Studying the carbon footprints of countries is fraught with the danger of ignorance.
Firstly, do we have the current data?
Is it valid?
What methods are used to evaluate the output?
And finally is it credible?
What I can’t find is exactly that!
The figures I quote am wiki figures, which are open to dispute and alteration. They go as far back as 2006.Nature has this funny habit of exponentiation, I doubt whether there is any relationship between now and then, except that they’re worse.
Unfortunately that’s where the problems start.
Do we take the output totals as a valid comparison or do we use per capita?
If we use per capita then on the 20006 figures Australia is number 1 at (18.74) followed by the USA (18.67), yet I don’t see any of you holier than though types criticizing Australia for its woeful comparison...
Yet you’re all prepared to jump on the bandwagon when it’s time to knock the USA.
I bet you all ranted and raved about how finally the USA had elected a black president and how No Drama Obama was going to b the savior of the world. Duh reality checks time huh.
So tell me how Australia comes up with the worst pollution figures and at the same time does the least to even sign up to any carbon emission scheme.
The emphasis of course is on SCHEME.
What joke?

Rapid climate change is happening in the present time, as manifested by polar ice melt,sea level rise, extensive droughts in Australia, China, Argentina and the US, extreme weather events, and acidification of the oceans. Climate scientists have projected the current trends since the 1980s, including authorities such as Professor James Hansen and his group (NASA), Professor Wally Broecker (Columbia University), Dr Barrie Pittock, Dr Graeme Pearman and Dr Ian Enting (CSIRO). The atmospheric energy rise exerted by the well-mixed greenhouse gases, mainly CO2 and methane, is consistent with the basic laws of physics and chemistry and with calculations and observations in nature and the laboratory. Measurements of solar radiation and cosmic rays rule out these factors as drivers of climate change since the mid-20th century.

The fast rise in carbon emissions (41% since 1990) is driving global temperature, ice melt rates and sea levels. The zigzag nature of temperature rise since the mid-1970s results from the combination of the warming trend with (A) the natural El-Nino – La-Nina cycle (ENSO – El Nino Southern Oscillation) driven by ocean current pulsations, and (B) the 11 years-long sun spot cycle. This results in an overall rising zigzag pattern of temperature change.

As temperature increase, reflecting the level of energy in the atmosphere-ocean-land system, the amplitude of climate variability and the likelihood of extreme weather events increase. While decade-long climate trends manifest global warming, superposition by the El Nino – La-Nina cycle and the 11 years-long sunspot cycle results in a zigzag upward trend. As the globe warms and the energy levels of the atmosphere and the increase, the amplitude of climate variability is increasing. Following steep mean global warming by about 0.45oC from 1975 to 1997, a major El-Nino peak in 1998 drove mean global temperature upward by another 0.2oC. Following this peak temperature continued to rise by about 0.2oC between 1999 and 2005, followed during 2007-2008 by a strong La-Nina phase which brought temperatures down by about 0.4-0.5oC. Currently temperatures are rising, heralding a new El-Nino phase

Too much Passion and not enough "Science of Integrity" in the end Truth prevailed and the whole show smoked into the dustbin where it belonged leaving Rudd and Wong "frantically dancing" like Banshee's with their underpants on fire , in ever diminishing circles frantically screaming "Bovine Poo Baffles Brains Every Time" , and no doubt in cool times of reflection since are pondering the Cranial
Integrity of the average man .

Posted by Ho Hum, Thursday, 24 December 2009 12:25:09 PM : Your favorite Philosopher ; would that be Dolly Parton or Billy Graham ?

Andy,

You're quoting HANSEN as an authority? The guy who keeps adjusting data (ever upwards) but won't say why or how? The guy who won't release his data either?

Andy, I thought we had an agreement about your continuing appeals to authority? Mind you, I'd have to concede that Hansen's status as an authority figure is shakey, though McKibben thinks he's "the great James Hansen", for what that's worth.

Andy, did you notice that at Copenhagen they agreed to "keep warming below two degrees Celsius" - dropped the "climate change" spin? You're an expert, Andy, so tell us, how are they going to do that? No, really.

Seriously, Andy, the global warming scam is over. All that remains is to punish those responsible. Perhaps somebody will take up Hansen's suggestion of Nuremburg-style trials, followed by executions, because that's what happened in the original Nuremburg trials. Since you're not an historian, perhaps you didn't appreciate that.

I did some post-grad work in history, Andy. Back in those days, of course, we didn't have the benefit of computer models. We were obliged to produce stuff called "evidence" and put it together in a logical way to support a thesis. Yes, I know, times have changed. I blame post-modernism.

You don't know how lucky you are being a "climate scientist". Nils-Axel Morner - now there's an authority - says sea level rise is inconsequential and he's got hard data to prove it. As a climate scientist, you're free to ignore him and just say we'll drown.

They give you a nice office on a quiet, leafy campus. They give you money to attend international conferences - yes, I know, to hell with carbon emissions. And you get to work with people who agree with everything you say, because somebody got rid of those other guys.

And when the academics union goes on strike, you don't have to come in on Thursdays either.

Well haven't the denialists created the ideal situation; one where nothing, ever is able to change their mind. The science? Part of a vast conspiracy to benefit themselves and others in their nefarious scheme. Peer review? Corrupted by the conspiracy. Direct experience? Not real. It isn't happening. Or if it's happening it's just the natural variations in climate. Too easy. If everything that supports the concept of AGW is dismissed, how easy it is to walk in the door with half-baked science, bizarre and absurd conspiracies and denialism that is every bit as deep and disturbed as that shown during the holocaust. What would satisfy you that AGW exists?