Latest figures on fossil-fuel emissions for 2015 show for the first time during a period of global economic growth that the amount of carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere has remained stable for two consecutive years.
Scientists believe however that the unprecedented decline is almost entirely due to the economic slowdown in China, now the world’s single biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, which is likely to see a rapid return to growth in carbon emissions as its energy-hungry economy picks up again.
So, yes, we can stall CO2 emissions by crippling our (and others’) economy.
Economic crippling is what the global warming disciples want.
Socialists cheer people having less opportunity and being poor.
Owen: Provide sources. Looks like you cherry picked again.
kevin: No and no.
Liberal warming disciples cherry pick data all the time, now it’s an issue?
Follow the link, OB. That’s what it’s there for.
Sorry, but no link appears on my screen. Maybe our machines are not compatible?
The issue is more of your lies. Provide proof of either of your claims. Real proof.
OB, click on the word, “Huh”. It’ll take you there.
Careful: steering OB to that link, and pointing out the obvious May just be “lies”. :-)
Owen and Pat:
Thanks for the tip. Tried it on another machine and the contrasting colors showed up. Need to up grade.
There is much more to the article than your excerpt. Yes, China’s economy has slowed down and the scientists attribute that slow down for the drop in CO2. The interesting point they make is that by controlling CO2 emissions from a large source the total emissions can be reduced. If every nation reduced a smaller increment the same result could be achieved. The key quote is, “This is why Paris is so critical”. I think my cherry picking statement has merit.
You really should read the article. I know there are some arcane words used like “science” that you won’t understand,and there are words that have a basis in fact, and there is actual data displayed for you to peruse, but you really should expand your knowledge base. Knowledge is power, buddy.
Nowhere in your global warming evangelizing does the article mention any factual correlation between carbon emissions and temperature differential, just a lot of faith and guessing, at best.
It was like reading an astrology scroll.
And I didn’t make that claim. But you needed a straw man to blame for your atrocious comprehension skills. Caught you lying again, sinner.
You claimed “science” in that article. It was all about carbon emission levels. Did not mention any correlation to climate, or what this means climate effect “science” in any meaningful way.
So it was a big yawn from a true “science” perspective.
Carbon levels in this 1 area of world are level because of stagnant economic activity in China.
The question for climate disciples is: So what? There was no coverage on what this means for the climate because that is all a guess.
Nor did I claim that article made and correlation to climate change; it was about CO2 emissions. But there is still plenty of “science” involved in getting those emission data points. Why are you being so willfully ignorant? You have nothing to defend your position so you act like the dumbest guy (assuming you are a guy) in the room. I sure hope your kids have a better grasp of critical thinking than you. Recombinant DNA can be amazing, and sometimes a disappointment.
Your 12/8/15 post at 5:24 PM was not implying a correlation and effect between carbon emissions and climate?
You have that vigorous passion for mere carbon levels alone without any relevance to climate effect?
I find that hard to believe, since carbon is a healthy element essential for all life. (and I’m glad to see more of it.)
The “science” you were referring to in that post was not mere carbon emissions but the correlation beteen that and climate.
No it didn’t. You really need to get some remedial reading comprehension work. Or are you just lying again?
So you got all giddy about pointing out “science” to me in relation to mere carbon levels without drawing any climate conclusions over the carbon levels?
That’s hilarious. You wanted to point out the article as a link between carbon levels and so-called climate change so I could have “knowledge” as “power”.
If so, my conclusion is: carbon levels are not as bad as predicted, so no issue here.
I didn’t get all giddy. But I did feel some sadness for the educational system that failed you so badly. Had your poor reading and comprehension skills been identified and addressed early on you could have received help. Too late now.
What I wanted to point out (and did), was that you completely misstated the content of the article (repeatedly) to foster your self-serving agenda. Your help at the DQ could figure that out but you can’t. Or do they have to take a test for ideological purity before you hire them?
I thought we agreed, that you did not “judge”, especially when it came to my opinions?
That standard has now changed?
Just for giggles, please point out where I “misstated” the underlying article?
(vs. the conclusion I drew, which you sinmply do not like.)
If I “misstated” it, I’m willing to talk about it, and correct my error if needed.
Spin it all you like. You’ll never admit you screwed up, will always change the subject, and will CYA without fail. There is that judgemental?
The article was about CO2 levels. YOU kept bringing climate change into the discussion. So consider yourself corrected.
So if your 5:24 comment is about CO2 levels and has nothing to do with climate change….why such a smug position in that post?
CO2 levels themselves are really no big deal unless you link the issue to some sort of cliamte change.
More CO2 equals a greener planet. That is a good thing.
Did you have a different point about CO2 levels then?
Correct, that post was only about your inability or unwillingness to understand the article in question. I made no mention of climate change, You brought that up on your own.
You opinions on CO2 differ from mine, but you are entitled to your own opinion, not your own set of facts. If you want to make those claims as fact, provide some backup material to prove your contentions. Otherwise you are making stuff up again.
Then I don’t get the smugness if you KNEW I like CO2. You think CO2 is evil. What in that article would indicate CO2 is having any bad effect?
The only way your 5:24 pm post makes sense is if you were making a climate change claim in relation to CO2, which the article did I not address.
You are deflecting again. The ONLY one saying the article was about climate control is you. And the post you reference makes perfect sense when put in context with your earlier statements.
No smugness on my part, just amazement at how you refuse to quit digging when the hole is swallowing you. I don’t know (or care) if you “like” CO2. That is like saying you like you like rust. After all they are both oxides.
It’s all hot air.
The fact is that if the G8 nations ALL stopped immediately generating ALL carbon emissions,
China and India growth alone by 2020 will exceed ALL carbon emissions eliminated by those SAME G8 nations (2008 CIA report)
All this buzz about carbon markets is simply a distraction of our nations from our planets dire situation.
The Times, tribunes and “actual” journalists called the big corps out on this the first “go around” with GORE, second with Obama and now with elections (here we go again :)
Last fact: “Carbon dioxide levels rose by 60% since climate talks started in 1992”
From hotair I presume ;-)
An anonymous friend trying to win the race….
The human race
Large political contributors, banks and corporations will control the carbon markets
This “carbon scheme” is nothing more than a tax on the poor and working class that exploit the last of our protected great forests and lakes
The example of Al gore the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) is a good one of Millionaires investing in billionaires.