There is only one goddess Gaia and Al Gore is her only prophet...

[kandrathe]

1) Denialists publish. See Lindzen, Pielke Sr., McKitrick and MacIntyre. Read Energy and Environment for the whole mess.

Wouldn't the e-mail leak suggest there is some reason for concern over the objectivity of peer review in climate science?

2) Your solutions are wishful thinking fairy tales that will not solve the problem in time to prevent CO2 concentrations from reaching 700 or 800 ppm - if it even stops there.

First, I don't have solutions. I have some suggestions, yes. Like direct action, spending that trillion in bail out money on obsoleting coal and oil fired power plants.

3) The atmosphere is not measured in GDP. This would be like claiming that Bill Gates can survive arsenic poisoning, because his arsenic/income ratio is very low. It's simply nonsensical.

No, not silly. GDP = production = emissions. You can cut emissions by hammering production. What we desire is to cut emissions without hammering production, so that is what should be measured. To ignore "per capita" ignores the role of each individual in GW, and to ignore GDP ignores the role of production on GW. China could also cut GW by executing 50% of their population, but that is not a desirable outcome either.

4) Your simple equation is hilarious. Would you like a side of saccharine with that?

Diet Coke?

5) The service sector produces very little CO2 - all the declining countries are de-industrializing, except China, whose GDP is growth is starting to wash out emissions, slightly. But look at China these last few years, as it becomes the world's workshop.

Which is also unfortunate. Production should not need to seek the lowest wage and environmental protections in the world, and we as consumers should be outraged and alarmed that our products are built on such harm.

Afterthought - it would be fascinating to see the emissions/gdp density for the last few years. Surely the collapse of the global financial sector has sent that way up, even as emissions come slightly down due to collapse?

*Admittedly, that normalized graph does not tell the whole story by far - Japan's ratio is quite good already, as is Germany's. The US' intensity is relatively poor (Canada worse - cold country), and China's is simply terrible, even after the dramatic decline from 1991. Chad and Cambodia, on the other hand, are doing fantastically, with their terrible GDPs and near-zero emissions. Although service-heavy Switzerland is doing almost as well...

Hand calculate Switzerland... I don't get 8.9 thousands. 360.152 billion / 40457 thousands is actually 8,902.09358 Thousands... I haven't checked the others, but that one jumped out as wrong. I think the problem is in the column title, and using British billions. Very confusing anyway, them using US$, Metric Tons, and British Billions. It should read "per million US $". If they are converting to US currency, then you should accept the US numerical use of billion as 1000 millions. >>SHEESH<< Also, what GDP is this, real GDP or the imaginary one used by governments?

Here is a better source with historical data for comparison. http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/climate-at...riable-468.html Note the steady decline in the US CO2 / GDP numbers which reflects growing efficiency that is also masked by increases in our GDP throughout that period, and all the while improving our air and water through environmental legislation.

http://bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView....p;LastYear=2009

I would bet the worlds GDP / CO2 has actually increased due to near constant need for electricity, heat, transportation and lowering worldwide real GDP. The next 4 to 8 years of runaway inflation will really screw things up.

Speaking of not telling the whole truth...

Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don't add up