The worst polluters in the world
Posted on December 15th, 2009 by Colin Cohen
Right this moment a group of carbon criminals are getting away with murder. Where?
In Copenhagen, of course.
The U.N. estimates that 40,500 tones of carbon dioxide will be pumped into the atmosphere during the climate conference. And this doesn’t include the amount emitted personally by the participants.
Let’s hope when they finally enact carbon limitations that they include a ban on such events in the future. It’s a provision that even the global warming deniers might support.
Latest posts by Colin Cohen (Posts)
- Turkey stands against tyranny - July 5, 2010
- Afghanistan is all Obama’s fault - July 2, 2010
- Would a drilling agency by another name smell as bad? - June 23, 2010
- For Neda - June 13, 2010
- Helen Thomas’s new job - June 8, 2010
Print This Post
You strike me as a climate change skeptic, which likely means you don’t believe that CO2 causes warming? (In which case you can’t complain about these limos) Or is it that this warming is a natural cycle? (This doesn’t preclude the good possibility that the future will provide a more difficult existence for humans and it would be smartest to deal with that)
Anyways what do you think of the world’s actual worst polluters coal plants ( you know instead of building this strawman like you did)… and no I’m not even talking about CO2 forget that for now. Consider the discharge of arsenic, heavy metals, and radiation from mining coal. And the mercury, sulfuric acid rain, and nitrous oxide and soot from combusting coal. Then think of those things in the water you drink and the air you breath. Then reconsider the title of your embarrassing article.
I think that one volcanis eruption produces more pollutants than humans have produced in their entire existence.
The El Chichon eruption in 1982 lowered the global temperature for the year by 0.5 degrees.
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html
It released a massive cloud of sulphur, and consequently produced acid rain.
Thus, it seems that increasing the atmosphere’s percentage of pollution brings temperatures down, and it does not raise them.
The ice age that happened right after the comet smacked the Earth and killed the Dinosaurs hints at the same thing.
Question: Why wouldn’t the people who get thrust to power on the backs of the global warming hoax set it up so that their regulations increased cooling?
Thus, they can always argue for more power.
It’s what government has done everywhere else it sets up power camp.
We need more money for education! As test scores fall off and the inner city schools become a laughing stock, despite trillions of dollars spent on education in this country over the last 60 years… The people wanting more money to fix the problem are often the very ones causing the problem in the first place.
Wow, Mr. McGowan. You betray a very severe lack of understanding of various climate factors and how they affect temperatures, interact. etc. In the future when commenting on this subject you should inform yourself prior to submission.
You speak of pollution using blanketing speech as if everything spewed into the air has the same effect on climate as anything else already up there or with the potential to go up there. At the most basic level you seem ignorant of the a difference between greenhouse gases and aerosols. Wikipedia is there for your benefit and has laudable articles on both of these concepts.
Also, I highly doubt your opening statement about the magnitude of volcanic pollution compared to anthropogenic pollution. Not to mention that you fail to include pollution such as heavy metals, arsenic, mercury, radiation in your comparison of volcanic and human pollution.
Your sentiment for more education dollars is great and one that I share, however.
“You speak of pollution using blanketing speech as if everything spewed into the air has the same effect on climate as anything else already up there or with the potential to go up there. At the most basic level you seem ignorant of the a difference between greenhouse gases and aerosols. Wikipedia is there for your benefit and has laudable articles on both of these concepts.
Also, I highly doubt your opening statement about the magnitude of volcanic pollution compared to anthropogenic pollution. Not to mention that you fail to include pollution such as heavy metals, arsenic, mercury, radiation in your comparison of volcanic and human pollution.”
–Well, do me a favor an enlighten me then. I at least had the deceny to explain my reasoning, I didn’t just lambaste someone on the internet then tell them to go look up proof of my claims. Do your own homework.
Here’s a sticky point:
“You speak of pollution using blanketing speech as if everything spewed into the air has the same effect on climate as anything else already up there or with the potential to go up there.”
No, I don’t. I know that CO2 is a minor player in global warming and that water vapor is the most important greenhouse emission. And yet current regulations are aimed at halting increases in CO2 and not water vapor. Why are you chewing me out, and yet not the regulators? Hmmm?
And as to the impact of volcanoes?
When Mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines June 15, 1991, an estimated 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide and ash particles blasted more than 12 miles (20 km) high into the atmosphere. The eruption caused widespread destruction and loss of human life. Gases and solids injected into the stratosphere circled the globe for three weeks. Volcanic eruptions of this magnitude can impact global climate, reducing the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface, lowering temperatures in the troposphere, and changing atmospheric circulation patterns…”
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Volcano/
Now, that’s two sites, one of them NASA, the other a Div 1 University, which both agree that the amount of pollution produced by a volcano is truly immense and has great effect on global temperature.
That’s two (2, dos) sources backing me up, where’s your data?
Look, I’m more informed about this topic than 90% of the people out there. I’ve been arguing this for years. Global warming is not possible to defend because there hasn’t been nearly enough data collected on temperature trends on the planet. We would require thousands of year’s worth of examination before we could make any kind of statistically meaningful predictions on future climate trends.
None of the “experts” can tell us what the true average global temperature even is, that’s why you only see graphs about changes in temperature, and not graphs showing total temperature. The “experts” have no method of figuring out standard deviation of temperature, a real average, nothing, Simply not enough data.
Look, if you don’t believe me, here’s a simple tool to help you understand: http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm
This is a calculator that helps determine required sample size for a research project. Using the top calculator, set the required confidence level for 95% (as in we’re 95% sure that the real mean lies within these values), set the confidence interval for 1 (as in mean temperature lies in a range of +/- 1 degree), and set the population size to 4 billion.
Click calculate and you’ll see that we have to have 9,604 year’s worth of data to determine the average temperature within +/- 1 degree.
Now, you really want to trust their numbers and assertions in the face of the math that dictates scientific procedure?
Go right ahead. But realize that you’re arguing a religion, and not science at this point.