On April 2nd, 2008 at 12:29 am, scooter56 said:
I would question many of your figures and conclusions but I will let others do it for me.

Gee. Typical liberal response. My site is ACTUAL facts and data, no spin. Your site (Energy Information Administration) is dedicated to reporting solely on global warming issues and uses “Greenhouse gas” EQUIVALENT” emmissions.

What does “equivalent” mean in this case? This.

Emissions of other greenhouse gases (such as methane) can also be measured in carbon dioxide equivalent units by multiplying their emissions (in metric tons) by their global warming potentials (GWPs).

“global warming potentials” = a number we’re guessing at.

Too bad for you I cited EPA data and you linked to a Global Warming directed political spin site. Which is generally more reliable? Someone reporting facts and figures or someone with an agenda?

I would question many of your figures and conclusions but I will let others do it for me.

But will you drink the ‘kool-aid’ if Al Gore offers it to you, Scooter?

On April 1st, 2008 at 5:35 pm, KaosKlerik said:

On March 31st, 2008 at 10:55 pm, greenLibertarian said:
Don’t we want our children to have clean air, water, and enough resources to live well?

Per unit of production America is one of the cleanest nations on Earth. Top three a least. We lead the world in developing clean coal technology.

I would question many of your figures and conclusions but I will let others do it for me.
DOE/EPA figures can be found at:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/#developments
Also, most reductions you listed didn’t happen because of voluntary actions by kind hearted industries…..and CO2 levels have gone up (greatly), whereas CO has gone down……and clean coal, yeah right.

On March 31st, 2008 at 10:55 pm, greenLibertarian said:
Don’t we want our children to have clean air, water, and enough resources to live well?

Per unit of production America is one of the cleanest nations on Earth. Top three a least. We lead the world in developing clean coal technology.

Since 1970 [through 1997], aggregate emissions of the six principal pollutants have been cut 48 percent. During that same time, U.S. gross domestic product increased 164 percent, energy consumption increased 42 percent, and vehicle miles traveled increased 155 percent.

In 1980 the US put 267 tons of pollution in the air.
In 2006 the US put 137 tons of pollution in the air.

From 1980 to 2006:
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) concentrations dropped 75%.
Ozone concentrations dropped 21%
Lead concentrations dropped 96%
(Nitrogen Dioxide) NO2 concentrations dropped 41%
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) concentrations dropped 66%
From 1990 to 2006:
Particulate Matter concentrations dropped 30%

Those are in real numbers, not per capita or unit of production.

I’ve been hearing the “just-about-out-of-food/water/resources” argument since the 70’s. Somehow it never comes true.

Innovation increases supply.
Innovation thrives under liberty.
Free nations do not have cronic supply problems. Even the oil-”crisis” will work itself out. Either with fuel alternatives or more drilling or more likely, both.
Dictatorships tend to have cronic supply problems.

The solution to a supply problem AND a pollution problem is private property ownership, capitalism, and free-markets.

The environment was at its best before mankind industrialized.

you mean.. CO2?

I think he means during the ice age.

BTW, can I still take my plastic bottles to the recycler? I get 5¢ a pop!

For Rusty, lgm, mookie and other assorted lefties that troll around here; don’t say Chelsea is “off-limits”, she isn’t. She chose to interject herself in her mother’s campaign and when she lies she deserves to be called out. She is not some naive kid but a college educated woman who knows the difference between right and wrong

Why not ask Chelsea why public schools were not good enough for her.

this is the current simplified model from Myhre: ΔF = α ln(C/C0)

scooter56,

Are you serious? I’ll assume that you can’t offer an explanation. One, condensed formula for modeling theoretical effect DOES NOT explain a mechanism of action.

My search continues.

On April 1st, 2008 at 9:44 am, corkie said:

I asked if sausage could explain. He didn’t answer and scooter56 merely linked to a paper.

scooter56, please explain the mechanism to me so that we can discuss.

Corkie, this is the current simplified model from Myhre: ΔF = α ln(C/C0)