The hypocrisy on display in this post is unbelievable.

You are a very, very simple minded person.



.

change in carbon emission between 1990 and 2011.

1. congrats Canada on doing absolutely jack shit about it.

2. clearly SA doesn't give 1 single shit about carbon

http://sagacommodities.com/files/cus...r%20capita.png

it states right in the title that this is about SA changing production due to man-made global warming.

Please.. You keep talking about how you know more than all those silly scientist whom work on this stuff for a living.. Yet here you are arguing on a message board and can't even offer up any proof of your claims.

That doesn't mean they are doing it to save the planet.. It just means they see the writing on the wall, that govt's of the world will start acting, which means their oil production revenues will go down. As a result, they intend to pump out as much oil as they can now to make as much money as possible.

The point being is they see the writing on the wall that the rest of the world understands fossil fuels are a primary cause and will start reducing usage in the future. They are making a business decision not a decision to save the planet.

that what i said earlier and exactly why the op article is silly. It was a business deciison in an attempt to maintain market share and manipulate the market and drive out competition. just like most all of us already knew.

I have never once said I know more than any scientist. But I am willing to consider the work of some scientists who may know as much as, or more than, other scientists.

There is no proof of any of my "claims" - just as you cannot offer any proof of any of your claims while you also argue here on this message board. There is scientific evidence that contradicts and/or calls into question other scientific evidence. Therefore I remain unconvinced that the science is settled as you so eagerly believe without question. That is a political position not a scientific one.

You and Mark Prince are the only ones here trying to put things into absolute and unassailable terms.



.

Well, respect. Although per capita US is still one of the biggest carbon emissions producer. So, more simpler terms: shitty student has got little better.

List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

USA leads the globe on reducing carbon. Its as simple as that. Spin it any way you need to make it a slight on USA but the simple fact is very clear.

Oh and Canada could not care less about reducing its carbon.

Just the way it should be. :thumbsup




.

There is plenty of proof, you just don't accept it.

This is a basic explanation of how humans have caused more greenhouse gas which in turn has speed up global warming..

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

the fact there is overpopulation is strong evidence there isn't a problem... We are thriving despite our imperfections as humans.

USA also leads producing carbon (top positions). It has high emission amounts; respect for improving the situation, but it is not yet A grade student.

People telling that stuff either haven't got the concept, or are keeping other people stupid as hell.

That is equal to telling that cars have usually four tyres and steering wheel. No shit?

I stand by my original comment, the USA leads the world on reducing carbon production. Make a judgement call on wtfever grade that translates to but we're at the head of the class.

It's crockett science

USA, USA, USA!! (picture me waving post stamp sized US flag) :)

OK, what are you wearing while waving USA flag?

Evidence does not equal proof. Theories do not equal proof. Computer models do not equal proof. John Cook is not the be-all and end-all of discussion on this topic.

You post a link to a point on a blog (run by a discredited evangelical christian) so I will post a link to a direct counterpoint from another blog:

The Reference Frame: John Cook: Skeptical Science



.

Post stamp sized bikinis resembling US flag of course.

You're attempting to debate a guy (EonBlue) who doesn't believe any amount of CO2 is bad and the more CO2 the better. He has actually said that man and the planet would thrive if there were 100x more CO2 in the atmosphere.

This from a guy who probably doesn't even have a high school education.

Anyways, don't misquote me. I never actually said any of those things.

Sure there are amounts of CO2 that are bad. Too little CO2 can be just as devastating as too much. The question is how much is too little and how much is too much? Plant life shuts down at 150 ppm of CO2. Meanwhile we know that life has thrived on earth with CO2 as high as 8000 ppm or more. Seems we are much more dangerously close to the too little than the too much.

Greenhouses routinely pump CO2 in to levels of 1000 - 2000 ppm to get their plants to grow more vigourously. Clearly more CO2 is better for plant life.

And the whole 100x more CO2 thing was a typo and I admitted it at the time. I meant to say 10x. Period.

Now go educate yourself a little bit and stop trying so hard to get in the global warming alarmist "bro" club by attacking me instead of make any of your own reasoned arguments. Any rational and sane person should be able to see by now that the threat from increased CO2 has been vastly overblown and that CO2 is as vital to life on earth as O2.




.

Punxsutawney Phil predicts six more weeks of winter... so where is your man-made climate change now :1orglaugh

Man is keeping it cold so you have to buy more heating for your home.

You only claimed it to be a typo after I provided links to show how crazy you are, in the same argument you also claimed that CO2 is not a poisonous gas in any amount. Yea, another typo. :1orglaugh