Yes. I saw your fattie analogy. And, I acknowledged that may be the case, yet the US fattie is doing a better job of keeping his weight going in the correct direction (ie. by reducing his gain more than others). This is clearly stated by Volker, sans fattie analogy.

So, how about some numbers to support your fattie analolgy (that would be what State said, anyway) and your incredulous view of the numbers in order for you to state/believe are dishonest? If they are out there, I would like to see them, because I want to know and be informed.

Look beyond 2004, and you see a huge jump that erases any cuts. Even ignoring the fact the military emissions are not counted we have the unavoidable truth that consumer spending has increased in the US while the manufacture of those goods has moved offshore. That only means that somebody else is producing emissions ultimately as a result of increasing american consumption (the same is true in all of Europe and Canada and Australia as well).

Also, Canada's emissions increased by 25% over the last few years. The majority of that increase is from the oil sands, and that is for US energy, not Canadian. Add to that the above mentioned offhshoring of consumer production to china it all comes out as quite disingenuous to suggest the US (or any consumer nation) is cutting emissions. The smokestack is just being shifted to a different nation, typically in Asia for our consumer goods, but also to Canada and Latin america for oil and gas.

Globally, emissions are on the rise and the earth has less and less ability to absorb the emissions as we weaken the carbon sinks int he forests and oceans.

World carbon dioxide levels highest for 650,000 years, says US report | Environment | The Guardian

Global emissions are the main concern, looking at each individual nations GHG emissions is becoming increasingly meaningless as the worlds production and consumption becomes more globalized and interdependent. As long as we have the same accelerating growth in consumption habits (and we do), one nations emissions appear to go down, but another nations emissions invariably go up.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

[Emphasis mine] That does seem to be the case.

I imagine that you and I may differ on this, too (the first part, that is): I am not against growth; let's just continue to have the incentives to make that growth clean. I don't really care for mandates about emissions. One can catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them, speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

If the growth is sustainable over the long term, im not against it either. But even clean growth, if it takes more from the earth than can be regenerated in a given time period, is still unsustainable.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

Well, you may have seen it, but obviously it wasn't clear enough to be understood. Let me try again. There are really two parts to this, plus one other that Andrew brought up which is also important, three in all.

1) The larger the number one begins with, the smaller a given change will appear when measured in terms of the change in the rate of change. For example:

Nation A emits (let us say) 100,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases in year 1, and 102,000 in year 2. This is an increase of 2,000 metric tons.

Nation B emits (let us say) 50,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases in year 1, and 51,500 in year 2. This is an increase of 1,500 metric tons.

Which nation has increased more, measured in absolute amounts? Nation A, by 500 metric tons. But which nation has increased more, measured as a percentage? Nation B, because its emissions grew 3%, while Nation A's grew 2%.

That is what I mean by the concept being inherently misleading. Nation A's emissions actually grew more, but looking at the percentage rate of change rather than the amount of change makes it seem as if they grew less. And that, I am sure, is what is happening w/r/t U.S. emissions. The Bush administration, I am equally sure, chose to measure things by this rather unusual method precisely for that reason.

2) It is pointless and foolish for another reason to measure slowdown in the rate of increase in greenhouse gases and pat ourselves on the back. We do not need to slow down the increase in gases. We need to reverse it, and actually reduce emissions. We were putting out too much before, and now we're putting out even more too much. We are going in the wrong direction, and it is not comforting that we have slowed down (if in fact we have), when what we need to do is to go into reverse.

3) (This is what Andrew pointed out.) We must also ask how much of the change, however meaningless, is actually caused by moving U.S. manufacturing to other countries. Since those other countries usually have more lax environmental laws than we do (that's one reason why the facilities were moved, although not I think the most important reason), the factories after moving may well be putting out more greenhouse gases, and are almost certainly worse in terms of other pollutants, than if they had remained here -- yet the fact that they are NOT here falsely and misleadingly contributes to making our numbers look better.

But I don't have an incredulous view of the numbers. I have an incredulous view of the reasoning behind them. I accept the numbers, but they do not mean what the Bush administration wants us to think they mean.

OK. Then you and I are seeing the same thing from State. I happen to see it as more than "doing nothing" and as something not too novel from McCain with respect to GWB, as the NYT article implies (except for mandates).

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them, speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Well it seems to me that carbon dioxide emissions scare is a pretend problem in the first place because none of the Global Warming Cult gurus have provided any logical argument to show that the past, current or projected carbon dioxide emmissions by humans have or will ever cause any significant detrimental effects to our environment.



Obviously, that is what the whole scam is about.

They just keep telling people that carbon dioxide is a "problem", and many impressionable idiots in the world will believe it if they repeat it often enough and put a picture of a cute polar bear in front of it. Then they will agree to give them money.

So why are you buying it?

__________________
... ..................
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Jesus Christ. Did you really mean what you just said? I mean, it can plausibly be argued, based on a certain amount of ignorance of the science, that there isn't enough evidence to make that conclusion. Hardly any professionals in climate science give that any credence any longer; it certainly isn't a scientific dispute; but if one isn't an expert then it remains possible to preserve that opinion.

But to say there is no "logical argument"?

OK -- here's the logical argument.

1. The earth's temperature is maintained, in part, by the presence of so-called "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere. These gases include carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, and a few others. They are transparent to visible light, but opaque to infrared radiation. Sunlight passes through them on the way in because it is in the visible-light spectrum, but some sunlight is reflected back as infrared and is trapped by the gases. This keeps the earth warmer than it would be without such gases in the atmosphere.

2. This "greenhouse effect" is a more-or-less, not an either-or situation, i.e., if more of the atmosphere is made up of greenhouse gases, then more of the sun's energy would be trapped and the earth would be warmer; if greenhouse gases decline, more of the sun's energy will escape and the earth will cool.

3. Burning fossil fuels adds greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. (Deforestation does essentially the same thing, by removing vegetation that was absorbing CO2 and turning it into trees.) This increases the greenhouse effect, and was predicted to cause global warming even before this effect was measured.

4. We have in fact observed global warming to be taking place. Some of this global warming must, inevitably, be due to the addition of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. There may be other causes as well, but that has to be one of them.

5. Therefore, by continuing to burn fossil fuels, we will continue to warm the earth, with certain unpleasant consequences for ourselves. If we stop burning fossil fuels, we will stop warming the earth. Whether the earth continues to warm will depend on whether there are other causes for it besides ourselves, which is not known although there is no affirmative reason to believe it. It certainly will not warm as quickly.

Because I am not a scientific ignoramus.

BTW, I disagree with Andrew about the value of cap-and-trade. This was tried by the Clinton administration as a way to reduce acid rain, and it worked very well. There is no reason to believe it won't work similarly well to reduce greenhouse gases.

I agree that McCain is a total moron, what the heck sort of a conservative makes issues of the enviroment?

What i don't get though however is why you would be willing to contribute to his campaign?

Richard Nixon?

You really think they are just chance coincidences and correlations???

Kramer

__________________
“It's time to admit that public education operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system in which everybody's role is spelled out in advance and there are few incentives for innovation and productivity. It's no surprise that our school system doesn't improve; it more resembles the communist economy than our own market economy."
Albert Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers

What?

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

How did you come to the conclusion that we should be cooling the Earth?

Even if the weirdo nutjobs are right and humans are warming the Earth, how do you know that this natural warming is a bad thing as opposed to a good thing?

__________________
... ..................
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Not necessarily if the cap and trade agreement stays within the United States. However, it does place some pressure on Obama with his plan to fight global warming. If McCain's plan is less expensive than Obama, the business conscious conservatives will vote for McCain and fiscal conservatives as well. The key is how the Obama campaign would react to this, if at all.

What makes you think McCain is a conservative? But then again, you might want to talk to Gov Perry on this. Just give him a call.

Sen McCain is smart enough to avoid the controversy on what causes global warming, ie man made vs natural, but at the same time, McCain will try to get businesses more involved voluntarily instead of forced fed by Obama. And in case you have not read or heard, more and more businesses are attempting to be more green. They just need the extension of the IRC 179D expenses to continue, as a start.

Provide tax incentives for businesses to go green, and you will see the difference.