The Durban Game

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

In the run-up to the next-to-last big meeting of the UNFCCC (United Nations Frequent Climate Change Carnival) held in Copenhagen in 2009, I showed the following graph under the title “Why Copenhagen Will Achieve Nothing

Figure 1. Carbon Emissions 1970-2006 by Region, and Global (red).

At that time it was clear that if the entire industrialized world cut back to 1980 emission levels, the climbing global emissions would scarcely change.

We are now coming up on the 17th UN Climate Change Carnival … so many clowns … so few circuses. This Carnival will be held in Durban, South Africa. How have CO2 emissions evolved since the Copenhagen Carnival? The latest figures are just in. Many electrons are being sacrificed in anguish about the numbers. “Record High 2010 Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Combustion and Cement Manufacture Posted on CDIAC Site” shouts the headline from … well, that’s actually the self-referential headline on the CDIAC page itself. The CDIAC site says that the CDIAC site says that the CDIAC site says that a record …

Our friends at the UK Guardian newspaper enthuse that “Greenhouse gases rise by record amount.” Elsewhere the hype rises roughly proportionally with the distance from understanding what the numbers actually mean.

So how did we set this new record for carbon emissions? Figure 2 shows the information from the CDIAC site.

Figure 2. Changes in emissions from 2008 to 2010.

Hmmm …

In interpreting these numbers, it is useful to remember that carbon emissions measure what is generally called “development” —access to all of the good things that energy brings to the citizens of the country. Medicine, and food, and shelter from the sun, and heat when its cold, and transportation, and communications, and refrigeration, and farm tractors … the list is long. It’s development, and it runs on and is synonymous with energy.

So when the developed world asks India and China and Brazil and Indonesia to cut back on carbon emissions, we’re asking them to cut back on developing their country’s health and well-being and infrastructure and manufacturing … good luck selling them that line of what my step-grandpa used to call “bull-dust” …

Remember that the Kyoto Protocol expires soon. The dream of the carbon alarmists is to extend Kyoto. They want to see a new set of global binding restrictions on the increase in carbon emissions. That is to say, they want to see binding restrictions on the increase in energy use in the developing world.

Me, I think that is one of the most inhumane proposals ever floated. The great masses of India and China and Brazil and the rest are finally clawing their way out of abject poverty, and the carbon alarmists want to put binding restrictions on their access to energy?!? Get real! The good news is, they will never, never agree to that. That carbon is what is fueling, quite literally, their rise out of the mire.

In addition, consider that agreements like Kyoto keep energy use from increasing. That approach sounds reasonable, at first blush. And for the developed countries, that’s not much problem, our use is plenty high already. But for China and India and the like? It means we’re saying they can’t ever catch up with us. I can assure you that they see the rank hypocrisy in that approach.

So if Kyoto is thankfully dead in a global sense, what does that leave? Well, I hate to be crass and crude about it but the bad news is that just leaves …

Money. Euros. Greenbacks. Simoleons. Follow the Benjamins.

What will happen in Durban is that the developing countries will pull out all of the stops to convince the developed world to give them money. We’ll hear endless heart-wrenching stories of climate refugees and dying reefs and ecological zones being uprooted and moved polewards without so much as a by-your-leave. And not forgetting, people in polar bear suits. Can’t have a UN Climate Change Carnival without polar bears.

And if history is any guide, in all probability, the carbon activists and quiche-eaters and Eurotrash we have representing the developed world will be unable to bear the guilt of actually being developed, and they will cave in to the demands and promise some money some time down the line … and then, thankfully, most countries likely won’t honor the promises, leading to diplomatic complaints and strongly worded protests.

(As an aside … Dear US Congress-Persons … can we stop funding the IPCC? They’re giving away the taxpayers’ money and getting nothing in return. That’s supposed to be your job, could you at least get rid of the competition? — TIA, willis.)

I leave it to the reader to consider further implications of these numbers. The sun is shining. I’m going outside to build something.

w.

Advertisements

155 thoughts on “The Durban Game

  1. I take it when the graph says “carbon emmissions” we’re tlking about “carbon dioxide emmissions”… A woman having a baby emits a little bundle of carbon-based life. Loads of carbon in that mewling puker.

    And, the country emissions difference table look like anomalies for each country’s carbondioxide emmissions calculated against some sort of base line. That’s pretty sound climate science you got there!

    Not to mention economics, and politics too! Well done Willis, always worth reading, please keep it up.

  2. On re-reading, it is possible my previous comment might be construed as containing sarcasm, it did not.

  3. The sun is shining here too. In Calgary, the temperature is 2 degrees Celsius. The bank of tall windows on the south side of my house is flooding me with free heat, My furnace is off, well sort of. While I was away the pilot flame thermocouple failed, and the heat was off for a number of days. The pipes in my basement slab are cold…so I have my furnace blaring away pumping some heat into the slab. Using gas I’m glad I have access to. Once that initial heating is done, it takes a tiny amount of furnace time to maintain it. What has this got to do with Climate Carnivals? The very ingenuity that results in my house being so easy to heat, is now something that gang of Durban Occupiers will apologize for. While China attempts emissions blackmail in the face of the same carnival. Meanwhile as I quiety reduce waste and emissions, this group exemplifies both. Jetting from all over the world to an exotic location to hash over a completely unproductive fantasy with a negative bottom line. How Quaint. I hope and pray that they fail miserably, and I really don’t like the tax dollars that went to pay for it.

  4. Sure you are allowed to build something as long as you comply with the BANANA rule.

    Thats Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.

    Good luck

  5. The climate alarmists want to to the developing world continue to cook their meals over dung fires instead of using gas or electricity. I wonder what the total carbon emissions are on those sources?

  6. Peter Dunford says:
    November 8, 2011 at 1:18 pm

    I take it when the graph says “carbon emmissions” we’re tlking about “carbon dioxide emmissions”…

    No, it’s millions of tonnes of carbon. In general, the CDIAC figures are in tonnes of carbon (C) rather than carbon dioxide (CO2).

    w.

  7. There are a couple of confusing items in the part you link to: “The latest figures are”
    The first is:”Globally 9,139 Teragrams of oxidized carbon (Tg-C) were”. This would be no problem if they did not then convert to CO2 afterwards. So exactly what is this 9139 Tg? Is it pure C or CO2?
    The second is “the 2010 estimate is about 104.5% of that, or 391 Tg-C more”. The 391 is only an increase of 4.5% over the 2008 value of 8749.

    P.S. I just saw your reply to Peter. So why do they call it “oxidized carbon”?

  8. Chart seems to have a high correlation with economic growth, as the countries at the top have reduced beneficial emissions due to recession, and the two at the bottom are growing furiously.

  9. Superb post Mr. Eschenback. This perspective portraying the reality of global carbon emissions has been dishonestly concealed from the public by the main stream media for decades. The climate fear media still tries to push the position that the U.S. and Europe can make some big difference in world emissions which is just plain absurd.
    The U.S. and Europe makeup only about 1/3 of total global emissions with Asia dominating both total emissions as well as annual emission increases. Asia is accountable for nearly 60% of the emissions increase that occurred in 2010 with China alone making up more than 40% of the 2010 increase. China’s 2010 emissions increase exceeds that of the U.S. by more than a factor of 3.5 with China’s total 2010 emissions being more than 50% greater than those in the U.S. The 2010 U.S. emissions are more than 3% below those of 2008 and the proportion of U.S. and Europe emissions will rapidly decline in the future becoming more and more irrelevant in the global picture. Asia’s extensive and growing use of coal accounts for the bulk of their increases.
    The fact that global CO2 emission increases during the last 10 years which were more than triple the emission increases in the prior decade has resulted in a standstill in global temperatures since 1998 strongly supports that CO2 emissions are not controlling global climate or temperatures.
    Well done Mr. Eschenbach!!

  10. I wonder what he built outside….. A quiche-munching-Eurotrash-carbon-activist stomping machine (for carbon sequestration) perhaps?

  11. Mike, the Chinese noticed that correlation long ago. The Greens understand it too, the more open of them cheerfully admin that they are opposed to technology and civilization, their ideal society being a small village with low footprint.

  12. It became obvious in Copenhagen that the nations of the globe have self-divided into three groups: the nations which have developed and deployed efficient, low emissions technologies; the nations which want access to those technologies at the expense of the developers; and, the nations which just want the profits from the deployment of those technologies.

  13. Dear US Congress-Persons … can we stop funding the IPCC? They’re giving away the taxpayers’ money and getting nothing in return. That’s supposed to be your job, could you at least get rid of the competition?

    And, IMHO, this same plea should be circulated to all other IPCC-enabling governments. Readers might be interested in my latest take on the IPCC (and its relationship to the UNFCCC) … To my mind, in playing its dutiful role in (what you quite rightly call) The Durban Game, the IPCC has reduced itself to the role of sausage manufacturer (which is decidedly lacking in quality control!)

    The IPCC’s new, improved “virtual certainty” flavoured sausage report

  14. Willis @ 1:40:

    “In general, the CDIAC figures are in tonnes of carbon (C) rather than carbon dioxide (CO2).”

    OK, but it is still based on CO2 emissions, right? IOW, take CO2 emissions and then subtract out the O2 (roughly)? Or are the figures looking at some other form of “carbon” emissions besides CO2?

  15. TomB says:
    November 8, 2011 at 2:07 pm

    Am I reading that right? Did the US cut its carbon emissions by more than the next 3 combined?
    =============================

    Tom, now start at the bottom and look at India, China, Brazil, and South Africa…….the three worst and all considered “developing”…………
    ….looks like they are pretty damn well developed to me

  16. Willis,

    The idea of everybody working together for a common, global good is just so seductive that it doesn’t matter whether Kyoto works or not. These people are interested in utopian ideals, not in real people. Don’t forget — limiting the emissions of developing countries won’t hurt them, it hurts somebody else.

    Results don’t matter. The USA lowered it’s emissions without signing Kyoto. (BTW: Did you know Barack Obama never signed the Kyoto Protocol Treaty?) but gets no credit. Ask yourself why and once you understand the answer, you’ll understand how these things work.

  17. .
    As I have always said – Green taxes INCREASE global emissions output.

    All we are doing is making Western industry uneconomic, so it is relocated to China, where they don’t give a flying fig about emissions. Hence the total world emissions INCREASE.

    Oh, and at the same time, we kill more workers too. China manages to kill between 2,000 and 6,000 coal miners a year – which takes some doing – just to provide cheap electricity and so cheap goods to sell in the West. You know that red packaging they so love on the boxes of Chinese goods? Its not ink, its the blood of Chinese coal miners….

    .

  18. .
    >> Monroe says: November 8, 2011 at 1:25 pm
    >> I’m going outside too.

    Are you ‘going to be some time’?

    Don’t do it, Monroe, its not worth it. The truth shall win out in the end…. ;-)

    .

  19. Have I got this right, Willis? For years, the warmists have been talking of ‘carbon’ when they really meant Co2. We, the sceptics, have been constantly correcting them and telling everybody that what they mean is CO2.

    So now, when the CDIAC produce a chart of ‘Carbon emissions’, they admit it really is carbon – but the warmist disciples will continue to read it as CO2 (because we have been telling them that it is). So we are fooled twice…(shame on them).

    Or maybe I missed something here.

  20. The carbon atom is only 3/11 of the CO2 molecule,
    so do those carbon giga-tonnes have to be multipled by 3.666
    to get actual CO2 emissions?

    What is all this anyway?
    Are they too lazy to pronounce the extra syllables in ‘dioxide’?

  21. I don’t think anyone is actually measuring emissions. The inventory is based on the measured amount of fuel being burned or the amount of cement being produced. Even these figures are often estimates. It would be foolish to stop burning fossil fuels to save the world from an anticipated global average temperature rise of one or two degrees. We would destroy civilzation in the process.

  22. In the recent past, we have an illustration of an attempt at reverting to a simpler and less complex society, Cambodia. Pol Pot imposed his Paris inspired ideal of an agrarian society living in harmony with nature, 18th Century Voltaire if you will, upon an impoverished and already rural agrarian society. Today’s warmists also wish to impose a carbonless footprint society upon impoverished developing nations. The means to both ends is the same: “Killing Fields.” I can imagine no greater crime than the suppression of peoples to an energy limited society.

  23. As an aside … Dear US Congress-Persons … can we stop funding the IPCC? They’re giving away the taxpayers’ money and getting nothing in return. That’s supposed to be your job, could you at least get rid of the competition? — TIA, willis.)
    ———-
    and exactly what money is the IPCC giving away and how much?

  24. CDIAC post this as though it has meaning (even for AGW acolytes). Like anybody is measuring the amount of wood/trees being burned across the globe…

  25. Figure 2 would be more interesting if the carbon changes were presented as a percentage of emissions rather than the absolute tons.
    Dr. Muller lays it out…

    The US could cut emissions to ZERO, and China would take up all the slack

  26. While the energy reduction in developed countries is just an illusion. A large number of energy intensive industries like steel, aluminum, copper smelting and even spare parts for cars and machineries consumed or used in developed countries are manufactured in developing countries primarily China, India, Brazil and southeast Asia. So this exercise results to more global carbon dioxide emissions because ores mined in Australia are shipped to China and from China to Europe and US instead of the most direct route to the point of consumption. China has agreed to a target to reduce its energy intensity. Another illusion, as certainly China will meet its target of lower energy intensity as the amount of carbon dioxide emission continues to increase in absolute terms but at a rate lower than the increase in the divisor which the GDP especially if the divisor is denominated in US dollar. The Yuan have appreciated some 20 per cent compared to the US dollar in recent years and if the carbon dioxide emission have increased by 9 per cent, then the energy intensity in terms of tons of coal equivalent per 1000 US $ has declined by 10 per cent. It is all accounting.

  27. Why do all the bubbles originate from the bottom of a champagne flute glass full of fizzy wine? These bubbles are CO2 right, but why do they always form at the bottom and rise to the top?

  28. Just curious. Wouldn’t those initial curves also reflect the increase in carbon consumption by the world’s flora? I don’t seem to be struggling for oxygen in some kind of perverted atmosphere, so I would have to assert that the plants are doing a pretty good job of removing the carbon di-oxide if nothing else.

  29. You say “Me, I think that is one of the most inhumane proposals ever floated. The great masses of India and China and Brazil and the rest are finally clawing their way out of abject poverty, and the carbon alarmists want to put binding restrictions on their access to energy?!?”

    Well I was a kid in New Zealand in the 1950s. Were we living in abject poverty then? I don’t think so. The majority of energy is used to quite literally produce rubbish. There are many measures that could reduce that. I don’t buy your emotional argument at all.

  30. Latitude says:
    November 8, 2011 at 2:32 pm

    Willis, we’re still talking about CO2/carbon….but no one is talking JAXA

    Is there something wrong with their results? something else?

    http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/30_13.html

    Thanks, Latitude. I haven’t had time yet to even understand what JAXA says, much less how it differs from the other satellite measuring CO2.

    w.

  31. Eric Anderson says:
    November 8, 2011 at 2:42 pm

    Willis @ 1:40:

    “In general, the CDIAC figures are in tonnes of carbon (C) rather than carbon dioxide (CO2).”

    OK, but it is still based on CO2 emissions, right? IOW, take CO2 emissions and then subtract out the O2 (roughly)? Or are the figures looking at some other form of “carbon” emissions besides CO2?

    As far as I know, it is the weight of the C in the CO2 emissions, which is 12/44 of the CO2 weight.

    w.

  32. “Well I was a kid in New Zealand in the 1950s. Were we living in abject poverty then?”

    People in India still cook their meals over dung fires. Did you do that in the 1950s?

  33. LazyTeenager says:
    November 8, 2011 at 3:56 pm

    As an aside … Dear US Congress-Persons … can we stop funding the IPCC? They’re giving away the taxpayers’ money and getting nothing in return. That’s supposed to be your job, could you at least get rid of the competition? — TIA, willis.)

    ———-
    and exactly what money is the IPCC giving away and how much?

    Since you are apparently far too lazy to look it up … I guess you may never know. Because I’m not going to do your homework for you … however, to speed your search, here’s a clue:

    The IPCC has never produced anything of value.

    So the real answer to “what money is the IPCC giving away” is “all of it” …

    w.

  34. Ray Tomes says:
    November 8, 2011 at 4:24 pm

    You say

    “Me, I think that is one of the most inhumane proposals ever floated. The great masses of India and China and Brazil and the rest are finally clawing their way out of abject poverty, and the carbon alarmists want to put binding restrictions on their access to energy?!?”

    Well I was a kid in New Zealand in the 1950s. Were we living in abject poverty then? I don’t think so. The majority of energy is used to quite literally produce rubbish. There are many measures that could reduce that. I don’t buy your emotional argument at all.

    Ray, go live for a year on the average energy consumption of someone in say Mali, and come back and tell us how it’s rubbish. Three quarters of the people in Mali live on $2 per day. Give that a try before lecturing us about energy costs.

    Certainly there is waste energy, and there are many measures to reduce that … in the developed world. But there is little waste energy at the bottom of the pile. The world’s poor are living on a few dollars a day. They are not running their lights too long, or taking long trips in their cars, or keeping their 3,000 square foot houses too cool in the summer and too hot in the winter …

    So I don’t buy your emotional argument, that 1950 New Zealand equals the current situation of the poor of the world. Most of the world’s poor would kill to have now what you had back then. You’re living in a white-man’s fantasy about what “poor” means. Go live on two dollars a day for a year, and then tell us how much it’s like when you were a kid in New Zealand.

    Finally, when you jack fuel prices around the planet by e.g. nixing coal fired power plants, the fuel cost goes up for everyone, rich and poor alike. However, the rise hits the poor the hardest, because they can’t do what you say and just reduce their fuel use. All it does is jack the price of every good that they buy.

    You may find it acceptable to be jacking up the price of energy for the world’s poor based on your fear of some future imagined catastrophe.

    I find it inhumane.

    w.

  35. Jay says:
    November 8, 2011 at 4:02 pm

    Figure 2 would be more interesting if the carbon changes were presented as a percentage of emissions rather than the absolute tons.

    Go for it, report back with what you find.

    ( … I post the source of the data so people can do the analysis that they want done. Despite that, they often seem to want me to do it … )

    w.

  36. From markinaustin’s excellent link;

    “So on Friday the Obama administration stopped fighting a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and released documents showing that Hansen was paid $250 an hour by a Canadian law firm for testimony against developing Alberta’s oil sands; income which Hansen does not appear to have disclosed.”

    Doh! The Hansen-Homer likeness continues.

  37. About 20 years ago, the World Bank established two international poverty standards: a $ 1-per-day benchmark for extreme poverty (representing the median among the 10 lowest national poverty lines) and a $2-per-day level that represents a “near poverty” existence in developing countries and all-out poverty in other places.

    While the World Bank standards are serviceable as benchmarks for progress—if fewer people are living on $2 today than were 10 years ago, that’s great—they don’t give an accurate picture of poverty in an individual country. For example, nearly 70 percent of Indians still live in villages, many in rent-free ancestral homes. They won’t soon buy a Nano, but they can easily feed and clothe themselves and their children. Their main worries—poor schools, contaminated water, and limited access to health care—aren’t necessarily solved by a modest income hike. In contrast, a $2-per-day laborer in Mumbai would spend nearly his entire income on a modest shanty in one of Mumbai’s notorious slums.

    Mindful of this difference, the Indian government uses a flexible poverty line that varies with area of residence. Those who live in rural areas are considered impoverished if they makes less than 66 cents per day; the threshold for city-dwellers is 83 cents per day. India also adjusts the status for people who are cash poor but enjoy family assets, like a house or arable land. SOURCE

    Poverty lines for the US, one person, ~ $11,000 per year.

    Poverty line for India, one person, rural, ~ $240 per year.

    Poverty line for India, one person, urban, ~ $300 per year.

    Just sayin’ … as someone once remarked, “No matter how poor you are in the US, when you step off the plane in Africa, you’re a rich man.”

    w.

  38. Latitude says:
    November 8, 2011 at 2:44 pm

    TomB says:
    November 8, 2011 at 2:07 pm

    Am I reading that right? Did the US cut its carbon emissions by more than the next 3 combined?

    =============================

    Tom, now start at the bottom and look at India, China, Brazil, and South Africa…….the three worst and all considered “developing”…………
    ….looks like they are pretty damn well developed to me

    Latitude, the graph does not measure how developed they are. It measures the change in energy use, so it is measuring how fast they are developing, not how far they’ve gotten.

    And TomB, yes, the US emissions dropped more than the next three combined.

    w.

  39. “The IPCC has never produced anything of value.”

    Well, once could say that they have “produced” interest and funding for climate studies. In theory, this should have given us knowledge of what causes major changes in climate, at the very least. You know, major changes like little ice ages, medieval warm periods, dark ages, roman warm periods, etc. Heck, go all the way and at least be able to tell us why major full scale ice ages and the interglacials in between exist, right?

    But wait, they are only interested in climate changes that might be caused by CO2, something humans produce. They are primarily interested in that because the richer a person is, the more CO2 they produce. Naturally, the IPCC wants to go after that because that’s where the money is. Thus, research into natural climate changes, the biggest and most important kind, is discouraged. You know, big stuff like that full scale ice age scheduled to start right about now, that could wipe out the bulk of us if it sneaks up on us. You know, fairly big stuff like little ice ages, which won’t wipe out the bulk of us but can kill many millions if it does sneak up on us (assuming that it does not trigger wars and revolutions, which it probably would). You know, natural climate changes that make for warming and cooling, the kind that we must understand if we are to have any hope of understanding the effect of CO2 on that natural climate.

    On second thought, not only has the IPCC never produced anything of value, they have gone out of their way to make sure that no one else does either.

  40. RiHo08 says:
    November 8, 2011 at 3:52 pm
    “In the recent past, we have an illustration of an attempt at reverting to a simpler and less complex society, Cambodia. Pol Pot imposed his Paris inspired ideal of an agrarian society living in harmony with nature, 18th Century Voltaire if you will….”

    Surely you mean Rosseau, not Voltaire.

  41. Don’t panic. The dreaded carbon pollution problem has been solved. Here in Australia we now have the Carbon Tax, so All Will Be Well.

    We’re saved!

  42. Eric Anderson says:
    November 8, 2011 at 2:42 pm

    OK, but it is still based on CO2 emissions, right? IOW, take CO2 emissions and then subtract out the O2 (roughly)? Or are the figures looking at some other form of “carbon” emissions besides CO2?

    ========

    Not an expert, but I’m pretty sure that Carbon emissions are computed based on amounts of fuels used, and the Carbon content of the fuels rather than on measured CO2 output. I think (again not an expert) that’s OK. It looks to be very difficult to measure CO2 emissions directly. And I think that almost all the Carbon in the fuels is eventually going to end up as CO2 even if the initial product of combustion is Carbon Monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons or something weird.

  43. Ray Tomes says:
    November 8, 2011 at 4:24 pm

    Well I was a kid in New Zealand in the 1950s. Were we living in abject poverty then? I don’t think so. The majority of energy is used to quite literally produce rubbish.

    Aha! The New Zealand Progressive’s Garden of Eden, found. Ray, you sound quite emotional about saving the world from development. So are we still to assume that you really haven’t ate the apple yet? But if you do still have no “rubbish” to ever dispose of, no electric car, no power brakes, modern medicine, or will accept no joint replacement or emergency services, etc., then whose computer are you using?

    • JPEden, my argument is not emotional. I merely point out that 50 years ago we managed without today’s high energy use without ever feeling that we were in poverty. I do have some rubbish to dispose of because so much stuff comes wrapped in pointless packing, but I do my best to avoid these. Also I avoid as much modern medicine as possible. And I often walk to the shops about 1.7 km away and further. My computer is an old XP one that I have no plans to replace. What has any of this got to do with high energy use? We live in a society driven by marketing of things that no-one needs nor wants in order to boost the economy. It makes no-one happy and so called developing nations are foolish to copy it.

  44. And Willis, thanks. I had long since figured out that developed world carbon emissions were pretty stable and that the developing world was going to pay zero attention to Kyoto et al. (I can’t think why anybody might think otherwise) But it is nice to see the numbers.

    BTW, I personally think that CO2 emissions will start to decline when the world starts to run out of fossil fuels to burn and not before. My guess is that will happen toward the end of this century as projections of x-hundred years of fuel y are based on current usage. By mid century, those vast deposits of heavy oil, coal, natural gas, etc are going to be drawn down at a much higher rate than most folks now expect.

    How much CO2 will we end up with in the atmosphere? Who the hell knows? Maybe 1000 ppm? How much warming? who the hell knows? Maybe 3-4C above 1900? Are we all gonna die? Most assuredly. But probably not from global warming.

  45. HS says:
    November 8, 2011 at 5:29 pm
    Did you mean Rousseau?
    “Do I dare set forth here the most important, the most useful rule of all education? It is not to save time, but to squander it.”
    Jean-Jacques Rousseau

  46. Willis: Latitude, the graph does not measure how developed they are. It measures the change in energy use, so it is measuring how fast they are developing, not how far they’ve gotten.
    ===================================================
    Willis, that’s why I want you to look at the JAXA
    It seems to me they are saying that China, India, Brazil, South Africa, etc are emitting more CO2 and the developed countries are absorbing more CO2……net gain to the undeveloped countries….net loss to the developed countries
    If it’s true….then undeveloped countries are emitting more CO2 than developed

    Your brain is better equipped for this…….I want to know what you think

    Joann has most of it on her blog, but no one has really picked it apart like I know you can……..

    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/co2-emitted-by-the-poor-nations-and-absorbed-by-the-rich-oh-the-irony-and-this-truth-must-not-be-spoken/#more-18671

  47. To,
    IPCC, UNFCCC, GREEN PEACE, NSF, CARNEGIE Instituion of science and others; looking forward to hearing from all of you!!!!
    Chair person IPPAN, Kathmandu
    Copy to the director ICIMOD, Nepal.
    Dear Dr. Pachauri and Mr. Algore,

    Challenge to IPCC / UNFCCC, SHAME ON YOU
    Solution to CC and Power Crisis

    Please give me either one scientific reason/ theory that justifies CC is due to gases OR STOP ACCUSING GASES for CC. Just accusation is not science. CC by gases is impossible. Man has disturbed the ‘rain cycle’ causing the ‘climate change.’ No gas can be ‘green house gas.’
    I have also explained that applying the property / theory of standing still water column to the running water condition is the blunder being done in the ‘Hydropower Engineering’ and, its correction can give us unlimited hydropower.
    Please visit devbahadurdongol.blogspot.com for solutions to ‘CC and power Crisis.’
    Summary is attached for your convenience.

    Challenger,
    Dr. Dev
    Email: dev.dangol@yahoo.co.uk

    “Already sent to the addressees, green peace and many others throughout the world”

  48. Latitude says:
    November 8, 2011 at 6:15 pm

    … JAXA
    It seems to me they are saying that China, India, Brazil, South Africa, etc are emitting more CO2 and the developed countries are absorbing more CO2……net gain to the undeveloped countries….net loss to the developed countries
    If it’s true….then undeveloped countries are emitting more CO2 than developed

    =======

    I think that the numbers you want to look at are Carbon emissions per capita — emissions divided by population. They should be around somewhere on the internet. I have some similar five year old numbers handy for energy production (BTUs) per capita and they clearly show developed countries way above developing countries in energy consumed per person — which should correlate fairly closely to Carbon per person. Willis’ numbers show the gap to be closing. Since there are many more people in the developing world than in the developed world, total Carbon emissions will almost certainly increase substantially in future years. Sure hope I’m right about the quality of climate science, cause in the unlikely event those dudes are right, there are a lot of people who should be building arks.

  49. At some time in the future, and not too far into that future, we’ll all
    be thanking China, India, Brazil, etc. for putting all that CO2 up there
    in the atmosphere. The progress since AR4 has been hugh.

  50. Let’s not forget that this entire circus has as its purpose DOING SOMETHING HARMFUL – namely reducing the availability of plant food and therefore human and wildlife food in turn.

  51. @Don K
    Not an expert, but I’m pretty sure that Carbon emissions are computed based on amounts of fuels used, and the Carbon content of the fuels rather than on measured CO2 output.

    I’m not an expert too, but I think the word “used” is fallacious here. It should be “burned”.
    Lots of fossil fuels are not burned but used for other products, like plastics or pharmaceutical prodicts.
    Curiously those non-emissive amounts, surely not few, are not subtracted from the total emissions. At least, I haven’t found any source for that and the official numbers don’t include them explicitely.
    So I think, the numbers for the total carbon emission are not quite correct.

  52. *****
    Latitude says:
    November 8, 2011 at 2:32 pm

    Willis, we’re still talking about CO2/carbon….but no one is talking JAXA
    *****
    The JAXA map would be more meaningful if broken down into equal areas. In fact, it would be a good thing to have several equal area maps , each differing in the size of the area displayed.

  53. Don K says:
    November 8, 2011 at 6:50 pm
    I think that the numbers you want to look at are Carbon emissions per capita — emissions divided by population
    ===============
    Don, thanks but that’s exactly what I don’t want to look at…..

    JAXA is showing the flux of CO2…..CO2 that is emitted….and CO2 that is absorbed

    Emissions per capita would not show adsorption

  54. Ray Tomes says:
    November 8, 2011 at 4:24 pm

    Well I was a kid in New Zealand in the 1950s. Were we living in abject poverty then? I don’t think so.
    ***
    In the 1950s, New Zealand was considered the richest country in the OECD. What are you trying to say?

    • Paul Deacon asks me what I am trying to say. I am saying that energy use in NZ in the 1950s was very much less than today. It cannot be argued that it was poverty however. The modern waste of energy is not required to eliminate poverty.

  55. Actually the great masses of India, China, Brazil and the rest are not finally clawing their way out of abject poverty they received Western technology, equipment, procedures, jobs and Western markets as a gift. The return we get for the transfer of technology and wealth is our own economy in free fall.

  56. I hope everybody sees that PR China emits 3x as much as India does: they are in a different league.
    And yes, these countries do need energy to develop.

  57. If the various government departments and elected officials *claim* to believe the IPCC, then what happened in Australia yesterday is a preview of what will happen in Durban or in the next two years:
    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/carbon-tax-arrives-australia-senate/#comment-665597
    They have to take the taxation excuse soon before it becomes obvious to everybody that the tipping point warming scare is a scam without basis in current observation.

    However if they believe the scientific method has not been properly applied to the IPCC consensus view, or if Big Oil has somehow managed to outspend Big Green and Big Money on lobbying over the last 12 months, then delay or dismissal of CO2 pricing is more likely.

    It is ironic that the Australian economy was doing relatively well – so it was one of the few that could afford to utterly waste so much money on a futile exercise.
    Greetings from Australia, where now unfortunately science is six feet Down Under and democracy is upside down. :-(

  58. “The CDIAC site says that the CDIAC site says that the CDIAC site says that a record …” In order to understand recursion, you have to understand recursion.

  59. AntonyIndia says:
    November 8, 2011 at 8:12 pm

    I hope everybody sees that PR China emits 3x as much as India does: they are in a different league.
    And yes, these countries do need energy to develop.

    I hope everybody sees that the chart above shows no such thing. It shows the CHANGE since 2008, not the total emissions.

    w.

  60. @Ray and Willis

    “Three quarters of the people in Mali live on $2 per day. Give that a try before lecturing us about energy costs.”

    ++++++

    People in develping countries use electricity, almost all of them, in the form of batteries for watches and little lights. They pay approximately $50 per kWH and have for decades. That is how batteries are priced. Their carbon emissions per kWH of electricity consumed are astronomical. Perhaps this is news to some.

    Limiting someone’s energy consumption does not necessarily mean a drop in CO2 emitted per unit of useful power. It depends on what you ahve to limit yourself to using. The last thing I will give up is lighting.

  61. This is one New Zealander who won’t be keen to move back to the 1950’s.

    We live in a society driven by marketing of things that no-one needs nor wants in order to boost the economy.

    This is so much tosh. No-one makes us buy stuff.

    I’m old enough to avoid being influenced by others (I see almost no TV ads, don’t read magazines etc, so “marketing” passes me by). Yet I like having a nice flat screen TV. I like my reliable, albeit 6 years old, car. I like nice clothes. I like being warm at night. I like decent dental care even more. And that my youngest didn’t die of asthma thanks to modern medical treatment. I don’t consider any of that waste.

    Get rid of the guilt. Give freely to others if that makes you feel better. But enjoy what you have.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Someone asked why CO2 bubbles form at the bottom of champagne. They don’t. They form on the sides. It is partly in order to avoid excessive bubble formation that champagne is usually drunk in flutes (historically it was drunk in wide flat glasses).

    The CO2 forms around impurities. The smoother and cleaner your glasses, the less bubble will form.

    • Mooloo writes: “This is so much tosh. No-one makes us buy stuff.

      I’m old enough to avoid being influenced by others (I see almost no TV ads, don’t read magazines etc, so “marketing” passes me by).”

      I am also old and ignore marketing. However your answer is contradictory. You know full well that the young and impressionable are influenced. The whole point of marketing is to try and arouse interest where none lies. That is why associations such as sex are used. So much unhappiness is created along with the insatiable demand. It is insatiable because the person will be delivered something quite different to what they were promised. Match McDonalds and Coke ads and see that they promise happiness. They deliver bad health.

  62. Ray Tomes says:
    November 8, 2011 at 7:53 pm

    What has any of this got to do with high energy use? We live in a society driven by marketing of things that no-one needs nor wants in order to boost the economy.

    What have my comments on your alleged purism and perfectionism got to do with you controlling people’s energy use from on high by dictate according to your own somewhat arbitrary, vague, and emotionally backed ideas? Ray, your opponent is called the Market, based upon the free choice of each individual in it and their right to benefit from their choices and work, through the protected legal ownership of every step accordingly. That’s how wealth is created and the standard of living increases, as it has done massively in the U.S., for example, under its system of Constitutional Capitalism.

    On the other hand, it’s not your right to tell people what they want or need, or to distribute or redistribute “wealth” or the “means of production”; and what you are implying as a solution is called Communism, where the State or Party owns everything, including you; and which never works. See North Korea vs South Korea, or check out the results of European Socialism with all of its emphasis on Energy control and redistribution in order to achieve its allegedly perfect vision.

    Again, if you were in your ideal environment of wants and needs in the ’50’s, why did you leave it when no one was forcing you to? You probably actually chose to do so and you are probably better off for it. Thank the Market.

    You might also ask yourself where you would have been in the ’50’s and where you will be in the future without the system which produces the progress that got you there and here to begin with.

  63. Ray Tomes says:
    November 8, 2011 at 7:53 pm

    We live in a society driven by marketing of things that no-one needs nor wants in order to boost the economy.

    Well, you do have a good point there, Ray, but especially as it relates to the Gov’t trying to sell us things not many people want or need, such as a “gigantic deficit-spending stimulus”, “green energy”, “worth”-based instead of best Healthcare, and houses they can’t afford. Not to mention the selling of elected officials themselves to the public, where here in the U.S. the latte’ Communists are trying to sell candidates to the public solely on the basis of “perception is reality” is reality, which also currently necessarily includes the totally vacuous Alinskyite smear campaign against Herman Cain.

    • At 10:42 PM on 8 November, JPeden had mentioned:

      …the totally vacuous Alinskyite smear campaign against Herman Cain.

      Alinskyite” it most certainly is, and a “smear campaign” as well, but considering the fact that we’ve been living for several decades now in a “Title 9” sociopolitical environment (“Sisterhood is victimhood is powerful!”), Herman Cain’s response to this smear campaign has been extraordinarily inept.

      What is nottotally vacuous” has been Mr. Cain’s public reception and absolutely stupid comments thereupon. These reflect damningly on his real ability to handle himself in a crisis.

      Not that this makes “Gardasil Rick” Perry or Mitt the Plastic Mormon look one goddam bit better as a candidate for the Red Faction’s top-of-the-ticket slot.

      I’ve minced not a word in my support for Dr. Ron Paul in that role. I know the man, and – especially unlike Herman Cain – he’s been battle-tested by more than three decades espousing decidedly unpopular but entirely lawful adherence to the U.S. Constitution. The MSM hate his guts, and have been striving throughout those decades to find something in his personal and professional past history on the basis of which they can hang him.

      And they’ve found nothing with which to accomplish that.

      Heck, the worst they’ve been able to call him is “unelectable.” Their favorite descriptor (“kook”) went out the window in 2008 when the economy came crashing down as the result of precisely those fiscal irresponsibilities against which Dr. Paul has been campaigning throughout his career in the Congress.

      Considering that the last thing our left-“Liberal” biased media root weevils want is a strong Republican presidential candidate capable not only of kicking their Mombasa Messiah out of the White House but also enforcing the Bill of Rights as the law of the land, just what the hell credence do we place in their “unelectable” condemnation, anyway?

      Ron Paul in 2012, people. We need to fix this goddam mess.

  64. Ray Tomes says:
    November 8, 2011 at 4:24 pm

    You say “Me, I think that is one of the most inhumane proposals ever floated. The great masses of India and China and Brazil and the rest are finally clawing their way out of abject poverty, and the carbon alarmists want to put binding restrictions on their access to energy?!?”

    Well I was a kid in New Zealand in the 1950s. Were we living in abject poverty then? I don’t think so. The majority of energy is used to quite literally produce rubbish. There are many measures that could reduce that. I don’t buy your emotional argument at all.

    That’s your argument? That you don’t think you were impoverished even though you were? So the entire WORLD economy must change because you “think” that the “The majority of energy is used to quite literally produce rubbish.”

    Given the heights your CV might suggest, I would have expected a better argument.

  65. Tucci78 on November 8, 2011 at 3:39 pm said:
    The CDIAC estimates being what they are, just why in the hell is Australia now suffering under Julia’s “carbon
    ———-
    Tucci seems to think carbon taxes travel back in time. The tax will be introduced next July.

  66. Fred H. Haynie on November 8, 2011 at 3:36 pm said:
    I don’t think anyone is actually measuring emissions. The inventory is based on the measured amo
    ——–
    I believe satellite measurements are also performed.

  67. Forget numbers,”Carbon”, “CO2”, “Science” and precision is immaterial because the moving goalposts which started at Global Warming, etc. are now being realigned at Climate Apartheid and Climate Justice-with Wealth Equalization and Reparations visible at the edge of the field.
    Kumi Naidoo, the Durban civil rights activist (and recipient of a Rhodes Scholarship; PhD in Political Sociology) head of Greenpeace is constantly airborne to actions and negotiations with industry CEO’s anxious to find “how they could avoid Greenpeace’s wrath, whether it’s a ranking on a polluter’s list or being subjected to direct action. My colleagues are very keen to get you to the table, so that they are not on your menu.” The Cost of Doing Business.

    Although experienced in many notably worthy causes, Naidoo appears to have no interest in science, debate or democratic process..only movement.
    “Civil disobedience is the most powerful maker of change.” Perhaps, in fact, it is “the only maker of real, fundamental, major change.”
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576500641559480306.html

    He blew through town last month to nod at Greenpeace founding (now “a bureaucratic money machine” said original co-founder Paul Watson) in Vancouver 40 years ago. You can hear him blame the drought in the Horn of Africa and the 50yr old genocidal Arab/Black slaughter in Dafur on the developed nations at 5’30”.

    http://www.cbc.ca/onthecoast/episodes/2011/09/14/greenpeaces-40th-anniversary/

    He levered Coke to change their refrigerant. Wonder if he will try the Chinese on the HFC-23 scam? Can guilt move China?

  68. Olen says:
    November 8, 2011 at 8:01 pm

    Actually the great masses of India, China, Brazil and the rest are not finally clawing their way out of abject poverty they received Western technology, equipment, procedures, jobs and Western markets as a gift. The return we get for the transfer of technology and wealth is our own economy in free fall.

    Three quarters of the people in Mali live on less than $2 per day. You’ll likely have to notify them about how they’ve received so many things from the West, jobs and equipment and the like. They may not have noticed how fortunate they’ve been.

    w.

    • With regard to the people of Australia suffering under Julia Gillard’s bloody hideous “carbon tax,” at 10:43 PM on 8 November we’ve got LazyTeenager snarking:

      Tucci seems to think carbon taxes travel back in time. The tax will be introduced next July.

      The productive sector of Australian society has been (and will continue to be) adjusting to the hammering inflicted upon them by Juliar’s “green” malignancy since the prospect of her “carbon taxes” first became inexorably unavoidable.

      Those taxes have already begun doing damage because business people and other entrepreneurs are planners who anticipate in order to adapt and thereby – hopefully – overcome adversities.

      Lazy Teenager, have you even the most remote familiarity with the concept of a business plan? Or how an annual budget is prepared? Or how revenue is projected?

      Jeez, have you ever so much as gotten laid off?

  69. Peter Dunford says:

    I take it when the graph says “carbon emmissions” we’re tlking about “carbon dioxide emmissions”
    A common bait and switch. If it’s the latter any numbers really need to be multiplied by 3/11

  70. Mark says:
    November 8, 2011 at 11:00 pm

    Peter Dunford says:

    I take it when the graph says “carbon emmissions” we’re tlking about “carbon dioxide emmissions”

    A common bait and switch. If it’s the latter any numbers really need to be multiplied by 3/11

    Bait and switch?!? No way. The CDIAC is quite up front about what the units are and why (emphasis mine).

    CDIAC Reporting Units

    CDIAC expresses CO2 emissions in terms of the mass of carbon, the unit commonly used in carbon cycle budgets. This is done because the carbon atom changes atomic partners many times through the course of the carbon cycle, going from CO2 in the atmosphere to C6H12O6 after photosynthesis, or carbonic acid (H2CO3) in the ocean and eventually forming calcium carbonate (CaCO3), carbonate rocks, and so forth. We track the carbon through the carbon cycle, so we keep track of the carbon atom only.

    Other data sources give CO2 emissions in mass of the carbon dioxide molecule. This makes sense for regulatory agencies and organizations concerned with atmospheric CO2 and climate change. To convert CDIAC data for carbon emissions to comparable CO2 emissions, multuiple CDIAC values by the ratio of the molecular mass of carbon dioxide to the atomic mass of carbon (44/12 or 3.667). SOURCE

    w,

  71. Hey, don’t knock quiche. It’s only what we used to call a flan, flaunting its trendily Frenchified name, and it’s OK.

  72. Ray Tomes says:
    November 8, 2011 at 4:24 pm

    Well I was a kid in New Zealand in the 1950s. Were we living in abject poverty then? I don’t think so.

    One more thing, Ray: a great many people in the U.S. are in “poverty” but don’t think they are, because they know they are doing pretty well as to basic needs and satisfaction with their lives. And they enjoy America’s freedom and the progressive availability of cheaper goods arising exactly from our Constitutional Capitalism, which then raises their standard of living. Here, WalMart rules! Along with many other of the dreaded Big Corporations, and the newly “rich” small businesses.

    But at another level, you’re right, I am technically “poor” and so is my best friend here and her family. But we aren’t! Thanks to the Market and my freedom, I’ve built up enough “infrastructure” over the years, but not much money. And she’s got some good infrastructure but still works 3 jobs with her husband holding down 1. We’ve both got family and friends, too, as back up reservoirs, including even some of the evil “rich”. Life is good! But everyone certainly knows what real poverty is, along with the essentially Totalitarian political oppression that often accompanies and helps to cause it.

    So the idea of limiting the energy use of people in real poverty is manifestly absurd. They already have a real “catastrophe” going on in situ right where they live.

  73. Ray Tomes says:
    November 8, 2011 at 11:17 pm

    Paul Deacon asks me what I am trying to say. I am saying that energy use in NZ in the 1950s was very much less than today. It cannot be argued that it was poverty however. The modern waste of energy is not required to eliminate poverty.

    I agree, Ray. However, inexpensive energy is required to eliminate poverty, and the carbon alarmists want to eliminate inexpensive energy.

    w.

  74. petermue says:
    November 8, 2011 at 7:11 pm

    I’m not an expert too, but I think the word “used” is fallacious here. It should be “burned”.
    Lots of fossil fuels are not burned but used for other products, like plastics or pharmaceutical prodicts.

    ==================

    You’re right of course. Some carbon does go into “permanent” products like 2x4s and plastics. I looked at that once superficially. I think that the amount is fairly small and is somewhat confined to a few countries with massive petrochemical complex if you consider production rather than consumption. Unfortunately, I didn’t come up with much hard data. There are some numbers at
    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CFQQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.plasticsconverters.eu%2Fdocs%2FBrochure_FactsFigures_Final_2009.pdf&ei=Pi26TtqtFcugtwf8qu3BBw&usg=AFQjCNGLhhlasHjCdd4wr55CNb9-8thW5w&sig2=V7SpuhrBigoBTwmW0iVErA

    but nothing that we could use to adjust Carbon emission figures.

    Overall, it looks like maybe 5% of Carbon “used” is actually sequestered in “plastics” at least temporarily (i.e. maybe 30kg of plastic consumed per person per year vs 3000kg of CO2 released per year which is probably about 750kg of carbon if I haven’t made any mistakes). Wood? Too complex to even think about as most will eventually be burned or decay. Use some Kentucky windage if you really want a number.

  75. Mooloo says:
    November 8, 2011 at 9:53 pm

    Someone asked why CO2 bubbles form at the bottom of champagne. They don’t. They form on the sides. It is partly in order to avoid excessive bubble formation that champagne is usually drunk in flutes (historically it was drunk in wide flat glasses).

    The CO2 forms around impurities. The smoother and cleaner your glasses, the less bubble will form.

    Hey! I’ve found my second research project this month: Examining the behaviour of CO2 in champagne with a changing climate. The first was to lie around on tropical beaches. This one looks like it could be combined with the first quite easily.

    Send research funds soon!

  76. Mark ro says:
    November 8, 2011 at 6:14 pm
    “Did you mean Rousseau?”

    That I did, sorry for the typo.
    My original question to RiHo08 still stands, though. Voltaire was the quintessential Enlightenment figure, a civil libertarian and a champion of free trade while Rousseau was the 18th century’s version of a back-to-nature authoritarian, not that different from the warmists of today.

  77. Ray Tomes says:
    November 8, 2011 at 7:53 pm

    JPEden, my argument is not emotional. I merely point out that 50 years ago we managed without today’s high energy use without ever feeling that we were in poverty. I do have some rubbish to dispose of because so much stuff comes wrapped in pointless packing, but I do my best to avoid these. Also I avoid as much modern medicine as possible. And I often walk to the shops about 1.7 km away and further. My computer is an old XP one that I have no plans to replace. What has any of this got to do with high energy use? We live in a society driven by marketing of things that no-one needs nor wants in order to boost the economy. It makes no-one happy and so called developing nations are foolish to copy it.

    You sound like a friend who tried to argue that people were healthier in the ’50’s, “because they didn’t have all these operations.” Well I was there too, as a child, and I saw many suffer.

    I have an 84 year old friend who has had 3 hip replacements (no, she only has 2 hips!) and one finger joint, and has a dicky ticker. She still composes songs that singers and audiences enjoy. Another acquaintance has recently had a shoulder joint replaced. I have a rather nasty scoliosis (almost 90º spinal curvature) which messes up lots of things internal and external.

    All of us avoid as much modern medicine as possible, but if you want the ’50’s back, sunshine, you’re welcome to them.

    • At 2:06 AM on 9 November, Allan M had reported:

      I have a rather nasty scoliosis (almost 90º spinal curvature) which messes up lots of things internal and external.

      Gawd, you call “almost 90º spinal curvature” merely “rather nasty,” do you? What the hell cluster of malpractitionate mortar-forkers allowed your condition to get that bad without some kind of definitive mitigation?

      Having had patients with similar but not so severe degrees of rotoscoliosis (and much more commonly purely sagittal thoracic kyphosis as the result of the vertebral body fractures to which the elderly are predisposed by progressive osteoporosis), I gotta wince at reading your post and the fact that I’m pretty much completely unable to offer you any assistance even in the form of advice.

      Damn.

  78. The bubbles definitely formed at the bottom of the champagne flute, I spent a good while observing this and just to be sure repeating the experiment.
    In the interest of sound science I will conduct more tests this evening.

  79. Zac says:
    November 9, 2011 at 2:19 am

    The bubbles definitely formed at the bottom of the champagne flute, I spent a good while observing this and just to be sure repeating the experiment.
    In the interest of sound science I will conduct more tests this evening.

    The bubbles will form where the liquid is most warmed, reducing solubility of CO2 which tips the balance. The narrow flute has more surface area per volume of liquid. That’s my hypothesis, which needs testing.

    The experiment still needs to be done.

  80. http://www.southafrica.co.za/about-south-africa/environment/energy-and-water/

    Energy and water

    Putting clean and affordable water and energy within everyone’s reach is a key national goal. At the same time, planning ensures that these key drivers of economic growth are delivered reliably and cost-effectively to industry, commerce and agriculture. The Department of Minerals and Energy’s Energy Policy is based on the following key objectives:

    attaining universal access to energy by 2012
    ensuring accessible, affordable and reliable energy, especially for the poor
    ..

    I do hope they’ll remember they have these objectives when the AGWDesolators descend on Durban.

  81. jh says:
    November 8, 2011 at 2:30 pm

    Eurotrash? Qu’est-ce que c’est?
    _________________________________
    Unelected European Union Bureaucrats lining their pockets with other peoples money all the while they are claiming it is for “The Environment”

  82. Just a passing thought–since the effect of carbon dioxide is supposed to be logarithmic, it *might* be interesting to see graphs of the log base two of the carbon emissions relative to an estimated natural carbon emission level. I think of this as a plot of the log base two of the carbon emissions, not a log scale plot of the carbon emission values.

    • At 7:04 AM on 9 November, Spector had written:

      Just a passing thought – since the effect of carbon dioxide is supposed to be [negatively] logarithmic, it might be interesting to see graphs of the log base two of the carbon emissions relative to an estimated natural carbon emission level. I think of this as a plot of the log base two of the carbon emissions, not a log scale plot of the carbon emission values.

      Damn, that’s a nice idea. I am – of course – mathematically inept, and therefore could not with any reliability undertake such a chore, but it’d be awful sweet to see some kind of graphic representation of the real degree to which this “We’re All Gonna Die!” anthropogenic CO2 might possibly – maybe, coulda, y’know – cause “trapping” of solar heat energy within our planet’s atmosphere.

      “What, you mean that’s all that could even possibly happen? WTF?”

  83. Tucci78 says:
    November 9, 2011 at 6:46 am
    At 10:42 PM on 8 November, JPeden had mentioned:
    …the totally vacuous Alinskyite smear campaign against Herman Cain.
    “Alinskyite” it most certainly is, and a “smear campaign” as well, but considering the fact that we’ve been living for several decades now in a “Title 9″ sociopolitical environment (“Sisterhood is victimhood is powerful!”), Herman Cain’s response to this smear campaign has been extraordinarily inept.

    What is not “totally vacuous” has been Mr. Cain’s public reception and absolutely stupid comments thereupon. These reflect damningly on his real ability to handle himself in a crisis.

    Not that this makes “Gardasil Rick” Perry or Mitt the Plastic Mormon look one goddam bit better as a candidate for the Red Faction’s top-of-the-ticket slot.

    I’ve minced not a word in my support for Dr. Ron Paul in that role. I know the man, and – especially unlike Herman Cain – he’s been battle-tested by more than three decades espousing decidedly unpopular but entirely lawful adherence to the U.S. Constitution. The MSM hate his guts, and have been striving throughout those decades to find something in his personal and professional past history on the basis of which they can hang him.

    And they’ve found nothing with which to accomplish that.

    Heck, the worst they’ve been able to call him is “unelectable.” Their favorite descriptor (“kook”) went out the window in 2008 when the economy came crashing down as the result of precisely those fiscal irresponsibilities against which Dr. Paul has been campaigning throughout his career in the Congress.

    Considering that the last thing our left-”Liberal” biased media root weevils want is a strong Republican presidential candidate capable not only of kicking their Mombasa Messiah out of the White House but also enforcing the Bill of Rights as the law of the land, just what the hell credence do we place in their “unelectable” condemnation, anyway?

    Ron Paul in 2012, people. We need to fix this goddam mess.

    Sorry, but Ron Paul is unelectable.

    Ron Paul has an extremely naive, isolationist view of the world. If we closed all of our overseas bases, withdrew support from Israel, the nations that hate us now still aren’t going to like us. They aren’t going to leave us alone, but they’ll be emboldened. Ron Paul imagines that all the past transgressions (whether imagined or real) other nations hold against us will suddenly be forgiven if we do a complete 180. History shows otherwise.

    I like many of his ideas. I’m a libertarian (little “l” libertarian) at heart, and I find Congressman Paul appealing on many issues. I have no doubt about his personal integrity, either. But he is unlikely to get the GOP nomination.

    As to why Paul is unelectable as president — he’s too old, older even than Grandpa McCain. I think Paul looks healthier and more vigorous than McCain, but when it comes to spectacle and splash and style, Obama’s people are simply going to cream him.

    • At 7:35 AM on 9 November, More Soylent Green! parrots the “unelectable” yammering of the left-“Liberal” MSM, writing:

      Sorry, but Ron Paul is unelectable.

      Ron Paul has an extremely naive, isolationist view of the world. If we closed all of our overseas bases, withdrew support from Israel, the nations that hate us now still aren’t going to like us. They aren’t going to leave us alone, but they’ll be emboldened. Ron Paul imagines that all the past transgressions (whether imagined or real) other nations hold against us will suddenly be forgiven if we do a complete 180. History shows otherwise.

      Yeah. And “History” also shows that if what you’re doing hasn’t worked, to continue doing it is really stupid.

      The fallacy of reification involves the treatment of an abstraction – like “nations” – as if they were concrete entities.

      The people of various foreign polities develop their enmities against the government of these United States (a tendency encouraged and exploited for the sake of political expediency by the kleptocrats running most of these “nations that hate us“) for undisputedly aggressively destructive foreign policy measures undertaken by the critters who misgovern our nation. In that (as I’ve heard Dr. Paul argue), those people are responding pretty reliably according to human nature.

      Certainly damned few Americans (we’re not discussing the “Liberal” fascists here, are we?) would accept the imposition of “foreign aid” – government-to-government transfers of monetary wealth – specifically conditioned upon our own kakistocracy’s compliance with the wishes of politicians in Beijing or Tokyo or Brussels, would they?

      Hell, we don’t need even to consider the issue of foreign military garrisons – maintaining their own “rules of engagement” indifferent to local, state, or federal criminal codes – in any part of these United States, do we?

      If you construe as “naiveorisolationist” Dr. Paul’s accurate assessment of the exacerbatory character of present and recent past U.S. foreign policies – particularly as they pertain to the conflict with the intrinsically insane Islamic world into which the military and economic support of Israel has led over the past half-century and more – then you are yourself demonstrating the genuine naïveté that makes of you the kind of perfect sucker our Boot-On-Your-Neck Party professional political prostitutes yearn for.

      Hell, I’ve spent most of my life as an amateur student and writer of military history. For the better part of the past fifty years, I’ve been a more-or-less avid player, designer, and developer of “conflict simulations games” – board wargames, not the toy soldiers crap or the computer/video shoot-’em-ups. I’ve been through the whole “Napoleon, NATO, Nukes and Nazis” bit, and then some.

      I take the same sort of pleasure in studying “Kill ’em all, and let God sort ’em out” guts-and-glory warfare that the average married (and sexually sated) guy does in sneaking out his old copies of Penthouse and Playboy.

      But I know enough about warfare – and all foreign policy is aimed, in one way or another, about addressing the “fang-and-claw” nature of relations between political entities with the power to wage war – to realize that you are dead friggin’ wrong and Dr. Paul is the only adult in the whole Red Faction debate about American imperialism.

      Despite your finger-crossing hope that “he is unlikely to get the GOP nomination” and your unfounded conclusion that “Paul is unelectable as president — he’s too old, older even than Grandpa McCain” (good old “Crash Test Johnnie,” the Republicans’ sh-t scraper guaranteed-to-lose 2008 candidate), too lacking in “spectacle and splash and style” to contest our Kenyan Keynesian, of just what the hell are you so afraid?

      First and foremost, to the extent that our Mombasa Messiah (remember, it’s not so certain that his legal name actually is “Obama”) has to debate Dr. Paul, that “57 states” illiterate putz hasn’t got the proverbial nitrocellulose dog’s chance in hell of beating him.

      Take away his TelePrompTer, and the stupid mamzer simply vapor-locks and crashes.

      Second, have you seen anything for the so-called “front runners” on the Republican side even remotely resembling the enthusiasm that Ron Paul engenders among not only hard-line political and social conservatives but also the “independents”?

      Next year, as in every national election we’ve seen for decades, it’s those “independent” voters – the ones who, when offered the survey options, skip over “Democrat” and “Republican” to mark “Pissed Off” – who’ll determine the name of the man taking the oath of office in January 2013.

      If the Republican nominee isn’t Ron Paul, for the U.S. economy it won’t make a goddam bit of difference whether the guy up on that platform is Barry Soebarkah or not.

      What you’re afraid of isn’t that Dr. Paul is “unelectable” but rather that, if he gets the nomination, he’s not only unbeatable but that he will do precisely what the hell he’s been saying should be done, both here at home and abroad in the world.

  84. Fred H. Haynie says:
    November 8, 2011 at 3:36 pm

    …… It would be foolish to stop burning fossil fuels to save the world from an anticipated global average temperature rise of one or two degrees. We would destroy civilization in the process.
    _______________________
    That seems to be the main idea Fred.

    From what I can figure out “They” want a return to a small Feudalistic Society that will preserve the earth’s resources for the ultra-wealthy leaders and their descendants instead of squandering those resources on the “Great Unwashed” This is their definition of “Socialism”

    This is the real goal and the reason CAGW will not die. It is too good a wealth/power transfer mechanism.

    The 1972 First Earth Summit introduced Global Warming and Pollution to the international scene. This set up the United Nations on the road to being seen by people as as major influence in their lives. The first step toward removing national sovereignty and establishing “Global Governance” by an unelected world wide group.

    Meanwhile similar ideas were introduced onto University campuses. Obama’s chief science and technology adviser, Holdren along with Population Bomb author, Paul Ehrlich and wife Anne stated in their 1973 book Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.

    “…A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States,….. “De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation,…”This effort must be largely political, especially with regard to our overexploitation of world resources, but the campaign should be strongly supplemented by legal and boycott action against polluters and others whose activities damage the environment. The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.”

    In their 1977 book Ecoscience these same people go on to say:

    “…it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution….Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods… would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, …some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children,… they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns….

    The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region…..”

    security might be provided by an armed international organization,….. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization. …”

    http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e41_1284655982&comments=1

    These ideas are not new you can see they echo Fabian Socialist Leader, George Bernard Shaw. The other Fabians Leaders (Webbs) founded the London School of Economics where many of todays leaders are trained….
    SEE: http://www.sovereignindependent.com/?p=7948

    One of the core Fabian ideas is gradual change. The type of change we have seen.

    ….when Fabian Socialist Sir Julian Huxley became the first Director-General of UNESCO, he authored UNESCO: ITS PURPOSE AND ITS PHILOSOPHY (1948) in which he revealed that

    “even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”

    http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/009/cuddy/eugenics.htm

    These are the types of ideas the last forty years worth of students have been brainwashed with. The idea that a land owner does not really “Own” his land has now established in US court.

    The truly frightening thing is that the USDA funded the development of a spermicidal corn. Forty years ago this would have been unthinkable. The idea of “Rewilding of America” and “Restoring America’s Big, Wild Animals” (Pleistocene rewilding) is being pushed and laws are being passed. Heck Holdren wants to give TREES equal rights to humans under the law, thereby demoting humans to the level of “Things” completely “owned” by the government. “Chattel” (Cattle) if you will or serfs.

    http://www.conservationmagazine.org/2008/07/where-the-wild-things-were/
    http://resourceclearinghouse.blogspot.com/2010/11/wildlands-project-rewilding-america.html

    LAWS and Proposed bills: http://www.klamathbucketbrigade.org/YNTKwildlandsproject_table.htm
    . . . . .

    So from our point of view Durban is nothing but a Circus but CAGW was never anything but a circus show to hide the true agenda. If we do not recognize what we are actually fighting and get diverted by the side skirmishes we will lose because we underestimate the “Enemy” who is actually a many headed hydra.

    [Formatting fixed -w.]

  85. Zac says:
    November 8, 2011 at 4:14 pm

    Why do all the bubbles originate from the bottom of a champagne flute glass full of fizzy wine? These bubbles are CO2 right, but why do they always form at the bottom and rise to the top?
    ______________________
    Yeast

  86. This is misleading. If the U.S., Japan, et al, weren’t buying so many products manufactured in China then China’s CO2 emissions would not be rising as rapidly.

    Basically we in the US import the goods because they are inexpensive then export the blame for environmental consequences of their low-cost manufacture. This is essentially no different than buying sneakers made by exploited child laborers.

    [Usual Springer nasty personal attack snipped -w.]

  87. Latitude says:
    November 8, 2011 at 6:15 pm

    Willis: Latitude, the graph does not measure how developed they are. It measures the change in energy use, so it is measuring how fast they are developing, not how far they’ve gotten.
    ===================================================
    Willis, that’s why I want you to look at the JAXA…
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
    ChiefIO, (E.M. Smith) has it up here
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/japanese-satellites-say-3rd-world-owes-co2-reparations-to-the-west/

    Perhaps a hit to cross post….

  88. Gail Combs says:
    November 9, 2011 at 8:07 am
    Zac says:
    November 8, 2011 at 4:14 pm

    Why do all the bubbles originate from the bottom of a champagne flute glass full of fizzy wine? These bubbles are CO2 right, but why do they always form at the bottom and rise to the top?
    ______________________
    Yeast
    _____________________________

    No, not yeast. The flute has more nucleation sites on the bottom of the glass due the way it is made (stem separately). Higher quality beer glasses have purposely made imperfections at the bottom in order to get the same visual effect in the bubbles.

  89. Tucci78 says:
    November 9, 2011 at 7:34 am

    …….Those taxes have already begun doing damage because business people and other entrepreneurs are planners who anticipate in order to adapt and thereby – hopefully – overcome adversities……
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Boy, have you got that right!

    The mere THREAT of future legislation makes smart people think twice about starting or expanding a business or even hiring that new person they need. For larger companies it can be the reason for closing the doors and moving elsewhere if the return on the investment for moving is good.

    The impact of laws, regulations and court decisions on business in general is HUGE!

    80% of new businesses fail but only 10% of those failures are because of bankruptcy. One of the other reasons they close is because the level of income was too much work for their efforts. If you are earning $0.50/hr because you are wrestling with red tape, you might as well flip burgers. http://www.moyak.com/papers/small-business-statistics.html

    Just google: Small business red tape growth
    And see all the articles about how regulation and taxation are strangling growth.

  90. More Soylent Green! says:
    November 9, 2011 at 7:35 am

    “Sorry, but Ron Paul is unelectable.”

    Agreed.

    Herman Cain is not electable either.

    Newt Gingrich is the smartest and best qualified guy on that stage. I’m not sure if he’s electable anymore due to aversion people have to choices he made in his personal life along the same lines that sunk John Edwards as a potential POTUS.

    In reality the contest is between Romney and Perry. No one else has the infrastructure and resources to mount a winning presidential campaign. Cain is a sideshow attraction and is probably the dumbest one on the stage after Michelle Bachmann but it’s a close contest with her.

    When Cain said he was concerned about China’s ambition to acquire nuclear weapons he revealed a shocking level of ignorance for a man his age who grew up in the United States. China became the world’s fifth officially recognized nuclear power in 1964 and you couldn’t swing a dead cat in the U.S. at the time without reading about it. This was on a par with Michelle Bachmann implying that Gardasil caused a child be mentally retarded.

    Perry is being punished for not changing his stance on two things.

    1) Failing to toe the bar set by far right mania over illegal immigration and how to address it.

    2) Calling social security a ponzi scheme

    At the end of the day Republican primary voters will not vote for one of the unelectables in any large numbers. So when left with a choice between Perry and Romney, who do you think the Paul, Gingrich, and Cain supporters are going to choose? That contingent will select the Republican nominee. I sincerely doubt it will be Romney who’s essentially a perpetual candidate who just can’t break out of the also-ran category.

    • At 9:48 AM on 9 November, Dave Springer (who can’t get the whole “blockquote” mark-up idea, it seems) writes:

      You have to be pretty naive to believe that a president can do what [Ron] Paul wants done. His problem isn’t so much that what he proposes is unpalatable but that it’s politically impossible. That said I think his isolationist beliefs are naive. I’m as libertarian as the next guy but I’m also a realist. Idealists are behind Ron Paul. Realists are behind someone who isn’t making unrealistic promises about what they can get done if elected. The idealists who voted for Obama are certainly getting an object lesson in all this at the moment – their disillusionment is so thick you can cut it with a knife. So would yours be in 2015 if Paul managed to become POTUS.

      If Dr. Paul can’t use the powers of the U.S. presidency to “do what [he’s consistently said he] wants done,” why are you afraid of him?

      Writer John Ringo put the role of the POTUS pretty accurately and succinctly a few years ago:

      Most people in the U.S. don’t realize how important getting the right President is. Sure, the Prez gets blamed for a lot of things that he or she can’t control. The Prez does not control the stock market or the Federal Reserve. But the reality is that the Founding Fathers, having no real previous experience of democracy or a republic and having lived under a monarchy their whole fucking lives, created a temporary king to run the country. They were, at heart, monarchists. They just didn’t like the current one and didn’t want to make it hereditary….

      So every four years we elect a king. Since people like consistency, we tend to elect the same king as many times as we can get away with…. And the king, especially in any sort of emergency, has a lot of power. They don’t always, or even most of the time, have enough to fix things right away. But they’ve got a lot of power.

      Including the power to totally screw things up.

      I don’t know if you’ve noticed, Dave, but we’ve been in pretty much a permanent state of emergency since 8 December 1941 (which is the last time that the U.S. Congress was asked to declare the existence of a state of war).

      Even before the “Global War on Terror” began (yet another politically progressive never-ending “moral equivalent of war;” just how the hell many of those have we had, anyway?), the government of these United States had committed U.S. military forces to combat on every continent but Australia and Antarctica without the utterance of a declaration of war.

      If “War is the health of the state” (and it sure as hell looks to be, doesn’t it?), then this “permanent emergency” crap seems to be the perfect recipe for a presidency gone permanently and completely juramentado. This endows mercantilist kakistocrats like Dubbya and our foreign-born Fraudulence-in-Chief (who keeps proving himself to be – though I’d thought it impossible – even more haplessly stupid, inept, malignant, and corrupt than his predecessor) with enormous “power to totally screw things up.

      Which they’ve been doing for decades, including the past three decades, most of which Ron Paul has spent in the U.S. House of Representatives getting an extremely detailed view of how the past several presidents have been royally screwing things up.

      What the heck gives you to think that Dr. Paul doesn’t know how to un-screw this pooch? You haven’t read his published observations recommendations?

      Oh, hell. Of course you haven’t. Unlike our Hopenchangey Hoaxer (who can’t so much as open his academic records for fear of federal and state criminal charges), Ron Paul is very much the record. In spades.

      Having had people with precisely no ideas – Dubbya again – and now suffering the unspeakable damage that’s being inflicted upon us by our “Obama Downgrade” Kenyan Keynesian, you’ve got absolutely no grounds for whining about Dr. Ron Paul’s indisputably strong and sound grasp of economic realities and his determination to restore to the U.S. Constitution the control of the Republic it was ratified to charter.

      I can deal with the possibility of “ disillusionment” if Dr. Paul were to fail in this effort. He’s human, and there’s only so much that any human being can accomplish, especially when confronted with the residua of so many decades of corruption and political economic derangement.

      But at least he’s determined to try.

      Can you identify anybody else on either side of our permanent institutional Boot-On-Your-Neck Party incumbency who’s given even the least little hint that he’s willing to do that much?

  91. Dave Springer says:
    November 9, 2011 at 8:16 am

    This is misleading. If the U.S., Japan, et al, weren’t buying so many products manufactured in China then China’s CO2 emissions would not be rising as rapidly…..

    As is usual for Willis, this article is shallow and specious.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Then I sure as heck hope you are blaming President Clinton and V.P. Al Gore because THEY are the ones responsible.

    You can trace the export of US and EU business to India, China and other third world countries (with no polution regs) directly to his door as well as the recent economic collapse.

    Clinton/ Gore took campaign contributions from China. Once in office they ratified the World Trade Organization and then worked hard to get China into WTO. Clinton also signed significant banking laws.

    Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 (allows interstate mergers. )

    Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 repeals the Great Depression banking laws put in place to prevent another depression.

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 Strengthened the FDIC and allowed it to borrow from the Treasury.

    Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 and RTC Completion Act – bank loans to unqualified borrowers. Extends time period for lawsuits.

    The real killer was the the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/background.htm
    http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/important/index.html
    http://www.realtytrac.com/content/news-and-opinion/how-the-aig-bailout-could-be-driving-more-foreclosures-4861

    ..because the CDSs were unregulated—and this is because of a specific law back in the year 2000 called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which was sponsored by Phil Gramm. These instruments were unregulated. They were designated outside the regulation of—they couldn’t be regulated as futures commodities or as gaming, so there were no rules about this. So you could sell as much CDS protection as you wanted, but you didn’t have to actually post any capital when you did it….

    …a lot of these contracts, these CDS contracts, are like gambling, in the sense that—normally when you buy an insurance policy, you’re buying a policy on a house that you actually own. With these CDS contracts, you could actually bet on somebody else’s mortgage…

    http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/25/aig_and_the_big_takeover_matt

    Obama is cozied up to the same Corporate/Banking movers and shakers : http://economyincrisis.org/content/change-looks-quite-familar

    The “Progressives/Socialists” are hand and glove with the bankers and have been for years and years but the people like “Ocupy Wall Street” never ever see what is in front of their noses.

  92. Dave Springer says:
    November 9, 2011 at 8:44 am

    Gail Combs says:
    November 9, 2011 at 8:07 am

    Zac says:
    November 8, 2011 at 4:14 pm

    Why do all the bubbles originate from the bottom of a champagne flute glass full of fizzy wine? These bubbles are CO2 right, but why do they always form at the bottom and rise to the top?

    ______________________
    Yeast
    _____________________________

    No, not yeast. The flute has more nucleation sites on the bottom of the glass due the way it is made (stem separately). Higher quality beer glasses have purposely made imperfections at the bottom in order to get the same visual effect in the bubbles.

    Dave, it’s called “humor”, you should look it up sometimes, it’s a funny thing. See, saying “yeast” is humorous because a couple other people previously gave answers quite similar to the one you give above. The humor resides in the fact that although the nucleation sites are where the bubbles form, the CO2 is originally produced by … aw, never mind. It’s not funny if you have to explain it.

    w.

  93. Tucci78 says:
    November 9, 2011 at 8:55 am

    “What you’re afraid of isn’t that Dr. Paul is “unelectable” but rather that, if he gets the nomination, he’s not only unbeatable but that he will do precisely what the hell he’s been saying should be done, both here at home and abroad in the world.”

    You have to be pretty naive to believe that a president can do what Paul wants done. His problem isn’t so much that what he proposes is unpalatable but that it’s politically impossible. That said I think his isolationist beliefs are naive. I’m as libertarian as the next guy but I’m also a realist. Idealists are behind Ron Paul. Realists are behind someone who isn’t making unrealistic promises about what they can get done if elected. The idealists who voted for Obama are certainly getting an object lesson in all this at the moment – their disillusionment is so thick you can cut it with a knife. So would yours be in 2015 if Paul managed to become POTUS.

  94. Dave Springer says:
    November 9, 2011 at 8:16 am

    This is misleading. If the U.S., Japan, et al, weren’t buying so many products manufactured in China then China’s CO2 emissions would not be rising as rapidly.

    Basically we in the US import the goods because they are inexpensive then export the blame for environmental consequences of their low-cost manufacture. This is essentially no different than buying sneakers made by exploited child laborers.

    Gosh, Dave, you really should investigate math. It is an amazing thing.

    For example, a quick google search shows that the value of the Chinese exports is about the same in 2010 as it was in 2008 … but Chinese exports went down as a percentage of GDP over that same time period. And through the magic of math, since the exports were stable in absolute terms and dropped in percentage of GDP terms, we can conclude that the increase in the Chinese economy was NOT from increased exports.

    So contrary to your claim, the large rise in Chinese CO2 emissions, is NOT from “the U.S., Japan, et al, … buying so many products manufactured in China”.

    Folks … let me strongly advise that you do things in this order— 1) do the Google search, 2) get the numbers, 3) do the math, and THEN 4) make your claim. If you try those in any other order, you may just end up doing a Springer, and that’s not pretty.

    w.

  95. @Willis

    [Usual Springer nasty personal attack snipped -w.]

    I called your post specious and shallow. That’s not a personal attack.

    Now if I called you a thin skinned delicate little flower that would be a personal attack.

    Got it? Write that down.

  96. @willis

    “So contrary to your claim, the large rise in Chinese CO2 emissions, is NOT from “the U.S., Japan, et al, … buying so many products manufactured in China”

    Interesting. You cite the Chinese growth in carbon emissions from 2008 to 2010 and then point out that exports were flat during that time so I must be wrong.

    Uh huh. Did it ever occur to you that projects such as coal burning power plants and massive dam building are planned more than a couple of years in advance of the date when they go into service?

    This is a great example of shallow thinking. Thanks for hammering my point home.

    Here’s a bit of advice for you: When you find you’ve dug yourself into a hole the first thing to do is stop digging.

  97. Let’s see if the knee-jerk response is working as expected. The following will be largely contested because of where it is published rather than the merits of its argument.

    Newsflash: just because an environmentalist whacko says it doesn’t mean it is untrue. Granted it increases the odds of it being untrue tremendously…

    I’m no environmentalist whacko. Very far from it. I think we’re being stupid in exporting our carbon emissions to China. Their economy is growing by leaps and bounds at the expense of ours. I don’t give a fig about carbon emissions to begin with. It’s plant food and warming is better. We have a vibrant growing energy industry here in the states or we pay the price by allowing another country to grow theirs and reap the profits at our expense. Either way it’s still gonna get burned and the nature of CO2 emissions (well mixed atmosphere) means it doesn’t matter where it is being burned.

    A Dirty Secret

    China’s greatest import: Carbon emissions

    Teaser snippage below from a much longer well researched (unlike the OP here) article.

    Texas As a Proxy for China

    The view from Texas is particularly interesting, because in many ways, Texas is the China of the United States — it’s the dirty manufacturer that makes things the nation wants (namely fuels, chemicals and concrete), but in the process, it emits a lot of carbon and consumes a lot of energy. For example, Texans consume 60 percent more energy per person per year than the average American, who consumes twice as much energy as the average Briton, who consumes twice as much energy as the average Chinese. If Texas were a country, it would be the world’s seventh-largest emitter of carbon dioxide. What happens when those Chinese manufacturers and citizens consume energy like Texans? What if the rest of the world does the
    same? From where would we get that energy?

    Living in Texas and understanding the economy here provides one with a lot of insight.

    Vote for Rick Perry for President. He alone among all those on the GOP primary stage understands that the way to fix our broken economy is to fix our broken energy policies. Everything else falls into place after that.

  98. @Willis

    In the memorable words of Samuel L. Jackson in the movie Coach Carter, “Here’s some stats fo yo ass”

    http://www.earthmagazine.org/earth/article/3cc-7da-b-16

    “To illustrate the growth in coal exports, U.S. coal exports grew more than 50 percent in the first half of 2010 compared with the first half of 2009, from 26 million short tons to 40 million short tons. That means the total exports for 2010 are on track to be 10 percent of total coal production — a relatively high level. And U.S. coal exports to China are more than 1,000 times higher in the first half of 2010 compared with the first half of 2009, representing incredible rates of growth. The message is clear: If we don’t burn our coal at home, we will send it to China to be used.”

    So not only are we driving the industrial growth of China we’re also directly providing a growing amount of the dirty fuel they use to power it.

    Isn’t that just precious?

  99. Dave Springer says:
    November 9, 2011 at 10:19 am

    @willis

    “So contrary to your claim, the large rise in Chinese CO2 emissions, is NOT from “the U.S., Japan, et al, … buying so many products manufactured in China”

    Interesting. You cite the Chinese growth in carbon emissions from 2008 to 2010 and then point out that exports were flat during that time so I must be wrong.

    Uh huh. Did it ever occur to you that projects such as coal burning power plants and massive dam building are planned more than a couple of years in advance of the date when they go into service?

    Sure. Did it ever occur to you that

    a) you didn’t mention those projects, and

    b) you didn’t say that those project were what was driving the increase?

    You said it was exports. Not big projects. Exports.

    Certainly big projects take time. But long lead-time projects are not what you said was driving the Chinese emissions through the roof. You said:

    If the U.S., Japan, et al, weren’t buying so many products manufactured in China then China’s CO2 emissions would not be rising as rapidly.

    So then, I showed that there was no rise in exports during the 2008-2010 period, so that couldn’t have been the cause of the rise in CO2.

    Funny how once I showed that, now you claim you really meant something totally different. Now your story is that you meant it wasn’t because the US and Japan were buying so many products. Perhaps it was some kind of Freudian slip, that when you said it was because the US and Japan were “buying so many products” you really didn’t mean it was because the US and Japan were buying so many products … your story now is you were actually trying to say it was because the Chinese are into “coal burning power plants and massive dam building”, and you slipped up in describing that?

    Well, perhaps so. But it would be more believable if you had actually mentioned building “coal burning power plants and massive dam building” in passing, or even hinted that that was your true meaning, rather than saying it was because the US, Japan et al. were “buying so many products” from China.

    See, I had actually assumed (foolishly, it seems) that you meant what you said. Won’t make that mistake again.

    In any case, instead of waving your hands, how about you come back with the actual figures on what the Chinese spent 2008-2010 on building dams and power plants versus how much they spent say 2006-2008 on the same thing, so we can compare that to the export figures I cited earlier and see if your new, improved claim fares any better than your old claim. I doubt that the Chinese dam and power plant building went up by that much in 2008-2010, but I’m happy for you to surprise me. My guess? Total Chinese expenditures on dams and coal plants represent less than one percent of their GDP … but like I said, I’m happy to be proven wrong.

    w.

    PS—More to the point, Dave, none of your claims change how much CO2 China and India and the other developing countries produced. As a result, my points stand. Durban will not achieve a new Kyoto, it will just be a big scrabble for money. In addition, whatever the developed countries might do regarding emissions will make no difference at all. The increase in emissions from the developing world will wipe out anything the developed world might do.

  100. @Tucci78 says:
    November 9, 2011 at 8:55 am

    Apparently we got off on the wrong foot, or you’re mistaking me for somebody else.

    First of all, when I wrote Ron Paul was “unelectable,” I certainly wasn’t parroting anybody. If the media pundits agree with my assessment, well good for them.

    Second, although I agree with Ron Paul on many, many things, the things I disagree with are deal breakers.

    Third, when I wrote Ron Paul was “unelectable,” what I should have written was “Ron Paul will never, ever be elected president of the United States.” He’s been elected to Congress many times and obviously represents his district well, so he’s obviously electable. Ron Paul won’t get the Republican nomination because no matter how loyal and fanatic his following, his views are outside the mainstream of the GOP and the general electorate.

    And forget about electing a third-party president in 2012. Ain’t gonna happen, no matter who the candidate is.

  101. @willis

    “Funny how once I showed that, now you claim you really meant something totally different. Now your story is that you meant it wasn’t because the US and Japan were buying so many products. You say it was some kind of Freudian slip, that when you said it was because the US and Japan were “buying so many products” you were really trying to say it was because the Chinese are into “coal burning power plants and massive dam building” … ”

    So now you’re saying China doesn’t need infrastructure such as power and water for manufacturing? Or I’ve somehow changed the subject now?

    I don’t think so.

    China needs industry to produce exports. Industry requires power and water. Power and water require power plants and dams. Power plants in China are largely coal and the dams require the manufacture of huge amounts of cement. Both cement manufacture and coal power produces huge amounts of CO2.

    I presumed you knew this and could make the connection between exports and CO2 without me painstakingly belaboring the causal chain as if speaking to a child. I still presume you know this. You’re a shallow reactionary insecure thinker but you’re not an imbecile. Therefore your insecurity is what’s driving you to dig a deeper and deeper hole for yourself IMO.

    LOL

  102. @willis

    “The increase in emissions from the developing world will wipe out anything the developed world might do.”

    See, you CAN get something right! Good for you!

    And I have no problem acknowledging it!!!!

    But this wasn’t what I argued. I argued that the blame for the rising CO2 emission is merely China doing what we want them to do and what we pay them to do – produce cheap goods for consumption by wealthy nations with an insatiable appetite for material goods.

    Perhaps you agree and will take this opportunity to make clear you agree. If you do that I’ll really have nothing further to say in this thread other than the reason the U.S. never ratified Kyoto was precisely because it’s a sham that would simply shift industrial production out of the U.S. and over to exempted “developing” countries, China in particular. Even Bill Clinton knew that while he was office so you’re really just rehashing a political situation that’s going on 20 years old and boring (artfully decorated graphs notwithstanding).

  103. Dave Springer says:
    November 9, 2011 at 10:19 am
    —————————————-
    Huh?
    So, you must agree with Willis and me that the growth in CO2 is not from exports but from massive LOCAL building.
    My guess is this increase is providing jobs which is helping people improve their lives.
    You know, little things like eating most days and sleeping indoors.

  104. Dave Springer says:
    November 9, 2011 at 12:22 pm
    @willis

    “The increase in emissions from the developing world will wipe out anything the developed world might do.”

    See, you CAN get something right! Good for you!

    And I have no problem acknowledging it!!!!

    But this wasn’t what I argued. I argued that the blame for the rising CO2 emission is merely China doing what we want them to do and what we pay them to do – produce cheap goods for consumption by wealthy nations with an insatiable appetite for material goods.

    Perhaps you agree and will take this opportunity to make clear you agree. If you do that I’ll really have nothing further to say in this thread other than the reason the U.S. never ratified Kyoto was precisely because it’s a sham that would simply shift industrial production out of the U.S. and over to exempted “developing” countries, China in particular. Even Bill Clinton knew that while he was office so you’re really just rehashing a political situation that’s going on 20 years old and boring (artfully decorated graphs notwithstanding).

    Slightly OT, but are you aware that President Barrack H. Obama never signed the Kyoto Protocol Treaty?

  105. Dave Springer says:
    November 9, 2011 at 10:58 am

    @Willis

    In the memorable words of Samuel L. Jackson in the movie Coach Carter, “Here’s some stats fo yo @ss”

    http://www.earthmagazine.org/earth/article/3cc-7da-b-16

    “To illustrate the growth in coal exports, U.S. coal exports grew more than 50 percent in the first half of 2010 compared with the first half of 2009, from 26 million short tons to 40 million short tons. That means the total exports for 2010 are on track to be 10 percent of total coal production — a relatively high level. And U.S. coal exports to China are more than 1,000 times higher in the first half of 2010 compared with the first half of 2009, representing incredible rates of growth. The message is clear: If we don’t burn our coal at home, we will send it to China to be used.”

    So not only are we driving the industrial growth of China we’re also directly providing a growing amount of the dirty fuel they use to power it.

    Isn’t that just precious?

    Earth Magazine? Your citation is to Earth Magazine? Ah, well … they have provided percentage figures for the “first half of 2010”, which doesn’t impress me a bit. At year’s end the real figures come out.

    In any case, the majority of the coal we export goes to Europe, not to China. So their claim, that “if we don’t burn our coal at home, we will send it to China”, is nonsense. What we don’t burn we send mostly to Europe, secondarily to Canada, and not mostly to China as your collection of idiots claims.

    The EIA has good figures. They show, for example, that in 2010 we sent a total of 4.2 million tons of coking coal and 1.6 million tons of steam coal to China. That’s a total of 5.8 million tons, or a whopping 7% of our coal exports going to China. It’s also worth noting that the majority of the coal is being used to make steel, not electricity … we send more steam coal to Korea than to China.

    But it gets better. China currently produces about 3,350 million tons of coal per year. So our 2010 exports to them (5.8 million tons) is about 0.2% of their domestic production.

    Additionally, your so-called citation claims that in 2010 we would export 10% of our total coal production. Our 2010 production was 1,085 million tons … our exports were 81.7 million tons, or about 7% of the total. Bad math strikes again.

    In short, your citation is as much a joke as your Samuel Jackson quote, just not as funny. They’re breathing hard and acting like it is important that we are adding 0.2% to the annual coal burnt in China, and you think they’re onto something … now that’s funny.

    w.

  106. Dave Springer says:
    November 9, 2011 at 8:16 am
    This is misleading. If the U.S., Japan, et al, weren’t buying so many products manufactured in China then China’s CO2 emissions would not be rising as rapidly.

    Basically we in the US import the goods because they are inexpensive then export the blame for environmental consequences of their low-cost manufacture. This is essentially no different than buying sneakers made by exploited child laborers.
    ———————————————
    Dave, the internet sure makes it hard to lie.
    And please don’t get me started with child labor in developing countries which is mostly beneficial.

  107. Dave Springer says:
    November 9, 2011 at 12:03 pm

    @willis

    “Funny how once I showed that, now you claim you really meant something totally different. Now your story is that you meant it wasn’t because the US and Japan were buying so many products. You say it was some kind of Freudian slip, that when you said it was because the US and Japan were “buying so many products” you were really trying to say it was because the Chinese are into “coal burning power plants and massive dam building” … ”

    So now you’re saying China doesn’t need infrastructure such as power and water for manufacturing? Or I’ve somehow changed the subject now?

    I don’t think so.

    Certainly China needs infrastructure such as power and water for manufacturing. China’s GDP is about ten trillion dollars per year. They need the infrastructure to produce that ten trillion dollars worth of goods and services, you are absolutely correct.

    But they only export about 14% of that ten trillion dollars of production. 86% of the manufacturing and the power and the water is for domestic use. Which likely means that around 86% of the CO2 is for domestic use. (It may be more than that, because an unknown but definitely large part of the increase in Chinese CO2 comes from their very rapidly increasing car and truck fleet. Globally, about half the new vehicles in 2010 went on the road in China. Only one was a Prius. Lots of SUVs. No effective smog regulations. Can you say “emissions”?)

    So if you want to ascribe 14% of China’s increase in CO2 emissions to exports, I have no problem with that. It’s likely high because so much of the increase is emissions from the millions of new cars, but whether you say 14% or 10% or 7% due to exports, makes no difference.

    But ascribing all of the CO2 increase to exports? Sorry, no can do. Exports are only 14% of the GDP.

    w.

  108. Gee Willis, at first I thought I saw a (carbon fibre) Hockey Stick! On further study I think it is actually a filthy great scythe seen from the side.

  109. Willis wrote: “We are now coming up on the 17th UN Climate Change Carnival … so many clowns … so few circuses.”

    I’m hoping these fine folks can hold off the competition.
    http://worldclown.com/
    At their next annual convention, they might want to discuss how to rein in the the Durban crowd as they are giving them a bad name.

  110. @Anthony

    Score one for Willis. This is exemplary original content posted nowhere else. It might not be grade A stuff but it’s better than copy & paste content and is worth its weight in bronze. It it went viral it would be worth its weight in gold. At the blog I used to run we had some occasional original viral posts but it was always our enemies that did it for us. There’s something to be said about making people angry on the internet. They talk about you and link to you and obsess over you. It’s far easier to be hated than loved and the former gets more publicity. Write that down!

  111. Dave springer said:

    “No, not yeast. The flute has more nucleation sites on the bottom of the glass due the way it is made (stem separately). Higher quality beer glasses have purposely made imperfections at the bottom in order to get the same visual effect in the bubbles”

    Does this mean rocky seabeds cause more CO2 bubbles than sandy ones?

  112. Dave Springer says:
    November 9, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    … you’re really just rehashing a political situation that’s going on 20 years old and boring (artfully decorated graphs notwithstanding).

    I love folks who come here and expend a lot of heat and steam and claims and research and words and ideas on a thread, toss out insults, claim the folks here just don’t understand their brilliant genius … and then for their grand dismount after all the gymnastics, they finish by claiming the thread is “boring”.

    Boring? You’re sure not acting like you are bored … but heck, if boredom is your problem, Dave, there’s an easy cure … leave. There’s a big and exciting web just on the other side of the door marked “EXIT”, with lots of folks waiting eagerly for you to show them the error of their ways, and perhaps even hoping you’ll explain to them how the evil West is responsible for every atom of the increase in Chinese CO2.

    w.

    … perhaps apocryphally, the story is that the proprietor of “Ripley’s Believe It Or Not” museum was having trouble because people just wanted to stay and stay and stay, looking at the oddities. So he put up one of those revolving doors that you can’t return through, along with a big sign pointing to the door saying:

    THIS WAY TO SEE THE EGRESS!! =====>

  113. Jay,

    Your presentation of what Dr. muller says is interesting. But it it based on flawed data. It shows Mankind’s emissions as reported by forms and reports to bureaucrats that reveal real what Man has emitted. It does not record what the countries in question emit or sequester though.

    No matter how hard they try, the bureaucrats can’t get the Oak, Birch and Alder and their brethren to fill out forms revealing how much CO2 that they sequester. Nor can they get the corn and wheat fields to turn in thee paperwork about how much CO2 they have absorbed, either. IOW they don’t have double entry bookkeeping showing both debits AND credits.

    FACT: per the peer reviewed and published results of groups of Scientists working at Princeton University, who measured the CO2 in the air as it traversed North America from seas to sea, that North America emits less than zero amounts of CO2. We absorb more then we emit.

    Our forests, harvested for lumber and paper, grow and absorb CO2. Our farms grow food and fiber and to do that, the growing plants absorb CO2.

    To a lesser degree South America does too, as does Australia. Eurasia and Africa are the CO2 emitters.In South America, the Amazon is a mature forest, merely replacing what grew before, and has died, but the population is smaller and Mankind are lesser emitters.

    So they too are NET Carbon Dioxide Sinks.

    We have met the Kyoto targets without accepting the Treaty. Even if there really were some validity to CAGW, which there most certainly is not, it is someone else’s problem, not ours! Our job is completed and done.

  114. To many replies to my replies to be able to address them all, but thanks. I want to say that I am a long time Greenie. I am also a scientist with no ties to any prejudices and have looked at the issue of AGW with an open mind. My conclusion is that most GW is caused by natural cycles (mainly solar).

    The most important cycles (other than Milankovitch ones which affect longer term) are 2300 years, 208 years and about 50-60 years. The 208 year cycle was rising the entire 20th century and is now peaked out. The ~55 year cycle had peaks in ~1940 and ~1998 and so is also now falling. The 2300 year cycle has been and will be rising for hundreds of years.

    I have examined the question of atmospheric CO2 and global temperature and find that there is evidence that temperature leads CO2 by 6 months. See http://cyclesresearchinstitute.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/which-causes-which-out-of-atmospheric-temperature-and-co2-content/

    Despite all of the above, it would be foolish to believe that human activity has or will have no effect on climate and humans need to tidy up their act. Doing experiments on our environment that may cause disasters is insane. Much of our production of CO2 is connected with making stuff that will not improve anyone’s health, welfare or happiness. Human problems run very deep and connected with all sorts of mental impurities. There is no easy answer.

  115. “Three quarters of the people in Mali live on less than $2 per day. You’ll likely have to notify them about how they’ve received so many things from the West, jobs and equipment and the like. They may not have noticed how fortunate they’ve been.”

    The blame for this can hardly be placed at the footsteps of the “West.” The original poster’s point stands. They have received gifts from the western world in the form of knowledge that they probably would never have been able to accumulate themselves. What they do with it is up to them.

    And this is the reality isn’t it? We are talking about a country with a class of people known as “the untouchables” – so you know the REAL problem runs very deep. Cultural and philosophical differences that cannot just be overcome through economic activity.

    The truth being told, I don’t think it will ever change for the vast majority of these people – because their “world view” is substantially different from that of the West.

    Ray Tomes makes a great point, many western countries had achieved good standards of living without a good deal of the things we have today and without global trade being what it is now. It’s *not* just “free enterprise” that is responsible for this.

  116. @willis

    The article is boring and there’s nothing I can do about that. But the comments are a living thing apart from the article.

    [snip. Get the name right. ~dbs, mod.]

  117. Ray Tomes says:
    November 9, 2011 at 3:43 pm

    “Despite all of the above, it would be foolish to believe that human activity has or will have no effect on climate and humans need to tidy up their act.”

    Says you. Pffffffffffffffffffffffft.

    “Doing experiments on our environment that may cause disasters is insane.”

    It may avert disaster too. Duh.

    “Much of our production of CO2 is connected with making stuff that will not improve anyone’s health, welfare or happiness.”

    Bullcrap. People do little to nothing that doesn’t have a purpose and that purpose is almost universally making someone happier, themselves or others. You don’t get to judge what makes someone else happy. Got it? Write that down.

    “Human problems run very deep and connected with all sorts of mental impurities”

    .You’d know, ya fruitloop.

    “There is no easy answer.”

    You don’t even know what the question is. None of us do.

  118. Dr.Mabuse says:
    November 9, 2011 at 5:22 pm

    “Ray Tomes makes a great point, many western countries had achieved good standards of living without a good deal of the things we have today and without global trade being what it is now.”

    Yeah yeah yeah. Are you living in one of them yet? If not, why not? The average expected life span in Hong Kong is about 10 years longer than the U.S. That’s ten years per person of living standard that’s infinitely higher per person in the U.S. because one’s alive and the other is dead. How come we all don’t rush the exits to get there? I’ve been there so I can only answer for myself. Mebbe if you only answered for yourself and everybody else did the same we wouldn’t have so much friction. People tend to not like being told what they should and shouldn’t like, what they should and shouldn’t do, by the holier (or smarter or whatever) than thou crowd.

  119. [snip. Get the name right. ~dbs, mod.]

    If you must know the person I was addressing that last sentence to is named Wilma and that’s the correct spelling. It’s my lost sister’s third cousin twice removed on her aunt’s side.

  120. Willis Eschenbach says:
    November 9, 2011 at 1:11 pm

    “They need the infrastructure to produce that ten trillion dollars worth of goods and services, you are absolutely correct.”

    Of course I’m correct. That’s a given.

    “But they only export about 14% of that ten trillion dollars of production. 86% of the manufacturing and the power and the water is for domestic use.”

    If by “domestic use” you mean to feed, clothe, and house the little kids during the 8 hours a day they get to spend away from sewing together the sneakers that line the aisles at Academy Sports and Outdoors then I agree. You can’t exploit a huge slave labor force without at least providing them the bare necessities like food, clothing, and shelter.

    So what’s your point?

  121. Ray Tomes says:
    November 9, 2011 at 3:43 pm

    “Too many replies to my replies to be able to address them all, but thanks. I want to say that I am a long time Greenie. I am also a scientist with no ties to any prejudices and have looked at the issue of AGW with an open mind. My conclusion is that most GW is caused by natural cycles (mainly solar).”

    No argument there

    The most important cycles (other than Milankovitch ones which affect longer term) are 2300 years, 208 years and about 50-60 years. The 208 year cycle was rising the entire 20th century and is now peaked out. The ~55 year cycle had peaks in ~1940 and ~1998 and so is also now falling. The 2300 year cycle has been and will be rising for hundreds of years.

    I have examined the question of atmospheric CO2 and global temperature and find that there is evidence that temperature leads CO2 by 6 months. See http://cyclesresearchinstitute.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/which-causes-which-out-of-atmospheric-temperature-and-co2-content/

    This differs from many other studies blogged about at WUWT. Maybe you can get a guest post? Seriously, I’d like to see it.

    “Despite all of the above, it would be foolish to believe that human activity has or will have no effect on climate and humans need to tidy up their act.”

    Are we talking beliefs or facts here? Regardless, most skeptics will likely agree with the opinion that human activities have some effect on climate. The questions are what effects? And how much effect? Is it better to mitigate or adapt? And what are the unintended consequences of our actions to stop those changes?

    If we’re discussing CO2, the observed effects appear negligible and current atmospheric levels and rates of emissions. Land use changes appear to have an underestimated effect on climate. But land use changes are local and regional, and station siting is poor. The warming attributed the GHG emissions may be caused by local land-use changes and the effect exaggerated by bad data, poor modeling and bad analysis.

    “Doing experiments on our environment that may cause disasters is insane. Much of our production of CO2 is connected with making stuff that will not improve anyone’s health, welfare or happiness.”

    Really? How much? And what stuff? Do we need a Health, Welfare and Happiness Panel to determine what stuff should and should not be manufactured and purchased?

    “Human problems run very deep and connected with all sorts of mental impurities.

    The Soviets used to believe that people could be perfected by perfecting society. They believed people are victims of their environment and circumstances. Crime, greed, sloth, mental illness, etc, could all be eliminated if people were conditioned properly. This is still a popular idea with many collectivists, statists, elitists and academics.

    Besides, if think you mean impurities of our precious bodily fluids.

    “There is no easy answer.

    That’s not a question.

  122. More Soylent Green! says:
    November 9, 2011 at 12:35 pm

    “Slightly OT, but are you aware that President Barrack H. Obama never signed the Kyoto Protocol Treaty?”

    The senate has to ratify any treaty before it goes to POTUS for signing into law. No president has even submitted it to the senate for consideration. Prior to negotiation of the it the senate passed a resolution saying the U.S. should not sign any treaty that failed to include binding targets for both developing and industrialized nations alike or anything that “would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.”

    It takes a 66% super-majority in the senate to ratify a treaty. There’s zero chance of that ever happening with Kyoto. Obama submitting it for ratification would be nothing more than a gesture. I’m not sure why he doesn’t make the gesture though.

  123. Chuck Nolan says:
    November 9, 2011 at 12:42 pm

    “Dave, the internet sure makes it hard to lie.
    And please don’t get me started with child labor in developing countries which is mostly beneficial.”

    Oh please do get started defending child labor in communist China. Is the reason you don’t want to because it’s so hard for you to lie on the internet?

  124. Chuck Nolan says:
    November 9, 2011 at 12:32 pm

    “So, you must agree with Willis and me that the growth in CO2 is not from exports but from massive LOCAL building.”

    Part of it is from local buiding, sure. You can’t very well send people to work in factories if they’re dead because there isn’t enough water to grow rice or there isn’t enough electricity to light the factories.

    “My guess is this increase is providing jobs which is helping people improve their lives.
    You know, little things like eating most days and sleeping indoors.”

    You say that like you believe that China is a democracy and people have a choice about where to work or how to live. Exactly what kind of internal fantasy have you constructed in that little head of yours about China? You think it’s like wherever you live only they don’t have as much money or something equally far removed from reality? They don’t even get a choice in how many children they can have, dummy. You have no clue, do you?

  125. Willis Eschenbach says:
    November 9, 2011 at 11:37 am

    “I doubt that the Chinese dam and power plant building went up by that much in 2008-2010, but I’m happy for you to surprise me. My guess? Total Chinese expenditures on dams and coal plants represent less than one percent of their GDP … but like I said, I’m happy to be proven wrong.”

    You’re so far from happy to be proven wrong you’ll go to any length or means necessary to avoid even the appearance of it.

    You need to read more and write less. China famously undertook building the largest dam in the world in the past decade, the Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze River. Dams and power plants are metaphors for industrialization. China is industrializing on a huge scale after literally thousands of years of avoiding it. Enquriing minds might wonder why this is happening at this point in its history. Maybe all the people just woke up one day and said hey, wouldn’t it be great if we abandoned the pastoral lives we’ve been happy to lead for 4000 years and sat around in factories sewing sneakers and soldering parts into car radios? Warning: “sneakers and car radios” are metaphors representing international trade goods.

    Your knee jerked predicatably when I quoted an article in Earth Magazine. Funny reaction for an earth-baby LSD-dropping war-protesting surfer/hitchhiker still carrying a guitar and thumbing rides as a senior citizen. But I digress. Maybe Money might be more up your alley.

    http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/26/news/international/china_energy_efficiency/index.htm

    Why China is an energy consumption hog

    By Steve Hargreaves, senior writerNovember 29, 2010: 5:38 AM ET

    NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — Over the next 15 years China is expected to build the equivalent of New York City — 10 times over.

    That’s a lot of concrete and steel, and it goes a long way to explaining why the country is using so much energy.

    Email Print CommentRoads, bridges, rail lines, skyscrapers and factories take tons of concrete, steel, chemicals and glass.

    “They are building massive amounts of infrastructure,” said Lynn Price, a scientist in the China Energy Group at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, a U.S. Department of Energy research lab. “It takes incredible amounts of these energy-intensive commodities.”
    Earlier this year, the International Energy Agency said China surpassed the United States to become the world’s largest consumer of energy. The news was somewhat surprising.

    While China does have four times as many people, its economy is only a third the size. So where is all that energy going?

    Statistics from the DOE show it is China’s industrial production, not its 1.3 billion people, that is using all this fuel. Sure, the Chinese are driving more cars and using more electricity but that’s a drop in the bucket, relatively speaking.

    My emphasis. Any question about the source (US Department of Energy) or what is meant by “a drop in the bucket”?

    Now the question for you to answer for yourself is what value bridges, skyscrapers, rail lines, and factories have to a billion people who just want to live in peace in small villages raising their own food and children (whatever number they choose to have) and worshipping in their traditional manner – in short living the lives they and their ancestors have been living for thousands of years. What interest do they have in the infrastructure of the industrialized world? Or maybe they don’t have any interest and it’s the unelected communist f*cking government of China that has the interest. Try to think about it a little bit, for a change, before responding.

  126. Dave Springer,

    “Now the question for you to answer for yourself is what value bridges, skyscrapers, rail lines, and factories have to a billion people who just want to live in peace in small villages raising their own food and children (whatever number they choose to have) and worshipping in their traditional manner – in short living the lives they and their ancestors have been living for thousands of years.”

    Do you believe that the chinese peasants (those “living in peace” in small villages) actually preferred a life of grinding poverty eaking out an existence digging in the dirt? If this is the case, then why are they migrating to the cities? Are the authorites holding a collective gun to their heads, or are they going by choice?

  127. Dave Springer says:
    November 10, 2011 at 6:12 am
    More Soylent Green! says:
    November 9, 2011 at 12:35 pm

    “Slightly OT, but are you aware that President Barrack H. Obama never signed the Kyoto Protocol Treaty?”

    The senate has to ratify any treaty before it goes to POTUS for signing into law. No president has even submitted it to the senate for consideration. Prior to negotiation of the it the senate passed a resolution saying the U.S. should not sign any treaty that failed to include binding targets for both developing and industrialized nations alike or anything that “would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.”

    It takes a 66% super-majority in the senate to ratify a treaty. There’s zero chance of that ever happening with Kyoto. Obama submitting it for ratification would be nothing more than a gesture. I’m not sure why he doesn’t make the gesture though.

    Dave,

    You probably recognize that I’m just parroting the nonsensical criticism the greens and progressives made of GWB and using that to point out the double standard.

  128. Dave Springer says:
    November 10, 2011 at 6:58 am

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    November 9, 2011 at 11:37 am

    “I doubt that the Chinese dam and power plant building went up by that much in 2008-2010, but I’m happy for you to surprise me. My guess? Total Chinese expenditures on dams and coal plants represent less than one percent of their GDP … but like I said, I’m happy to be proven wrong.”

    You’re so far from happy to be proven wrong you’ll go to any length or means necessary to avoid even the appearance of it.

    OK, I give up, Dave. Your unpleasantness has finally gotten to me. Your insults have worn me down. Go bother someone else, you’re no fun, what was it they say about asinine unpleasant children like yourself, oh, yeah, “Doesn’t play well with others”.

    Don’t bother to reply. I’m finished with your boorish nastiness. I invited you, quite politely as you can see above, to do something simple. Provide a citation for your claim.

    Instead, first thing out of the box, you rock back with an insult.

    Go away, you nasty little man, play your nasty little word games with someone else. I’m through making allowances for your impolite behavior. You know about this thing called a “tipping point”? You’ve passed it for me.

    Bye, Dave, and it sure hasn’t been nice talking to you. Your claims may be right, who knows, but your attitude sucks, so who cares?

    w.

Comments are closed.