2012 was warmest year in U.S. history

[jimgata]

Anyone really believe the earths climate has only changed in the last 50 years? Yes it has changed. It has changed ever since the earth was created and will continue to change as long as it exists. Of course the warmists will only be happy when everyone agrees that man can only cause this change and spend trillions on solving a problem of climate change, that will happen whather man exists or not.

[oragator1]

Originally Posted by jimgata

Anyone really believe the earths climate has only changed in the last 50 years? Yes it has changed. It has changed ever since the earth was created and will continue to change as long as it exists. Of course the warmists will only be happy when everyone agrees that man can only cause this change and spend trillions on solving a problem of climate change, that will happen whather man exists or not.

Who in the world ever claimed the earth's climate was static?
Just because there are other things affecting climate doesn't mean we can't affect it as well. That's like arguing we can't be causing forest fires, floods etc because nature has been causing them for eons. It's not a logical argument.

[GatorRade]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

If science were to suddenly prove beyond reasonable doubt that AGW was real I don't think it would change the modus operandi of the Chinese one iota. On the other hand the United States would go into melt down (pun intended) with new regulations and taxes even while the Chinese went their merry polluting way.

Not sure I agree with this. At least we know that China has been way ahead of the US on "green" technology, including then already agreeing to a carbon emissions trading scheme.

China's green progress leaves US red-faced

[wygator]

Originally Posted by GatorRade

Not sure I agree with this. At least we know that China has been way ahead of the US on "green" technology, including then already agreeing to a carbon emissions trading scheme.

China's green progress leaves US red-faced

Bottom line is their C02 emissions (recently surpassing ours) and are growing rapidly. They are increasing their coal imports. China's green stuff is just window dressing.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by wygator

Bottom line is their C02 emissions (recently surpassing ours) and are growing rapidly. They are increasing their coal imports. China's green stuff is just window dressing.

On a per capita basis we produce much more in CO2 emissions than China.

[OaktownGator]

I don't advocate any policy change specifically for AGW at this point, but I don't understand the attitude of sticking your head in the sand just because you think somebody else is just going to stick their head in he sand.

If something truly needs to be done, we should be leaders... not losers.

[wygator]

Originally Posted by Row6

On a per capita basis we produce much more in CO2 emissions than China.

Not sure what your point is in that. Our productivity of goods and services for the world is greater than most anyone else, except now maybe China. Their fossil fuel use is increasing at nearly exponetial rates while ours has actually decreased the past few years.

Our decrease has been primarily due to the poor economy. Thanks Pres. Obama!!!

Here are the Top 10...note that India is also likely to be rapidly increasing their emissions in the near term.

Current CO2 emissions

The simplest and most common way to compare the emissions of countries is to add up all the fossil fuels burned and cement produced in each nation and convert that into CO2. According to 2011 data compiled by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, the top 10 emitters by this measure are:

1. China: 9697 million tonnes (MT) or 28.6%
2. US: 5420 MT or 16.0%
3. India: 1967 MT or 5.8%
4. Russia: 1829 MT or 5.4%
5. Japan: 1243 MT or 3.7%
6. Germany: 810 MT 2.4%
7. South Korea: 609 MT or 1.7%
8. Canada: 555 MT or 1.6%
9. Indonesia: 490 MT or 1.4%
10. Saudi Arabia: 464 MT or 1.4%

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...climate-change

[jimgata]

There is a helluva lot of things we can conrol but climate ain't one of them.
We can control fires that we cause and not what nature causes,we can control floods that are caused by man's creations, dam and levees, but we cannot control actions controlled by nature. If we can, how about controlling hurricanes , temperatures, rain and droughts?

[Row6]

Originally Posted by wygator

Not sure what your point is in that. Our productivity of goods and services for the world is greater than most anyone else, except now maybe China. Their fossil fuel use is increasing at nearly exponetial rates while ours has actually decreased the past few years.

Our decrease has been primarily due to the poor economy. Thanks Pres. Obama!!!

Here are the Top 10...note that India is also likely to be rapidly increasing their emissions in the near term.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...climate-change

You can make of the facts what you will. The fact is that we are by far the largest emitters of CO2 on a per capita basis, which means we likely have more room for improvement without reentering the dark ages.

BTW, and since you couldn't resist a throw away and irrelevant line, here's another fact - Obama inherited the poor economy and has presided over it's improvement.

[jimgata]

The economy is like the climate, it runs in cycles.

[GatorRade]

Originally Posted by wygator

Not sure what your point is in that. Our productivity of goods and services for the world is greater than most anyone else, except now maybe China. Their fossil fuel use is increasing at nearly exponetial rates while ours has actually decreased the past few years.

I'm with Row. Our per capita emissions are ridiculous high compared to China. Now this mostly because China is a very poor country, but they have a population that is four times that of the US. My point is for all the negatives that you can cite regarding China (and I think there are many), monetary commitment to decreasing emissions is simply not one of them.

[wargunfan]

Originally Posted by Row6

On a per capita basis we produce much more in CO2 emissions than China.

The earth doesn't understand "per capita". Just give the Chinese time and they will make us look like pikers when measuring CO2 emissions. They have already polluted much of their land mass. Severe air pollution has already reached Mongolia and Western China

[GatorRade]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

The earth doesn't understand "per capita". Just give the Chinese time and they will make us look like pikers when measuring CO2 emissions. They have already polluted much of their land mass. Severe air pollution has already reached Mongolia and Western China

If this the road you want to go down, then I'm guessing you think the Vatican is most green country, since their emissions are so low? In the same vein, the Earth doesn't understand "China" either. Emissions are global.

For me, the per capita number is paramount, because we don't regulate reproduction (though China sort of does, so you might want to rethink your position). We regulate emissions (well, we don't do that either with CO2, but China might).

[G8trGr8t]

Originally Posted by boligator

The major problem I see here is that most people on this board have no clue to the basic principles of thermodynamics...the climate is changing...be it natural or man made...it IS changing...I live in Colombia and for the last several years the rain is less each year...it is real guys...the question is what do we do about it...you are so concerned about the economic future of our children...yet you ignore the reality of climate change...I just don't understand the opposition to any real dialogue that our planet is indeed changing climate wise...I could give a rats a$$ about what political crap you adhere to...but we are in for a big challenge globally...stay tuned...

Is this the first time climate has changed? Remember the dust bowl? The debate isn't about whether cliimate changes, it is what causes the change.

[GatorRade]

Originally Posted by G8trGr8t

Is this the first time climate has changed? Remember the dust bowl? The debate isn't about whether cliimate changes, it is what causes the change.

It is interesting that you bring up the dust bowl as an example, since this is one of the textbook examples of anthropogenic change.

[Gatorrick22]

Originally Posted by HALLGATOR

Rand's philosophy is better suited for a world full of Vulcans in my opinion. One of my biggest issues with her is, what I see as, a failure to take into account how much part emotions have in shaping our being. Thus when I think of Rand the first word that comes to mind is "cold." This is the way I felt when reading both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead as both were akin to reading technical manuals.

That's interesting considering that the liberals are the ones using so-called empirical evidence to try and trick us all into higher taxes.... to pay for all the other countries of the world that are polluting our "same" atmosphere.

It's kind of ironic.... Using (flawed) science to trick us emotionally.

[WESGATORS]

Emissions per capita doesn't mean anything significant; if we're evaluating a country vs. a country, it should be by area, not by population. That they mistreat much of their fellow citizens shouldn't be considered an excuse that permits them to pollute more. We wouldn't be doing better with pollution if we all of a sudden had a population boom and we refused to let these people be active participants in our society.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[g8orbill]

environmental whackos know no bounds when trying to prove their gw bullchit

http://finance.townhall.com/columnis...tm_campaign=nl

[GatorRade]

Originally Posted by G8trGr8t

all about a relatively minor event in Cali...meanwhile the largest by population country is experiencing record cold that is threatening their food supply but we have all this discussion about how warmth in US is proof positive of global warming and no discussion of record cold across China

Now we have a cold snap in the eastern US.

CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/25/us/col...her/index.html
Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/24...-arctic-blast/
WashPost: http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2013...g-even-colder/
Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...90L0Q720130124
And there are several others.

You see what I am saying, Gr8t? It isn't necessarily that the US media only preferentially covers warm weather and not cold weather. It is probably just that the US media preferentially covers US weather events.

[g8trjax]

It's called the jet steam. When it stays north, U.S. has a mild year, when it dips down regularly, cold year. Pretty simple.