Quote:Wouldn't the e-mail leak suggest there is some reason for concern over the objectivity of peer review in climate science?This is my point. Even if you accept the wildest claims about a total shutout of most climate literature, there are still denialist papers, published, in journals. You can read them. Most of them are in the trashy Energy and Environment, but quite a few are in more respectable publications, like Geophys. Research Letters.
Quote: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 me 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.The atmosphere is about *emissions*. It is not measured in people, or income, or whatever else. It does not care one whit how the carbon gets there - only that it is there. We cannot say "it's okay to produce limitless carbon, so long as income always rises faster than emissions". That's ridiculous.
You also can't cut per capita emissions by killing people. That would raise, not lower, your per capita stats. It would cut total emissions - but that's precisely my point. We can ignore per capita stats, in some sense, because the final tally is measured in CO2 relative to the atmosphere, and not the economy or the population.
Quote: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.Check your units again.
360.152 billion dollars/ 40457 thousand metric tons = 360 million dollars / 40457 metric ton = 8902 dollars per metric ton, which is 8.9 thousand.
I also don't see how your other source tells a different story. It's pretty much the same stuff, isn't it?
-Jester
Afterthought: The Gore quote appears to be a misunderstanding on his part of the specifics, not a deliberate deception - although the general case is not very far off. 6 years is a short timespan, but for the melting of Arctic ice, is 20 or 30 years really that much longer? The man is not a scientist, and has never claimed to be - if you want the specifics, read the papers.