I don't know whether to laugh or cry

at the ignorance of brainwashed people. CO2 is lovely in small amounts but at the present concentration of between 390 - 400 ppm in Canada, it is outright nasty for mammals including humans, but plants will love it.

Living things cannot have both a delicate electro-chemical balance and be unaffected by the ever increasing rise of CO2.

400 ppm =4/100 of 1%, which is a tiny amount

Actually, I'm crying at the ignorance and the willingness to cooperate with a boondoggle.

Atmospheric CO2 levels are the result of natural processes and humans at most add 3-5% to it. Plants sequester the extra rapidly.
"In a paper recently published in the international peer-reviewed journal Energy & Fuels, Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh (2009), Professor of Energy Conversion at The Ohio State University, addresses the residence time (RT) of anthropogenic CO2 in the air. He finds that the RT for bulk atmospheric CO2, the molecule 12CO2, is ~5 years, in good agreement with other cited sources (Segalstad, 1998), while the RT for the trace molecule 14CO2 is ~16 years. Both of these residence times are much shorter than what is claimed by the IPCC. The rising concentration of atmospheric CO2 in the last century is not consistent with supply from anthropogenic sources. Such anthropogenic sources account for less than 5% of the present atmosphere, compared to the major input/output from natural sources (~95%). Hence, anthropogenic CO2 is too small to be a significant or relevant factor in the global warming process, particularly when comparing with the far more potent greenhouse gas water vapor. The rising atmospheric CO2 is the outcome of rising temperature rather than vice versa. Correspondingly, Dr. Essenhigh concludes that the politically driven target of capture and sequestration of carbon from combustion sources would be a major and pointless waste of physical and financial resources."
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.php

Normal CO2 Levels
The effects of increased CO2 levels on adults at good health can be summarized:

normal outdoor level: 350 - 450 ppm
acceptable levels: < 600 ppm
complaints of stiffness and odors: 600 - 1000 ppm
ASHRAE and OSHA standards: 1000 ppm
general drowsiness: 1000 - 2500 ppm
adverse health effects expected: 2500 - 5000 ppm
maximum allowed concentration within a 8 hour working period: 5000 ppm

The levels above are quite normal and maximum levels may occasionally happen from time to time.
Extreme and Dangerous CO2 Levels

slightly intoxicating, breathing and pulse rate increase, nausea: 30,000 ppm
above plus headaches and sight impairment: 50,000 ppm
unconscious, further exposure death: 100.000 ppm
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-comfort-level-d_1024.html

Sloppy job on transportation

The authors seem to be confused about what drives transport emissions, and how significant they are.

Most sources put BC transportation tailpipe emissions at around 35 to 40% of fossil fuel emissions, with carbon footprint at around 50 to 60%.The map instead puts transport emissions at 16%. It would be nice to have an explanation for this massive discrepency.Is there a huge 'other' category missing? Did somebody misplace a decimal?

The authors' understanding of the relationship between congesgtion and emissions is also deeply flawed. Moderate congestion on highways increases fuel economy and reduces emissions per km because speeds are reduced. Only severe congestion increases per km emissions. So 'congested'urban highways may have identical average emissions to completely uncongested rural highways, sometimes the emissions are higher and sometimes lower.

It would be good to have some clarification on these points from the authors.

PS. The authors are welcome to register in my Langara College transportation planning course - http://www.langara.bc.ca/continuing-studies/programs-and-courses/programs/summer-school/workshops-social-ecology.html

Judycross

The contradictions in your posts are evident. It is difficult to discern whether you really believe what you are posting or not.

Can you please confirm whether you are receiving any pecuniary benefit from any organisation at all regarding your posting? I am not.

Your posts are associated with conspiracy theories. I would appreciate knowing why you appear to be worried about conspiracies by powerful people over less powerful people, while at the same time your position on the environmental effects of fossil fuels is 100% consistent with the precepts of those same powerful persons who you otherwise suggest are part of conspiracies.

Have you noticed that you actually side with the really big-money lobbyist on this one? I must assume you are aware that there are 5 studies that come to contrary conclusions then the ones you quote?

Most of your specific quotes appear to be premised on misleading conflation arguments where apples and oranges are compared to support invalid conclusions.

All the climate scientists agree that most carbon in the environment is not from sub-surface fossil fuels. This point does not support your conclusions and does not counter the experts' concerns about adding 100s of millions of tons rapidly into our environment.

All the climate scientists agree that breathing carbon is not in itself poisonous. This point does not support you conclusions and does not counter the experts' concerns.

All the climate scientists agree that plants absorb C02 and that increasing CO2 in the atmospere can be absorbed by plants to their saturation point. Indeed, this idea is a major part of the whole cap and trade system. This does not support your conclusions and does not counter the experts' concerns.

Can you see why it is difficult to discern whether you believe what you are writing or not?

Maybe another approach would be better for you. If you are certain that adding fossil fuels ad infinitum to our environment is safe, then what about ocean acidification? Are you worried about our oceans? What about other threats to our environment?

My suggestion, if you are sure that fossil fuels are harmless, is that you move on from this issue and focus your energies onto other environmental issues that you don't believe are harmless (other polution matters, wildlife and wilderness preservation etc).

Even if we accept your own analysis as honest, it would still make sense that you move on to focus your energies on other, certainly harmful, environmental issues.

You fell for the headline Hak

The seas have been rising since the end of the last ice age and the rate is not accelerating.

Of course we can't stop sea level from rising. Canute taught us that a long time ago.

As for their ludicrous nonsense about heat penetrating deep into the sea and staying there, when there are ridges of undersea volcanoes spewing out heat.The heat at the bottom is mostly from the bottom...not the top.

http://www.iceagenow.com/Ocean_Warming.htm

AdeC:

The "experts" are climate MODELERS. Their models have been wrong. Remember GIGO? It has not warmed since 1998 in spite of the constantly rising CO2.
What part of
"NO CAUSATION WITHOUT CORRELATION"
DO YOU NOT GET?

I live in the real world...not the virtual climate of the modelers.

And since the microwave meters and grid, along with geo-engineering are both using a non existent problem as the cover for their nefarious programs, maybe you should look a little deeper into the issues and stop trying to get me to go away.

Ocean acidification is just another example of the public's ignorance being used against them. The oceans are BASIC and the pH varies by season, temperature, time of day and how close to shore the sample is taken, but it never gets acid.

Misunderstand?

"Global Warming Science Facts: World Slightly Cooled During May 2012 Per The IPCC Gold-Standard, HadCRUT

The UK's HadCRUT global temperature dataset indicates a global cooling trend of -0.2°C/century over last 15 years, plus May 2012 was slightly cooler - the global warming science facts, per the IPCC's own gold-standard"

Look at the graph...what is there to "misunderstand"? CO2 is up and temperatures are down. According to holy writ, that is impossible....we should be burning up.

"While much of the U.S. has been doing a slow roast over the last few months, other parts of the world are cooling. So much so that in the aggregate the global mean temperature slightly fell during May 2012.

As the adjacent chart indicates, over the last 180 months (15 years) global temperatures have been on a cooling trend. This trend persists despite the increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 and at least two powerful El Niño's since 1997.

There is not a single global climate model that predicted this stable/cooling trend. All models predicted "accelerating" global warming because of their singular dependance on levels of atmospheric CO2.

As can be observed and surmised, clearly there are other forces are driving the IPCC-HadCRUT global temperatures other than CO2. The global warming science facts do not support the speculations of climate doomsday alarmists.

Additional global temperature charts."

http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/06/global-warming-science-facts-cooling-hadcrut-ipcc-gold-standard.html

Is there a course in Bafflegab that you took, pwlg?

You have a terrific talent for setting up strawmen and for inserting disinfo in the flow of your oh, so elegant prose. Did it come naturally, or has it been tutored?

Is there a course in Obscurantism?

That piece above is a perfect example of it. Not one reference is presented in your flow of assumptions and linking words for the sake of it.
Truly a bravura performance. The average science-challenged English major should gobble it up.

re: Test does not match data - please fix

Hi again Eric,

You are correct that we do not include marine or aviation traffic, and that emissions from on-road transportation in some rural areas are not included. If you are aware of credible spatial data for any of the above, I would be very interested in them. Lines representing marine and aviation routes would be cool and interesting.

Your suggestion for re-labelling our on-road transportation emissions estimates is appreciated. I'm considering switching it to "highways" (I think we include more than just major highways). My concern is that what we're representing isn't emissions from the roads but from the vehicles doing things on them. "Traffic" communicates that fairly concisely and does not strike me as entirely synonymous with congestion.

Concision is important to making the map as a whole quickly meaningful to most readers. It's not uncommon for their to be some tension between accessibility and specificity when choosing mapping labels.

That said, your feedback is appreciated and I'll think further about it. I won't speak to the section of text you mention because I didn't write that one, but I'll pass your concerns along.

Thanks again.

re: Just wondering

Hi pwlg, thanks for your comment.

It's interesting to think about how jurisdictional carbon accounting could incorporate oceanic sinks. I'll leave that to the experts, but given that ocean water circulates freely among jurisdictions I would not be inclined to include it as a provincial sink.

Do you have a particular reason to suspect that we might be under-estimating eelgrass and salt marsh values? Our spatial data sources are listed, and we followed the approach of Colin Campbell at Sierra Club for translating those areas into emissions amounts.

To my knowledge AirCare does not maintain road-specific data, although that's an interesting possibility. But non-highway emissions should be included in the Community Energy and Emissions Inventory data we use for "communities". So to the extent that those reports are accurate, non-highway CO2 should be showing up in our totals, even if each road doesn't get it's own colour on the map.

I would have liked to find specific values for every road, but if that data exists we didn't manage to flush it out.

Would love for it to include exports and railways

Hi there,

This is an incredible resource and I hope you maintain it in perpetuity (or perhaps hand it off to an educational institution that could).

That said, I would love for you to add two things:

#1: Railways. We have significant railway infrastructure in the province that delivers a huge volume of the goods we use and produce and ship to other places from Vancouver Island to the Peace country. It would be fantastic to be able to get that information included not only to complete the picture, but to also show the benefit of rail transport over highways.

#2: I realize in the International carbon counting sphere 'exported carbon' is not counted. That is, a lump of coal that is mined in Sparwood is counted not as a BC carbon emission, but rather as a carbon emission in whatever country or place the coal is burned.

This always strikes me as a form of invisible book keeping. If we are truly serious about measuring our impact on the world then we must be aware, and take steps to control not only the consumption but also the production of fossil fuels. I am quite sure if those numbers were included our forests and coastlines would not hold a candle to the amount of carbon that we export.

Thank you again so much for this resource.

Chris in Port Alberni

wrong bar

Judycross, you seem to have wandered into the wrong bar again. Cult of Denial is playing at the dimly lit club just down the estreet from here. This is a venue for intelligent discourse.

I followed your link to the very pretty CO2'science' website, and it's article from the journal of Energy and Fuels. The main thesis of the paper, that a purported (no data provided) shorter CO2 atmospheric residence time means CO2 can't possibly be anthropogenic, is a complete non sequitur (look it up).

Seriously, try posting on say the Vancouver Sun, or the Globe and Mail or something. Nothing against those, I read threads there too. You might find your self more at home.

Cheers!

Another set of initials heard from

You mean this article?
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.php

I guess you didn't bother to read it all since there are a number of papers discussed and while you may be a giant in your own mind, I doubt you have anything in the way of credentials which would give credibility to your attempt to dismiss the evidence presented in the article .

"The correct evaluation of the CO2 residence time -- giving values of about 5 years for the bulk of the atmospheric CO2 molecules, as per Essenhigh's (2009) reasoning and numerous measurements with different methods -- tells us that the real world's CO2 is part of a dynamic (i.e. non-static) system, where about one fifth of the atmospheric CO2 pool is exchanged every year between different sources and sinks, due to relatively fast equilibria and temperature-dependent CO2 partitioning governed by the chemical Henry's Law (Segalstad 1992; Segalstad, 1996; Segalstad, 1998).

Knowledge of the correct timing of the whereabouts of CO2 in the air is essential to a correct understanding of the way nature works and the extent of anthropogenic modulation of, or impact upon, natural processes. Concerning the Earth's carbon cycle, the anthropogenic contribution and its influence are so small and negligible that our resources would be much better spent on other real challenges that are facing mankind."

Tom V. Segalstad
Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology
The University of Oslo, Norway
Personal web page: www.CO2web.info

And here is yet another study which puts CO2 residence in the atmosphere at around 5 years.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0360544293900178

pasting isn't posting

Enough with the copy and paste already. I could post paragraphs from respected papers evidencing the reality of climate change, but after say ten thousand or so, it might get tedious.

Seriously, Look around the room. No one in here thinks your cool.

Judy

You're wrong, and so are your un-published and likely industry paid 'sources'. Our understanding of CO2 and Anthropogenic Global Warming of the atmosphere is based on physics that's been around since Joseph Fourier and Napolean for goodness sakes! Look it up!

If there was another answer we would have figured it out by now!

Tinfoil hats and lizard people

You're wasting your time with Judy Cross (and most deniers). You can throw science and proof at her until you're blue in the face. She'll be checking her horoscope while listening to Alex Jones spinning nonsensical conspiracy theories about 9/11, chemtrails, and shape-shifting lizards!

There it goes again....

Of course the climate changes, so pretending that those who point out that CO2 doesn't change climate are denying that climate changes is willfully deceptive.wvdk. Being afraid of not being "cool" is what keeps the sheeple in the pen.

chrisale...there is no evidence that shows that CO2 changes climate. In fact the very idea violates both the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics. I'm sorry to report that you have been terribly misinformed and essentially mind-bleeped by experts in public relations.
Here is the simple explanation:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2010/07/why-greenhouse-theory-violates-2nd-law.html

And here is the never refuted peer-reviewed paper, Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Theory Within The Framework of Physics:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161.pdf

Here is an explanation of how Fournier was misinterpreted by Arrhennius "Fourier maintained that the atmosphere acts like the glass of a hothouse, because it lets through the light rays of the sun but retains the dark rays from the ground."

This quote from Arrhenius establishes the fact that the "Greenhouse Effect", far from being a misnomer, is so-called because it was originally based on the assumption that an atmosphere and the glass of a greenhouse are the same in their workings. Interestingly, Fourier doesn't even mention hothouses or greenhouses, and actually stated that in order for the atmosphere to be anything like the glass of a hotbox, such as the experimental aparatus of de Saussure (1779), the air would have to solidify while conserving its optical properties (Fourier, 1827, p. 586; Fourier, 1824, translated by Burgess, 1837, pp. 11-12)."

I do hope that helps clear it up for you.
It's terribly sad when people feel obligated to defend something that is meant to enslave them.

1, 2, 3, let's see...

Fact 1: global atmospheric CO2 level is steadily climbing.

Fact 2: human production of CO2 through burning of coal, oil, gas, etc. is steadily climbing.

Fact 3: volcanic activity and other natural CO2 sources have remained fairly constant.

judycross' conclusion: climate change is caused naturally.

btw jc, Perhaps the thought of going green scares you, but I'm nowhere near enslaved by my actions to live a greener lifestyle. I and mine are healthy, happy and saving money through not being enslaved by the culture of consumption.

The Hothouse Limerick

There was an old man named Arrhenius
Whose physics were rather erroneous
He recycled rays
In peculiar ways
And created a "heat" most spontaneous!

Timothy Casey, 2010

Another paper:
Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact
Gerhard Kramm, Ralph Dlugi
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=9233ABSTRACT
In this paper, we scrutinize two completely different explanations of the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect: First, the explanation of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the World Meteorological Organization (W?MO) quan- tifying this effect by two characteristic temperatures, secondly, the explanation of Ramanathan et al. [1] that is mainly based on an energy-flux budget for the Earth-atmosphere system. Both explanations are related to the global scale. In addition, we debate the meaning of climate, climate change, climate variability and climate variation to outline in which way the atmospheric greenhouse effect might be responsible for climate change and climate variability, respectively. In doing so, we distinguish between two different branches of climatology, namely 1) physical climatology in which the boundary conditions of the Earth-atmosphere system play the dominant role and 2) statistical climatology that is dealing with the statistical description of fortuitous weather events which had been happening in climate periods; each of them usually comprises 30 years. Based on our findings, we argue that 1) the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect cannot be proved by the statistical description of fortuitous weather events that took place in a climate period, 2) the description by AMS and W?MO has to be discarded because of physical reasons, 3) energy-flux budgets for the Earth-atmosphere system do not provide tangible evidence that the atmospheric greenhouse effect does exist. Because of this lack of tangible evidence it is time to acknowledge that the atmospheric greenhouse effect and especially its climatic impact are based on meritless conjectures.

Jaysus wvdk!

Not only is Correlation Is Not Causation, but you guys switched what is being correlated with what.

Stop trying to beat me with a wet noodle, i.e. by turning Global Warming into Climate Change to hide the fact that it stopped warming.

Shameless!

lol

clearly you're a lost cause Judy. Arrhenius' and Fouriers work has stood the tests of time and experimentation.

Oh and by the way, I hope you enjoy the ocean grown BC Shellfish while you can. Arrhenius predicted their decimation due to absorption of CO2 in the Oceans too... and now it's starting to take hold...

Sad that it will take catastrophe to convince some...

Astounding!

The whole point of what ùi posted is that Arrhenius misinterpreted Fournier.

Just to drive it home Arrhenius work was falsified by Wood in 1909, which Arrhenius acknowledged. The Woods experiment was replicated last year by Nasif S.Nahle, PhD
principia-scientific.org/publications/Experiment_on_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf

So, prove to me that I am wrong. Where is your scientific PROOF....not hearsay....published papers showing CO2 can change climate.

go back to high school

Here's a high-school experiment that shows how CO2 traps, and retains heat in air.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ&feature=endscreen

This is basic chemistry and physics. Do it yourself if you're not convinced, I dare you.

Bull bisquits!

Earth isn't enclosed. To have a greenhouse effect one must have a greenhouse to trap the heat.

So sticking 4 Alka-selzter tablets in a half filled soda bottle doesn't mean much.

For one thing, how many parts per million is that? The Earth's atmosphere only contains 400 ppm.

I love how you trust an anonymously made video......
and dismiss peer-reviewed science by identifiable experts in their fields.

That video could well have been made by one of the many advertising and PR agencies lurking in the shadows.

"Nahle Nails Shut Climate Scare Coffin

At the Biology Cabinet laboratories Professor Nahle was able to confirm the astounding findings: Wood was right all along. After peer-review the results confirm that the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’ is solely due to the blockage of convective heat transfer within the environment in which it is contained i.e. as in this case, a lab flask.

Simplified, no roof, no greenhouse.

Indeed, it is the glass of the lab flask (or ‘greenhouse’) that caused the “trapped” radiation all along. The flask (or greenhouse) being what scientists refer to as a ‘closed system’; while Earth’s atmosphere isn’t closed at all but rather open to space allowing heat energy to freely escape.

Nahle’s findings shoot holes in claims of Professor Pratt of Stanford University whose own replication of Wood’s experiment was touted as the first official reconstruction of Wood’s test for a century. Pratt claimed he had disproved Wood’s findings.

“This is the reason that I decided to repeat the experiment of Professor Pratt to either falsify or verify his results and those of Professor Wood,“ says the Mexican professor at the Biology Cabinet.

The Monterrey science research institute also recreated Wood’s test into the effect of longwave infrared radiation trapped inside a greenhouse. Unlike Pratt it found that Wood’s findings were correct, absolutely valid and systematically repeatable. The Bio Cab man affirms, “ the greenhouse effect does not exist as it is described in many didactic books and articles.”

Put simply, one of the aforementioned professors has their reputation perilously on the line and Nahle is gunning for an explanation from his U.S. Rival. A clue to the outcome: Pratt isn’t even qualified in science – he’s a (warmist) mathematician specializing in computers."
Gee, doesn't Weaver fit that description?

http://tarpon.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/greenhouse-gas-theory-trashed-in-groundbreaking-lab-experiment/

remember the map?

The article that this comment thread was steered away from by jc is actually encouraging. I worked in the field doing forest cover data collection back when BC's forest cover database was first digitized, (70s). As the authors acknowledge, the large swaths of forest lumped under one type could be refined much further. Some of the highway data also looks suspect to me. Nonetheless, as the map info is refined this could be an illustrative and useful tool.

Yes, I know jc, the world's best minds are all deluded, etc. 'Cult' is performing just down the street. I hear they do a funny remake of 'When the Levee Breaks' entitled 'Katrina Never Happened'. Stay away from that hydro meter now - it might emit more EM radiation than your TV remote.

Good Example

Not sure how data like this could be pinpoint accurate, but all in all it's a very good example and we should be more aware of our forests from a conservative standpoint. The pollution from industry is generally more toxic and leaches many different varieties of toxins into our waterways and atmosphere.

Good Example

Not sure how data like this could be pinpoint accurate, but all in all it's a very good example and we should be more aware of our forests from a conservative standpoint. The pollution from industry is generally more toxic and leaches many different varieties of toxins into our waterways and atmosphere.

Which "world's best minds" are you referring to, wvdk?

"Pachauri has said IPCC reports are written by the world’s top scientists when, in fact, many of those involved are 20-something grad students, green activists, and people appointed with an eye to filling “diversity” quotas."
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/07/27/how-the-ipcc-defines-distinguished-scientist/

Perhaps you mean James Hansen?
http://vocalminority.typepad.com/blog/2008/11/al-gores-righthand-man-james-hansen-caught-fixing-climate-data-again.html

Any list of "the world's best minds" must include the head of the University of East Anglia's Climactic Research Unit, Phil Jones.

http://www.climategate.com/climategate-professor-phil-jones-could-face-ten-years-on-fraud-charges

There are many more I could name, but I think you get the idea.

-yawn-

Just down the street. Check it out. Please. I do have to admire your efforts in the face of unrelenting -yawn-. Only true believers have such zeal. I want to believe you're not just another oil company paid shill who knows better. That would make you evil. Ignorance/denial I can deal with. Noticed it's been hot out lately? (Eastern blacked out States) ever personally witnessed any of (almost all) of the world's glaciers rapidly melting? (I have). Northern BC's forests are one third bug killed red and dead. The prolonged -35 degrees cold snaps that used to kill the beetles haven't happened in 20 years. Funny random coincidence!

Seriously, the club just down the estreet. I hear they burn the (non-AGW) midnight oil .

Have a good night!

Anonymous 1234: Actually, the province's forests are broken up in to tens of thousands of 'polygons' of forest types having relatively consistent species composition, age, height, stocking density and much more info. Incorporating research on carbon sink capacity of different species should allow for more detailed carbon sink mapping.

One of the things that has always tickled me

is the propensity of Warmists to accuse skeptics of the deeds of which they themselves are guilty.
Ross McKittrick (he who demolished the "Hockey Stick" with Steve McIntyre) writes:

"I have fought the evil anti-human thing that environmentalism metastasized into for many years. I’ve seen good people I had a regard for smashed into the ground by it, because in all innocence, they simply couldn’t help but voice their honest concerns about the simple accuracy of the science or the logical implications of its policies, both for humanity in general and the most vulnerable people on the planet in particular.

Those people were too civilised and decent to understand what they were dealing with; raw naked brutality, so they were destroyed by it. They lost tenure, they lost jobs and they lost that inner optimism that every true scientist still retains in their silly, secret, heart of hearts, about some innate goodness or at least some basic objectivity that they always believed was at the centre of science. What they could never understand was that scientific integrity was irrelevant, it was always about politics, power and money."

http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/the-climate-wars/

"scientific integrity was

"scientific integrity was irrelevant, it was always about politics, power and money." It's always about the data, the empirical evidence. Unfortunately the power and money of BigOil, with it's perpetual multifront high cost PR campaign and friends in the halls of power, keeps obfuscating the evidence. Why? Follow the money. Many multimillionaires and billionaires who got rich in the oil racket. And cheap oil fuels wealth for all as well, not much incentive for accepting possibly painful change in energy use. I take it back. It's always the money.

Are you kidding me? You are still in denial?

Big Oil and Nuclear funded the Warmist Hypocrites from the very beginning.

"The Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the UK was set up in 1971 with funding from Shell and BP as is described in the book: “The history of the University of East Anglia, Norwich; Page 285)” By Michael Sanderson. The CRU was still being funded in 2008 by Shell, BP, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and UK Nirex LTD (the nuclear waste people in the UK)

This is important to know, for two reasons.
Firstly, the key institution providing support for Global Warming theories and the basis for the IPCC findings receives funding from “Big Oil” and the nuclear power industry.

Secondly, the research from the institution which is perceived to be independent publicly funded research, is actually beholden to soft money, CRU is in fact a business.

The funders of the CRU are on the bottom of this page from their website:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080627194858/http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history

So, there a business set up in the early 1970’s, so what?

I thought that this might explain a bit about how we got to where we are. I am not a conspiracy theorist but to me it looks like this may have been a very, very long term plan. Of course it could all just be coincidental, but it does seem to fit the observable information.

A few weeks ago I explained the apparent CRU fraud to a friend of mine, a believer in AGW; he said ‘Why would they do it?’ I indicated the Jones had received 22 million, etc, but he countered, ‘For a fraud this large, going on for this long, there would have to be billions of dollars to be made, not millions’. That made sense.

So I looked into it a bit. First this is no short term thing, it covers two or three decades, involves many countries and government on both sides of the isle, the US alone has had 4 different presidents and the UK a similar number of prime ministers, Canada the same. So is it not political in the partisan sense of the word."
http:///blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020304/climategate-peak-oil-the-cru-and-the-oman-connection/

Yeah

So Big Oil secretly funded a massive hoax that would hurt it, by fabricating the outrageous hoax claim that humanity's massive greenhouse gas footprint could cause climate change.

Also, a an aluminum foil hat will protect you from smart meters, but only if it's pointy.

-yawn-

just down the street...

... I hear they eat up paste there....

It hasn't hurt at all, has it?

Prices are up, wars are fought and pipelines are built. Coal got hurt...oil, not at all, and Warren Buffet built a wind farm with gov't money and got the water rights on the land as part of the deal.
The IMF will get $100 Billion a year for its "Green Fund" by charging all nations 2% of GDP, no matter how poor the nations are, which will be given to the World Bank, which will lend it out at interest to those poor countries for "green projects".

See...it works for the Banksters

That was the plan.
As for your ignorant taunt about smart meters, catch-up!

http://www.electrosmogprevention.org/public-health-alert/smart-meters-radiation-exposure-up-to-160-times-more-than-cell-phones-hirsch/

http://citizensforsafetechnology.org/180-International-Studies-and-Documents,77,2195

Thanks! This really is an interactive map.

Thanks Hugh,

You have shown that this really is an interactive map. (By changing the map index to clarify that the emissions shown are for highways with available traffic counts only, not traffic on all roads).

Eric

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I have a tinfoil hat

Funny Judy Cross: “I am not a conspiracy theorist.”

No, she just believes the guv’mint is poisoning us with chemtrails, 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by the banksters (Jews?), and global warming is a massive conspiracy whereby the world’s scientists and scientific community have joined forces to control the world’s economy!

At least she has Ross McKitrick on her side, and he has God (the Christian one) on his side, believing, as he does, that “Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception.”

Who knows? Maybe Judy also believes in a pernicious plot to “sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.”

re: Would love for it to include exports and railways

Hi Chris, thanks for your comment,

I would also like to see railway emissions on here. off hand I'm not even sure what the magnitude of those emissions would be, although I (perhaps naively) assume that railway freight is significantly more carbon efficient than highway transport.

Accounting for exported carbon (coal mined in BC and burnt elsewhere for instance) is something we've talked about throughout the project. As we mention in the articles, our exported carbon is much greater than what we emit domestically. Some people feel that it would be misleading to include that on our map, and others that it would be misleading not to.

We have hopes of creating an updated, expanded version of this map in the future, and we might have exported carbon as an optional extra line on the table and (ideally) dots on the map showing where that carbon is originally mined/pumped/etc before shipping.

Stick to the facts SB..CO2 is a beneficial trace gas

and has no effect on climate. The most recent evidence is the the fact that the Earth has been cooling for the last 2000 years.

This is what global cooling really looks like – new tree ring study shows 2000 years of cooling – previous studies underestimated temperatures of Roman and Medieval Warm Periods
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/09/this-is-what-global-cooling-really-looks-like/

Global Warming Science Facts:

"More Proof That CO2 Emissions Do Not Cause Accelerated Warming
James Hansen and NASA predicted that 'business-as-usual' CO2 emissions growth would cause significant and accelerating warming - the latest empirical evidence confirms that their climate models were wildly wrong
Back in 1988, Hansen's climate model predicted rapid warming if CO2 emissions continued to grow as they had in the past. For the previous 15 years prior to 1988, human produced 285 billion tons of CO2 emissions, an increase that was about 2.1% per year.

Not only did humans maintain a 'business-as-usual' growth in succeeding years, they actually spewed out 1.5 times more CO2 emissions over the 15 years ending 2012. That amounted to an average increase of about 2.8% per year. These results come from the latest CO2 emission data that was just published during June 2012."

http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/07/global-warming-science-proof-co2-emissions-dont-cause-warming-climate-models.html

Hey! I agree with you!

judycross is right. Once big oil, big govt and the other biggies caught on to the fact that most people have a genuine desire to go green they've worked hard to milk that desire. Business with phony green products and images, govt. with phony green taxes and fees that get spent on pet projects. It could make me cry, this subversion of ordinary folk's goodwill.

Suppose you were right about CO2 not causing climate change (you're wrong - but just supposing). What about ocean acidification? We know in the past the world's oceans went through an acidic, jellyfish and bacteria period. Some parts of the Mediterranean are already there. Please, no paste. I understand the patrons of the establishment down the street like getting pasted.

Stop grasping at straws

Ocean "acidification" is an even stupider meme that CO2 caused climate change.In the whole panoply of distortion and disinformation surrounding the claims of global warming, few can be more dishonest than the claims of Ocean Acidification. Head of NOAA, Jane Lubchenco, is currently on the Australian circuit to try and convince people that the new Carbon tax is valid and necessary to save the planet and of course, as it’s Australia, to save the Great Barrier Reef from extinction. Ocean acidification first saw the light of day in 2003 and found its way into AR4. It is now embedded in AR5, based on the shakiest of science.

Read on, to find out how the claim of a “30% increase in ocean acidity since the industrial revolution” came into being and check out the NOAA video, where Jane Lubchenco tries to fool the public with “The Vinegar Trick” and a piece of chalk.

In August 2009, the National Resources Defense Council produced a film “documentary” claiming that CO2 was turning the oceans to acid: It was funded by the Entertainment Industry Foundation, and had the title, “Acid Test: The Global Challenge of Ocean Acidification”. An in-depth analysis, Acid Seas – Back to Basic” was published by SPPI in January 2010, (Deliberately “Basic” as in Acids and Bases)."
http://junkscience.com/2012/07/09/failing-the-acid-test-jane-lubchenco/comment-page-1/#comment-51622

I paste because it works and that is why you don't like it...