals. In the 1970’s, CARB reported that 50% of the atmospheric hydrocarbons in the LA Basin came from automotive use, fueling vehicles to emissions from tailpipes. The rest was from natural sources such as terpenes from trees. So, all the emissions control devices put on cars to control evaporative and exhaust emissions could only reach a 50% reduction in hydrocarbon in the basin. Thus the smog precursors were there and would always be there, so government regulations can never completely eliminate smog.
LA has been and always will be a valley of smoke.

From a KCET TV report in 2013 on the first Spanish visit to the LA area:
Some sources suggest that Baya de los Fumos may be Santa Monica Bay, but most point to San Pedro Bay. In either case, the land described here is the same: the Los Angeles Basin. It is worth noting that, despite the persistent misconception of Los Angeles as a desert, the region’s first European visitors described it as “good” country. From their ships, the sailors likely saw a well-watered, lushly vegetated plain teeming with animal life.
The smoke’s origin remains a mystery. It may have been cooking fires burning in the many Tongva villages that dotted the Los Angeles coastal plain and interior valleys; in the sixteenth century, Southern California was one of the most densely populated regions in North America, and the area’s inversion layer would have trapped campfire smoke then just as it traps automobile exhaust today.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Dr. Bob
April 28, 2019 9:43 am

Smallpox cleared out and decimated most native American societies within about 100 years of contact with Europeans.
Space aliens arriving at Earth would probably do the same to us and all animal life with their microbes they are adapted to. But just like Orson Wells’ War of the Worlds story, our earthly microbes would likely do them in as well if they tried to make unshielded contact with our biosphere.

Another reason why no intelligent life form would visit Earth in anything other than as a non-biological AI/robot.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 28, 2019 12:23 pm

You are assuming that microbes adapted to an alien physiology would be able to jump to humans. That is not a given.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  MarkW
April 28, 2019 9:54 pm

Certainly theirs and our viruses wouldn’t work against each other.
And many obligate intracellular bacterial pathogens might not be able to gain entry to their evolved growth sites inside host cells.

But there are plenty of pathogenic fungi that just need a source of carbon and a host that doesn’t know how to fight them off. Same for many skin bacteria like staphylococcus and baccillus bacteria that can digest a large range of metabolites and are facultative anaerobes. If they are a carbon-based life form, something here on Earth can attack and digest them if they don’t have an immune system that can recognize and fight them off.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 28, 2019 12:27 pm

I’nm ghoing off topic and hope this is allowed here;

I think it is obvious other intelligent life forms have visited our planet many times, possibly over 1000′;s of years.

The Air Force had 12,600 UFO reports filed by pilots, from the late 1940s to late 1960s, when they stopped the reporting requirement,
probably because there was nothing they could do about UFOs,
so why keep track of them?

Thousands of commercial pilots have reported seeing UFOs.

Were all those professional pilots just having bad dreams — every one of them? No.

Not to mention all the other pilots who have seen UFOs, and did not report them ( for commercial pilots, far more chose not to report anything, for job security, and the fear of being ridiculed ).

UFOs have actually left deliberate signs that they were here,
with incredibly symmetrical, incredibly elaborate, huge crop designs, created overnight, in the dark, very much unlike the simple uneven hoax crop circles.

The crops were actually examined by nearby University of Michigan physicists in the 1990s, and they could not explain never before seen, very unusual changes to plant stalks, completely unlike the stalk damage done by the hoaxers.

This is explained brilliantly in an old episode of Ancient Aliens, with less than 10 minutes of unjustified speculation, unlike most Ancient Alien episodes — watch this one online (skip all other episodes) and you will thank me ( the 43 minute Episode 8, from Season 10, in 2015 — I found one free link to the video, but it is also available on our COMCAST’s “On Demand”, for free).
… probably the reason extraterrestrials do not come out of their ships is that they have seen the movie, The Day the Earth Stood Still, and know we would shoot them before saying “hello” (heh heh)

Reply to  Richard Greene
April 28, 2019 4:43 pm

The reason the extraterrestrials don’t come out of their ships is because they’ve seen Detroit, the west side of Chicago and the heart of darkest Africa.
Why does South America always get a free pass ?

Reply to  u.k.(us)
April 30, 2019 8:58 am

Hey u.k., leave out Detroit !
The recent, new investments
in mid-down, and downtown,
are making it more like uptown
Chicago every year !

I live five miles north of
the northern border, don’t
go there much, but the wife
does, and reports on changes to me.

Reply to  Richard Greene
April 28, 2019 7:12 pm

Ah yes, everything that isn’t instantly explainable is proof of aliens.

Aliens that are smart enough to build ships that can cross the void between the stars, surely can find a better way of communicating than crop circles.

Reply to  MarkW
April 30, 2019 9:06 am

You are a typical know-nothing,
fast to insult, but slow to consider
looking at the evidence in the video,
at the link I provided.

I’m not a person who “believes” in ANYTHING
without strong evidence, ranging from god,
to a coming climate catastrophe.

If I say there is evidence of extraterrestrial
visits, then there is real ,persuasive evidence,
not just my “beliefs”.

Ding-bats like you make the subject
off limits for any intelligent conversation,
assuming you are capable of that ?

A great effort to shut down communication
with ridicule, Saul Alinsky style,
just like leftists do with climate change.

You should be proud of yourself MarkW !

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 28, 2019 4:04 pm

‘War of the Worlds’
Written by English author H. G. Wells, first serialised in 1897.
17yrs before American actor Orson Wells was born

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Dr. Bob
April 28, 2019 10:16 am

Also the availability of abundant sulfur in the form of natural DMS emissions from the oceans mixes in the stagnant air in the coastal valleys.

Reply to  Dr. Bob
April 28, 2019 12:21 pm

Hydrocarbons, NOx and sunlight will result in ozone. Hydrocarbons do not create NOx.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Dr. Bob
April 28, 2019 12:26 pm

“…So, all the emissions control devices put on cars to control evaporative and exhaust emissions could only reach a 50% reduction in hydrocarbon in the basin. Thus the smog precursors were there and would always be there, so government regulations can never completely eliminate smog…”

That’s a really short-sighted argument. At which point do the “precursors” create a smog issue? 1%? 10%? 25%? 50%? A 50% reduction in smog itself would be immense.

Air pollution was supposedly not an issue in LA until the 1940s, at which point there were two million cars. Ozone levels today are 40% what they were then despite current vehicle registration levels in LA County of over seven million.

Coach Springer
April 28, 2019 6:01 am

I think I’d list the errors (irregularities?) with a short explanation of each and demand correction. And promise them to both publish their response and forward it to applicable regulatory organizations (EPA + ) and Congress.

R Shearer
April 28, 2019 6:12 am

Another thing going on is that the goal posts are being moved. Ozone attainment levels are being lowered and yet in general violations are becoming less frequent, i.e. air is becoming cleaner.

April 28, 2019 6:15 am

I am a Climate Change Denier, but I favor a long term (50 year – to minimize economic disruption) plan to phase out coal generation plants in favor of Gen 4 Nuclear. Coal is environmentally dirty…in acquisition…in transportation…in utilization…and in ash disposal. We can, and should, do better.

Reply to  DocSiders
April 28, 2019 8:31 am

Wrong on all accounts.
If Gen 4, whenever it actually is ready for commercial release, actually is as good as it’s acolytes claim, then it will take over the market on it’s own.
Only those who have no faith in the object of their devotion demand that the government hamstring their competitors.

Reply to  MarkW
April 28, 2019 12:32 pm


Why do you always have to be a divisive presumptuous ass?

I have no devotion to Gen 4. I do have a devotion to liberty…and prosperity.

AND you are wrong…Future power generation IS NOT GOING TO BE LEFT TO THE FREE MARKET. I would have it so and you would have it so but IT AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN.

New coal ain’t gonna happen. Renewables requiring unsupportable subsidy have got to be fought against for base load…because it can’t do the job (disasterous). Gen 1 Nuclear has no future. Westinghouse will build some Gen 3’s…maybe. Gas will cover us in the interim (through 2050). We are going to need at least 60% more capacity and current capacity is on the decline.

Without more capacity the country will be in big trouble.

But Gen 4 Nuclear will become a future reality only as a political movement of sorts…to overcome historical and new political forces aligned strongly against nuclear energy.

Importantly, Nuclear energy calls the bluff of the CC/CAGW cadre. It’s the only real workable solution (to the non-problem) and they don’t actually want any solutions. They want the political power not an actual CO2 abatement solution. But if Gen4 can be made politically acceptable it would spend most of the leftist’s political capital…while providing the future energy we’ll need anyway.

And I have a right to object to dirty coal…(and I’m not worried about the CO2.)

Reply to  DocSiders
April 28, 2019 7:14 pm

You are the guy proposing to use government to favor your favorite solution.
Anyone who does that has proven himself to be a first class ass.
That you object to my pointing it out is just par for the course.

Reply to  DocSiders
April 28, 2019 8:44 am

Everything’s dirty to some degree. Coal waste makes great concrete products,

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  icisil
April 28, 2019 10:10 am

Fly ash is somewhat radioactive and not as strong in compressive strength. Not the best structurally, but quite okay in certain applications.

see here for more info:

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 28, 2019 11:47 am

Cinder block = cement + coal cinders

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 28, 2019 1:24 pm

Bananas are radioactive too. But I don’t know how good they would work in concrete.

Don Perry
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 28, 2019 5:02 pm

While the addition of fly ash to portland cement concrete mixes will slow early strength development, long term, fly ash mixes exceed exclusively portland mixes in compressive strength. Further, fly ash, due to its spherical microstructure, increases workability, thus reducing water demand with a consequent increase in cured strength.

April 28, 2019 6:17 am

Ozone pollution is a local problem. I wish they would tell me the specific locations in the US which have experienced the warmer climate necessary to exacerbate this problem. Now that I’m retired, I’m thinking about moving to a warmer clime.

R Shearer
Reply to  jtom
April 28, 2019 7:23 am

And yet ozone levels between rural and urban locations are not very different, but both are improving.

Reply to  jtom
April 28, 2019 8:32 am

I’m trying to figure out how a warming of a few hundredths of a degree can result in such a huge increase in ozone.

Doc Chuck
Reply to  MarkW
April 29, 2019 3:15 pm

Exactly. It is the fairly constant solar short wavelength UV incident radiation that photochemically produces ozone (O3 or trioxygen) from O2 near ground levels (as distinguished from the high stratospheric ozone layer), as augmented by the presence of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides (which have of course been much reduced from automotive tailpipes by catalytic converters), as well as electrical discharges such as lightning or spark discharges such as at electric motor commutators; not some nearly unmeasurable global average air temperature increase.

Indeed decomposition of this unstable molecule back to O2 is speeded by an increase in temperature, as well as catalyzed by hydroxyl and nitric oxide free radicals. It is true that significant local heat waves beyond average temperatures can temporarily elevate ozone concentration by 20%, but of course this will usually include more insolation from less cloud cover than usual.

As has become commonplace, the whole causative premise has been mis-shaped in this American Lung Association report to promote the reliably lucrative global warming crisis narrative.

Just Jenn
April 28, 2019 6:28 am

And I’ll bet every single one of them drove their car into work with the A/C on, and went home to a cooled house every single day they were doing the “study” too.

People in glass houses should not throw stones.

April 28, 2019 6:30 am

There is snow on the ground in Northern Illinois. It is 28 April 2019.

Who took my Global Warming?

April 28, 2019 6:31 am

I love it Lung Association, is there a spleen association and a liver association etc ??

This is medicine masquerading to make money from misery.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  LdB
April 28, 2019 12:38 pm

The anti-smoking campaign of the 1970’s thru 80’s took away their big reason for existence. So climate change is their new money gig.
They now get money for their CC advocacy from the Big Green Blob of NGO’s as well as smaller annual grants from the EPA to do their dirty work.

old construction worker
April 28, 2019 6:42 am

“Increased heat in 2017 likely drove this increase in ozone. Warmer temperatures stimulate the reactions in the atmosphere that cause ozone to form,…”. Hmmmm, hasn’t alarmist been telling us the stratosphere, where the ozone layer is, has been cooling faster?

R Shearer
Reply to  old construction worker
April 28, 2019 8:01 am

This topic concerns ground level ozone, although there are rare weather events that can bring zone down to ground levels from upper levels.

April 28, 2019 7:07 am


I’ll remember that when donating next time.

April 28, 2019 7:51 am

“Ozone pollution worsened in much of the nation. Of the 25 most-ozone-polluted cities in the U.S, 17 had more high ozone days on weighted average during 2015- 2017, than in the 2018 report that covered 2014-2016. Eight of the 25 cities had fewer days, three reaching their fewest days ever.”

I have a question about this study. 4 years seems to be a very short period to do a climate comparison. There is always going to be a bottom 25. That does not mean that air is not being cleaned up.

Were the same cities studied during both periods or did cities slip in and out of the worst 25? Did Indianapolis become one of the 25 worst in 2014 but not 2018 (just to pick a name out of the air)? How does the ozone reading in cities compare to the ozone reading in the same cities in 1959? How does the ozone reading in these cities compare to ozone readings in rural areas 30 miles west of these cities? In other words, is this a problem specifically for the cities or the general country?

R Shearer
Reply to  DonK31
April 28, 2019 8:20 am

It’s not much of a problem for either rural or urban locations.

I’ve made donations to the ALA in the past but will no longer do so as they have simply become a money machine to enrich themselves on the backs of some (false) noble cause.

Harold Wimmer, the CEO of ALA had direct compensation of over $400k in 2017.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  observa
April 28, 2019 9:56 am

Western societies’ neo-Marxist/Socialists are screaming in pain because not enough people are taking to their Magical Climate Change beliefs.

This is a religious War. Make no mistake.
I call it a scam, a hoax to enslave all humanity under Socialist political structures, to the benefit of the elites and powerful ruling class. Russia and China already have theirs.

But make no mistake, to guys like Attenborough the CAGW-belief is a religious crusade. And like any religious crusade in humanity’s ugly past, they are quite willing morally to put non-believers to death for in its name.

Energy-poverty induced mass famine, mass incarceration in concentration camps, nuclear warfare, all of that in the name of their “Saving the Planet Religion” as an excuse for genocide to the benefit of believers. Such religion-based tribal belief systems of superiority have always just been an excuse for totalitarianism.

April 28, 2019 8:23 am

The increase in ozone alerts is 100% caused by the lowering standards needed to trigger such alerts.

April 28, 2019 8:28 am

Let me see if I have this right. Failure to adopt stricter standards (note: the old standards are still in place) resulted in an increase in pollution.


Does that mean that my decision not to eat that third slice of pie means my diet is still intact?

April 28, 2019 8:35 am

Is the American Lung Association one of those organizations that serves a useful purpose for a time, but then morphs into something that never goes away because its de facto mission becomes self-preservation?

Reply to  icisil
April 28, 2019 12:27 pm

March of Dimes is one of the few charities that managed to transition from their original mission without losing their soul. When polio was defeated the switched to childhood deformities and illnesses in general.
They went from one real problem to another real problem.

April 28, 2019 8:41 am

Almost all the charities in the US are run by leftist who are more concerned with political power than the cause they supposedly represent! This is just another captured organization seeing a way to improve their prospects of being able to dictate the behavior of every human being on the planet. They will use all the elements of propaganda to enhance their options to create a one-world bureaucracy of the elite (with the elite defined as them) to rule all the proclivities of man.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  OweninGA
April 28, 2019 9:59 am

The ALA gets grants from the EPA to do their lobbying they can’t.

April 28, 2019 9:06 am

As a charity they get a pretty good score from Charity Navigator.

It looks like the PR department is just chasing the Climate Catastrophe meme.

Eric Brownson
April 28, 2019 9:11 am

“Scientists tell us that carbon pollution contributes to a warming climate, enhancing conditions for ozone formation and making it harder to reduce this lethal pollutant.”

There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.”

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Eric Brownson
April 28, 2019 10:26 am

Calling CO2 “carbon pollution” is an abuse on intellect and science.

There is real carbon pollution though from things like benzene derivatives, anthracenes, etc that are quite toxic and/or carcinogenic.

Bruce Cobb
April 28, 2019 9:53 am

If “climate change” didn’t exist, they’d have to invent it. Oh wait, they did! Convenient, that.

J Mac
April 28, 2019 10:25 am

Lies, concealed by half truths, wrapped in the over-arching fraud of ‘Climate Change’, used to frighten people and guilt trip them into giving their hard earned dollars to the UnAmerican Lung Association. Total Rip Off!

April 28, 2019 10:38 am

… a master work of science fiction.

comment image

Gary Pearse
April 28, 2019 10:44 am

Can these criticisms of the report not be sent to the ALA and as an open letter somewhere where it can be seen? Or are we in a rarified chamber here. These id*ologues shouldn’t just be allowed to lie with impunity. Maybe Trump should get an alert if the gov is funding it.

Jim Veenbaas
April 28, 2019 11:00 am

I always find it fascinating when medical officials cite climate change as an existential health threat. Super bugs and antibiotic resistant bacteria is what I consider the most pressing health issue across the globe. It is having a direct impact on the full spectrum of health care today and will become an even bigger threat in the next decades. Super bugs are killing more people today than anything even remotely associated with climate change and they aren’t going away.

April 28, 2019 11:35 am

Bad luck.
This is the best part:
“California’s air quality is worsening despite having the strongest environmental regulations in the nation,” said John Balmes of the University of California-San Francisco at a news conference Tuesday.

Tom Abbott
April 28, 2019 2:44 pm

From the article: “As climate change continues”

Human-caused climate change (which is what they mean) has not even started yet as far as anyone knows, so human-caused climate change cannot be said to be continuing.

These alarmists are assuming things not in evidence. They have a bad habit of doing that.

James Clarke
April 28, 2019 6:09 pm

The primary purpose of publications from the American Lung Association is to raise money for the American Lung Association. The primary purpose is not to educate or be factual; just raise money. The climate crisis myth has been shown to be very effective at funnelling money to those who spread the myth.

Pretty soon we will see one of Jerry’s kids blaming his muscular dystrophy on climate change.

April 28, 2019 8:26 pm

Leftists are such liars by omission…

These Leftist CAGW cultists failed to report EPA’s data on the dramatic fall of real air pollutants just since 1980:

CO: -80%
Pb: -99%
NO2: -63%
O3: -32%
PM2.5: -41% (just since 2000, (not 1980))
SO2: -90%

I’d bet “97%” of Americans are not aware of the huge reductions of REAL air pollutants since 1980.

Because of Leftist propaganda taught at schools from kindergarten, a vast majority of Americans probably believe air quality has gotten worse since 1980…. meh, not so much…

If CAGW is such a slam dunk, why must Leftists always lie about the facts?

Why indeed..

April 29, 2019 4:15 am

Back around 2000 I worked on a story about the Massai. We interviewed some of them inside their huts which always had a fire alight. I think the smoke helped keep the insects at bay but on entering your eyes would be smarting, I could only take a few mins at a time. Nearby was a Roman Catholic mission with a couple of nurses. I asked them whether the Massai got ill. They drank very little water and what with that and the smoke thought it would be horrific for their health. The nurse said generally they were pretty fit but later in life could suffer from some respiratory problems. Bearing in mind that people living in cities never take the onslaught on their lungs that the Massai do I doubt whether particulates in the air have much of an effect.

“Negative studies and PM2.5
Courtesy of Stan Young, below is a (growing) list of published papers that report no association between PM2.5 and mortality”

April 29, 2019 3:28 pm

I couldn’t let it go, and so I easily found information that quite decisively demolishes the credibility of this laughably obvious political crutch. And it’s data from The Environmental Protection Agency itself!


1980-2017 — 32% DECREASE in national average

Carbon Monoxide
1980-2017 — 84% DECREASE in national average

1980-2017 — 99% DECREASE in national average

Nitrogen Dioxide
1980-2017 — 60% DECREASE in national average

Particulate Matter (PM10)
1980-2017 — 34% DECREASE in national average

Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
1980-2017 — 41% DECREASE in national average

Sulfur Dioxide
1980-2017 — 90% DECREASE in national average

The whole report, then, seems to be based on a massive under-consideration of all years before 2015.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
April 29, 2019 3:30 pm

Okay, I see SAMURAI beat me to it, and I’m just now seeing that. But, hey, a little redundancy drives home the point.

April 30, 2019 10:05 am

Oh, they are so much more than mere liars.

They misrepresent information, mix perspectives improperly, ignore long-term trends, make scientifically unfounded statements of causation, label scientific quality control as “censorship”, make outlandish claims of replacing government staff people with paid, oil-industry cronies, and probably do more offenses that I do not have patience to read their document to find out.

In short, they violate their Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance Accredited Charity Standards For Charity Accountability – Truthful Materials statement, which says, Have solicitations and informational materials, distributed by any means, that are accurate, truthful and not misleading, both in whole and in part.

I think that they abuse their donors and the public trust with this piece of crap.

Nah, I’m not outraged.

I speak as a person who, among other things in my youth, was an aerobic exercise instructor, fitness enthusiast, and all-around health advocate, … intensely for over fifteen years. I used to respect The American Lung Association, but now ….

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights