Redstate

Hat tip to Rush (...I mean, Neil) He had a link to this a long time ago and it is fantastic..Everybody please read...

"I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance."

"People died on her watch. / 911 happened on her watch. /
She failed in her duty to protect this nation. /
And for that...she got promoted. The peter principle hard at work
and now people are suggesting her for VP??"
MrSyHastings

The irony would kill most eco-nuts.

but if the per capita was shown it would make even a stronger case against the Kyoto signatories.

"A man does what he can and endures what he must."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissio...

That took .7 seconds

What else you got?

The graph was showing changes in emissions, not a one year number. If you graphed the changes in per-capita production it would tell a similar story to the original graph. The whole point is to see who is doing a better job of managing emisssions. Did you miss the point that badly, or are you just being disingenuous again?

reading you could have avoided a tragic self-beclowning.

1. the chart is about an increase, not an amount.

2. your reference doesn't do a per capita calculation

2. your reference isn't a time series

3. your reference doesn't distinguish between the groups as defined in the chart.

"A man does what he can and endures what he must."

Only to a simple mind. It's pretty clear from the graph that emissions have gone up faster since 1997 in Kyoto signatories than in non- signatories (primarily the US). If we go back to 1990, the graph would probably look different. Not because the Kyoto signatories did anything special to reduce emissions of CO2. It would just reflect the collapse of the economies of many of the Eastern European (former Soviet) economies. Why do you think that Kyoto uses 1990 as the benchmark? Because it makes them look better. The amazing thing is that the US economy grew faster than the European economies during this time period and our emissions increased at a lower rate. If you wanted to make the true story clear, you'd graph net emmissions, in which case, the US would show as negative, since on the whole, North America is a CO2 sink.

Cherry-picked computer models fed data unable to withstand scientific scrutiny don't make a complex issue simple, either.

Anyone aiming to degrade my quality of life and pilfer what is mine through regulation and taxation had better have proof based on hard science that AGW is real, that GW is a net negative, and that the proposed costly remedies will substantially reduce the effect of AGW.

Until such proof is offered and accepted, I will question the motives of the AGW crowd. They can do whatever they want with what's theirs in response to their half-baked hypotheses and fraudulent substantiations, but once they start reaching their grubby little hands into my pockets, I will call them out for the filthy thieves that they are.

Per-capita emissions are irrelevant. Completely irrelevant. Carbon dioxide molecules don't care about the lifestyles of people. They all have equal impact on the climate.

So if you truly believe that the purpose of the treaty is to prevent change to global climates, then your suggestion is irrelevant. Every pound of Chinese CO2 has the same impact as a pound of American, no matter how many people were involved in its creation.

Per-capita rates are only important if the treaty's purpose is anti-industrialization instead of actual CO2 controls, which is of course a theory backed by the fact that China and India are freely allowed to increase their emissions without bound under the treaty.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

are even less relevant. Otherwise you might as well say that Luxembourg should not expect to have any limit because its emissions are so small.

Why would you say that the treaty is anti-industrialization. What country is industrializing faster than China?

What limit do you think Kyoto should have put on China?

Right now China is the largest producer of CO2 emissions and is a signatory to the treaty. What's more under the terms of the treaty they are exempt from restriction. (Not that the Chicoms would actually live up to a treaty

As to the question what limit should have been put on China ? I dunno what would it have taken to save the world ? That is the premise no ? Save the CO2 save the world ? (I'd much rather go for the cheerleader)

P.S. whats your take on the extended non warming globally warming world.

It's just another of the cyclic processes which are an additive effect to the 2 W/m2 GHG heat influx. The new understanding of the PDO is interesting. I doubt if it will come to quite as much as they say, though. Remember, they are just one group with a GCM :( We'll hear more.

Kyoto is anti-rich countries. There.

Kyoto should have prevented all countries from having CO2 growth if you truly, honestly think that CO2 emissions growth is causing global catastrophe unlike any seen in the history of mankind.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater