Greenhouse Gases to be Listed as Pollutants by EPA

I guess you're just as lazy as B-Bob, although you at least tried. Next time try to find more current data. Mmmmkay?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews

China overtakes US as world's biggest CO2 emitter

China has overtaken the United States as the world's biggest producer of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, figures released today show.

 

yup the roots of plants conduct cellular respiration..

 

Which is the most current link? The one you posted is from June 2007. The other link posted doesn't have a date though it cites Texas as the highest CO2 producing state.

I personally think the global warming debate is nothing more than a tax ploy. Anybody recall that during the depression in the 1930's the dust bowl?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_bowl

Nobody was crying global warming then.

 

While I respect the work of the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency -- their data is not quite accurate. I do agree however that CO2 emissions are a real threat to the planet.

 

Per capita, I would assume the US is still on top...

Not that being the second worst polluter behind a nation that clearly gives two s***ts about the environment or basic human rights is anything to be proud of.

 

Man, you people are lazy, ignorant and wrong on this topic. I thought democrats were supposed to be smarter than Republicans? That's what Master Baiter told me this morning.

The US isn't even close to being the top per capita emitter. Canada and the US have remarkably similar CO2 per capita figures, too, I might add.

The US is #10 on the list, followed closely at #11 by the 51st state to the north. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

 

Democrats are smarter then Republicans, although not being one of either, I don't really care too much. (This was based on anecdotal, completely made-up evidence and I stand up for it 110%...whee)

I referenced the per capita figure to bring to doubt your issue about China (which btw, is a very healthy #91 on that list). I just find it hilarious how you pounce on this Wikipedia page. China and the US are at least on the same scale, do you realize how ridiculous you look comparing Bahrain, Luxembourg and the Netherlands Antilles on the same scale as the US? There is literally no country before the US on that list that wouldn't make me cry of laughter if you used it to justify American emissions. Just sayin.

 

Environmentalsaurus Rexxx, a wikipedia article..? Really ?

Perhaps the Dutch study quoted earlier was skewed by CO2 emissions from Sticky Skunk #4.

 

LOL guys, don't go for the troll. It is the typical intellectually dishonest debate, where someone is crushed under logic but tries to go after one statistic. It is now a hotly debated topic based on 2008 (not yet completely sorted, as I understand it, data.) If you want the historic carbon load, or the per person data, it's not even close. But I was mistaken to say the US is clearly #1 at present. If anyone's actually interested in the data, I suggest ORNL as the best place to look.

Everything in my argument still stands even if the US is -- ooooo! -- the 2nd largest producer of CO2. The original troll crap was in essence suggesting that the US is a CO2 sink. And whether the US is 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th, said assertion would mean most other nations are a CO2 sink. This gets you quickly back to the territory of Charlie Sheen and the evil CO2-producing aliens!

The aliens showed up right around the industrial revolution! And the US of A just couldn't seem to chew up enough CO2 to fight them!



But then, Oakridge National Laboratory is a liberal-infested disinformation center, right? LOL.

 

B-Bob, this is an embarrassingly poor defense by you, a scientist, of global warming. Let me honestly say that I expected you to be much better than this. Just focusing on your Antarctica distraction for a moment, I really wish you would tell the whole story. Sea ice is up over 20% since 1980 in Antarctica. 20%, Bob. Global sea ice hasn't budged worldwide since 1979.

Wake up people, 'Global Warming' is a BIG FANTASY intended to raise tax revenue and increase the size of government in the US. In Europe and Japan, the goal is to limit the growth of industrialized nations, thereby keeping Europe/Japan as global powers. Scientists and enviro-kooks are complicit in the scam because of their moronic fascination with insignificant minutae and their anti-industralization sentiment. Their goal clearly isn't gains in people's standards of living -- that's for sure. Part of this is an inherent jealousy that people in science have for their wealthier counterparts in other industries.

 

I agree with you in many ways. I think it is more to the fact that there is one thing scientists dont know and cant know.

The natural warming and cooling of the planet. So far it is all just a large, educated guess. This "warming" very well could be natural and our CO2 is only helping speed it up a bit. At what rate is anyone's guess. The fact is there is not enough data or records to know the natural cycle of the earth. No one knows.

IMO.....Earth can rebound after massive meteor strikes, Super-volcano eruptions, which cause massive damage or failure to our enviroment/ozone/climate. This seems like a BS issue to me.

We will all be long dead before we know the answer.

 

Wait, what do scientists have to gain from this global conspiracy other then even more reduced salaries? Lol, this theory fails on so many levels. "Jealousy and anti-industrialization" driving thousands of papers. Jorge, I know this is a complete joke, but please be more subtle next time.

 

Scientists can't get funding unless they are pro-global warming. That's a fact. They are shunned by the scientific community if they come out against global warming.

 

(sigh) More logic failure.

Refuting the lunacy that the US is a CO2 sink (the original "point")
does not equal
my allegedly posting a detailed scientific argument concerning global climate change.

Those arguments have appeared time and again elsewhere, with all the data you could ever want. But some don't want. Scientists can't take the Rush Limbaugh type of position where you look at just one datum (look! sea ice in the south pole under a contracting ozone hole!) and ignore or toss out everything that doesn't fit your preferred result.

My absolute failure was getting suckered in to posting replies again. Weak moment. Apologies to the OP, as the idea of the EPA action, and a serious discussion of it, would be interesting. I do not agree with the EPA action.

 

You haven't even done that, Bob.

There is a reason why the Gore fanatics want to shut down the debate -- because they really don't have a strong argument. Whenever Gore is challenged with data, he responds with 'the time for debate is over'. Hmm... does that sound like a man with an actual solid case? No. He put together a biased documentary that was filled with lies, half-truths and embellishments. And the Sheeple bought it, hook, line and sinker.

Back something up with stats, Bob. The Antarctica distraction obviously was paper-thin and didn't work.

 

And Jorge, why would the scientific community want to advocate global warming?

Is it more likely that it could actually be happening?

Or it is even more likely that the scientific establishment is run by a series of John Zerzans, a sect of anarcho-primitives that wants to see us back to the Stone Age, a la Fight Club?

Yeesh, even Exxon has seen the light. Maybe the other oil companies and big industry groups providing funding for the anti-warming groups will too. One can only hope.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/

 

I think the global warming debate is moot. It's foolish at this point to try to lower CO2 levels in hopes of curbing global warming.

All indications are that this planet is going to keep warming up and the artic will melt, and so will much of the ice on the planet. Even if we cut CO2, that effect may continue now - it's a runaway train.

I think reducing CO2 emissions is fool's gold, instead, we need to focus on how to live with rising sea levels.

it's coming, and it's inevitable. We have to deal with the reality of that.

 

There's a very interesting National Geographic article in this month's issue; it deals with the Arctic and the geopolitical consequences of the great reduction in sea ice there. All kinds of natural resources will become available, and new shipping lanes, new ports, will present themselves... but there are debates as to who owns what as you get to the very pointy tip of the globe. USSR, Norway, USA, and Canada have some overlapping claims.