Trump’s Paris Decision Dominates Opening Of Movin’On

Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre


Sometimes, applause can tell you a lot.

I’ve been to a fair number of green car conferences in my day. They’re always interesting (to someone like me, anyway), but they’re rarely exciting. The kind of exciting that gets people to cheer loudly. But that’s what happened at the Movin’On sustainable mobility conference in Montreal this morning. We’ve already seen a lot of impassioned responses to President Trump pulling the U.S. out of the Paris agreement on combating climate change, but when the mayor of Montreal, Denis Coderre, said, “We believe that climate change exists,” and “We’re not building walls, we’re building bridges,” the place erupted.

Without mentioning the U.S. president by name, Coderre was obviously referring to Trump’s and, likely, his recent decision to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate change accord. This conference is full of people from government and the private sector who are working hard to combat climate change in various ways, so it’s no surprise that they are in favor of the Paris accord.

Patrick Oliva

Patrick Oliva. Photo by Sebastian Blanco.

No one was more in favor, though, than Patrick Oliva, a long-time Michelin executive (he is no longer with the company) and a co-founder of the Paris Process on Mobility and Climate (PPMC). Oliva said he has three convictions when it comes to sustainable transportation and the Paris agreement. First, it is a “real opportunity” for the the world to make positive changes over the next 40 years. Second, implementing the Paris agreement will benefit not only people and the environment, but also business and governments. Third, market forces alone will not be enough to restructure transportation. “If we really want the next forty years to be successful,” he said, we need well thought-out plans. “Otherwise it will not take place and it will be extremely costly.” Oliva also said that a new Transport Decarbonization Alliance will be launched at COP23, the next major climate change conference, which takes place later this year in Bonn, Germany.

Later in the day, Shigemoto Kajihara, Japan’s vice minister for Global Environmental Affairs, said that it was “very regrettable” that the U.S. left the Paris accord, but he was relieved by the numerous “strong voices” of other governmental leaders and corporate entities who said they would stand by the agreement.

Shigemoto Kajihara

Shigemoto Kajihara. Photo by Sebastian Blanco.

Many strong and negative things have been said about Trump’s decision to pull the U.S. out of the Paris, from simple bad judgment to an “international disgrace.” The good news, if you agree that stepping back from the global climate change agreement is a bad idea, is that there are some car companies that believe in the Paris deal, and you can find them listed at We Are Still In. Launched in response to Trump’s decision, this is a website for “companies, investors, mayors and governors” as well as colleges and universities to say that they will – independent of the federal government – stand by the Paris agreement, as it pertains to their particular organization. There are a few automotive and transportation companies on the list, including Lyft, Uber and Oberon Fuels. There are also two automaker that has signed on, and we’ll let you guess who they are. Tesla might be the gimme answer since CEO Elon Musk publicly broke with the President over the issue, but the other might surprise you: Volvo. Both Ford and GM have made statements against Trump’s actions, but have not signed on to We Are Still In.

Category: General

Tags: , , , ,

118 responses to "Trump’s Paris Decision Dominates Opening Of Movin’On"
  1. SparkEV says:

    Combating climate change? More like delaying it by few years at the cost of trillions. Paris would do nothing for the climate in any meaningful way.

    Far better would’ve been to invest the money in real research for cheaper energy, which would mean more funding for wealthier countries (they have the technical know-how). They would not let that happen.

    1. says:

      These trillions will be paid anyway, one way or the other. Trump didn’t pull out because the agreement was not doing enough, he pulled out because he does not believe in protecting the environment.

      1. SparkEV says:

        You’re right that Dump’s reason is different from mine, but we agree on the end result. Paris is no good.

        Now I’m going to go take a shower since I feel icky all over for agreeing with Dump on something.

    2. VoltAmp says:

      And we still think irrational people live in other continents. People Yrum like are for millions in US, very scary. Viva Macrone and France….

      1. Carcus says:


        “The globalists don’t want independent nation-states with strong economies; they want unelected, super-regional governments like the EU consisting of member-states that are subordinate to the globalist-controlled economy driven by multinational banks and other unelected global bodies.”

        1. says:

          You posted infowars?! WTF? Get that crap out of here!

          1. JIMJFOX says:

            Exactly- only a moron would quote….. oops, stop here!

        2. surya says:

          You’re confusing weatther and climate. Two different things. Cold weather doesn’t prove anything about climate.

          And Infowars, really? Is that your best source?

    3. Paul Smith says:

      “it will cost trillions” ?? Where do you think the “trillions” will go? It will go into research and into starting new businesses, and into efficiency increases, and health benefits. In other words, into the economy.

      1. says:

        The argument many are expressing is that the money would end up in other economies on the US…which is a fair concern.

  2. PRSIST says:

    As it should. Trump is an embarrassment to this nation and the World. tRump denies climate change like he denies the Russian’s hacked the 2016 Presidential Election. Disgraceful.

    1. Mark C says:

      I’ve heard him say he thought the Paris Climate Agreement was a bad deal for the USofA, and both his words and actions say he’s not a believer in man-made climate change, but I don’t recall him saying the Russians didn’t hack the election, but I have heard plenty that says he and his entourage were not in any way involved in that scandal. Even Comeys testimony before Congress was that neither President Trump nor his staff was implicated in that. That does not match popular theory on how evil a lot of people want to make him out to be. Reminds me of President Obamas beginnings in office. Much talk of him being the Anti-Christ. People say things sometimes that just ain’t so.

      1. MikeM says:

        Hey, it’s understandable.
        After all Mr Obama was the Antichrist precursor.

      2. Sy Gung Ho says:

        “The NSA and FBI tell Congress that Russia did not influence electoral process.”
        in a tweet from Donald Trump – Monday, March 20, 2017

      3. says:

        Firing the boss of the agency that is investigating him didn’t make him more believable that’s for sure.

  3. Ziv says:

    The Paris Accord is a sad little treaty that isn’t really a treaty among friends that just don’t get the truth.
    CO2 levels aren’t the largest factor when it comes to rising temps.
    If we decide to follow the pack instead of looking at the original data, we may think this CO2 is the primary driver, but if you look at the actual data, before the Climatista’s “hide the decline”, the temps aren’t that much higher than the records set in the 1930’s.
    Remember that the Little Ice Age ended in 1870, so seeing the temps rise from 1870 to 1930 is fairly similar to seeing temps rise from 1970 to 2000.
    Think about all of Gore’s failed predictions, and the slight temp increases we have actually seen these past 20 years.
    The Paris Accord was a meeting of the minds between “fellow travelers”. Let them go their own way.

    1. Nick says:


      You should consider checking out skepticism. I think I’d be right up your alley.

    2. Ambulator says:

      As a practical matter, human generated carbon dioxide is the largest factor in global warming.

      The little ice age, such as it was, appears to have been caused by volcanoes. The temperature rise from 1870 to 1930 was mostly caused by industrialization. The cooling from 1940 to 1970 was probably caused by increasing aerosols.

      Al Gore didn’t make predictions, he only reported what scientists told him. Most of those predictions are for the distant future. They haven’t had time to fail. He should have emphasized that large sea level rises, if we keep burning fossil fuels at the current rate, would take a few centuries and not a few decades.

      1. SparkEV says:

        Al Gore did make many predictions which did not come true. There has been other predictions of gloom and doom made by others, which is ridiculed by true deniers.

        I don’t consider myself a denier since I fully accept the science that much of CO2 rise is due to man made sources and mostly responsible for recent rise in temperature. But I do not subscribe to end is nigh hysteria.

        1. Nick says:

          “end is nigh hysteria.”

          What the hell are you on about?

          We’re running the biggest and riskiest experiment on our biosphere for no good reason. It’s utterly daft!

          Is that what you call end is nigh hysteria?

          1. David Cary says:

            “no good reason”

            I am in the top 1% in my concern for global warming but let us not forget that oil and cheap energy has been responsible for enormous wealth that we all enjoy. Moving that boat is not easy or free. There are huge numbers of people who still don’t have electricity in their homes and I’m here to tell you that solar and batteries are still not that cheap.

            And I want my cheap avocados – unfortunately that means clear cutting forests in Mexico. There is no other practical way for me to eat an avocado a day.

            It is a complete disservice and utter lie to say that we just need to decide to cut CO2 and it will magically happen with no negative consequence.

            1. Djoni says:

              Nobody says there won’t be any consequence of our action.
              Whatever they are, it is exactly what the Paris agreement and scientific consensus is about.
              Tell people that there is consequence for our way of living.
              Not knowing exactly what they are is inevitable and therefore irrelevant.
              It won’t be precisely what we figure, but it will be ugly at some point.
              Not acting is just watching the show and complaining about it, but the fact is, like it or not, we’re in the show.

            2. Mister G says:

              I’m starting an avocado farm in central Florida but they won’t be cheap LOL buy American LOL

          2. SparkEV says:

            “Is that what you call end is nigh hysteria?”

            Humans are doing better than any time in history. Even since 1980’s when temperature took off, we have less famine and poverty.

            No, I don’t believe climate change brought prosperity, though crop yield suggests something positive could have happened. But the evidence shows that warming occurring over span of decades definitely does not result in “end is nigh”. There is no need for hysterics.

            1. Nick says:

              You’re only counting some humans. The ~3 billion living in poverty don’t want to continue having such a hard life.

              We must switch to sustainable production of energy to bring them out of poverty without loading up the carbon credit card. We’ve already blown past our budget.

              None of this is news, this is what climate scientists and science communicators have been saying for decades. The impressive misinformation campaign has managed to rope in extremely intelligent people, so don’t feel too bad.

              1. SparkEV says:

                Since about mid 20th century when warming has been accelerating, extreme poverty has plummeted. As I said, this doesn’t mean climate change is beneficial, but it points out that it’s not gloom and doom, either.

                If you subscribe to climate change doom, you’d think the world is falling apart, which is not true. Some (many?) climate scientists proclaim doom, but believing them on economic issues is like believing some nut job who claim there is no warming no matter how much we spew CO2.

                1. Nick says:

                  I’m not sure what correlation you’re pointing out?

                  Burning fossil fuels and the rise out of poverty?

                  Are you saying that CO2 pollution is a contributor to reduction in poverty rates?

                  I think that the excess CO2 we’ve released is almost all downsides, simply an unintended side effect of burning fossil fuels.

                  1. SparkEV says:

                    Prosperity and fossil fuel use is directly correlated. Cheap and easy energy is what lead to better economy. This is why US is so prosperous, and China is burning massive amount of fossil fuel.

                    Part of Paris funding was to build clean energy sources for poor countries. But if they try to be rich like US and China, piddly hydro plant put there with Paris money won’t be enough. I suspect they will turn to fossil fuel even if Paris 100% according to plan.

                    1. Nick says:

                      Right. So we both agree that CO2 is unrelated to prosperity except as an unfortunate by product of burning fossil fuels?

            2. Nick says:

              What evidence?

              Climate scientists tell us that warming of this magnitude over centuries will have a massively negative effect on the biosphere.

              Seemingly few people in the US care. We could do with more concern not less.

              1. SparkEV says:

                I should ask you what evidence you have that climate change lead to human misery. All evidence so far point to humans have been doing better even with accelerated temperature rise.

                “We could do with more concern not less.”

                Doesn’t this sound just like some Christians? “We must spread the news that Christ is the savior” when in fact most of the populace already identify as Christians, and vast majority already know about Christian faith. People already know about climate change, no need to spend trillions on it.

                1. Nick says:

                  Syrian war. Lots of misery.

                  To your second point, I agree the Christians also have a message they are trying to deliver. Not sure how that’s related?

                  Are you suggesting that since their message is meaningless or doesn’t make sense, therefore no call to action on serious issues can have meaning?

                  Or are you just using them as an analogy of another message you believe to be meaningless? In that case, fine.

    3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Ziv said:

      “CO2 levels aren’t the largest factor when it comes to rising temps.”

      I don’t care about the piffling little rise in average global temps. The world has seen far greater changes in the past, and will in the future. Humans rose to prominence on this planet largely because we’re adaptable. It’s appalling and craven, and arguably even contemptible, to suggest we can’t adapt to such a trifling change, when the human race has adapted to much greater climate changes in the past.

      But I do care, very strongly, about the acidification of the oceans that is the result of a rapid increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. That is causing an ongoing mass extinction event in the oceans. Perhaps the best-known symptom of that is how most or all the coral reefs in the entire world are dying, but that’s just one example of a widespread mass extinction event. All due to CO2 output and actual pollution (which CO2 is not), such as methane emissions, from human activity.

      Even those who are in such firm denial of facts and science should still agree that polluting the air with toxins (not CO2) is very bad for human beings, and that as we reduce CO2 output we’ll also reduce the real pollution.

      Advocating against the Paris Accords isn’t “conservative”. Real conservatives make wise investment to ensure future prosperity. Conservatives like clean air and water just like everyone else. Such investments must include taking steps necessary to preserve our environment. The word “conservative” has the same root as “conservationist”, and the two philosophies are alike in fundamental ways. Withdrawing from the Paris Accords is the very antithesis of both conservative and conservationist principles; it’s abandoning a sound future in favor of some very short-term profits.

      Real conservatives don’t support the Trumpster anti-environment agenda. Only fake conservatives do.

  4. Malcolm Scott says:

    The world and sustainable transport might make positive changes over the next 40 years.

    However, for we in the developed world who created this mess our differentiated obligation requires us to achieve this sustainable mobility by about the mid 2030s if we are to have a reasonable probability of achieving <+2 deg C and to implement measures striving for <+1.5 deg C.

    It's simply not good enough to cruise into the later half of the century as though we think we have plenty of time. 40 year thinking just lets people off the hook and in search of a miracle in year 39. I think we have all seen that project plan before.

    I say this as someone of Australia, perhaps the most belligerent nation on the planet when it comes to action for a safe climate. Only yesterday the party in national government was hotly divided over an energy policy where some wanted coal power to run seemingly forever and wanted capacity to have new 'clean coal' generation and carbon capture and storage. That same government is also actively supporting a new development of what will be one of the world's largest coal mines which will have exports shipped through the Great Barrier Reef that is already in extremely poor health and 2/3 stuffed from warming waters. In a land of unmatched clean renewable resources, flat earthism flourishes here.

    In times of so many setbacks, it is pleasing to hear that when a mayor says “We believe that climate change exists,” and “We’re not building walls, we’re building bridges,” the place erupted.

  5. Bill Howland says:

    Yup, another meeting of the “Flat Earth Society”.

    Huge numbers of Bonafide Scientists in the field or related fields have signed a petition stating that more CO2 is BETTER for the plants and the Planet; that worrying about too much of a Building Block of Life is Silly.

    Now myself, I’m a ‘Live and Let Live’ type of guy, – I won’t be telling people that they can’t have ICE’s (but I do recommend families with young children avoid European cities with primarily emission-law-evading diesel particulate cars), nor did I greatly flinch at the Scientific Consensus mistakenly quoted here hundreds of times.

    I changed my point of view when several commenters here decided it was time for CLOSED MINDS and now CENSORSHIP was in order towards competing ideas.

    I then made, Simultaneously, The DUMBEST and at once, the MOST PROFOUND comment I’ve ever made on inside ev’s; that is that over 35,000 Scientists (9100 or so PhD’s) stated on a ‘Vetted’ list that Man-Made Climate change, “Co2 is a polutant”, etc. are all fairy tales, and by implication people won’t be allowed to hear the REAL SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS any more.

    So everyone DEMANDING that those who do not believe in the “SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS” are in reality stating they themselves should be deleted. Its THAT dumb.

    In case any have not heard of this decades old listing, take a good long look HERE:

    check out the names, and then check out the vetting process, then read the position paper. The signers don’t necessarily agree with all of it, but they agree with the statement on the petition itself at least. Which is at variance which is what is taught in the schools and media these days, as well as 9 of 10 here might as well join the Flat Earth Society if they care to believe in a different fairy tale.

    1. !TrumpSupporter says:

      31K self claimed scientist and only 9K of them have PhD?

      PhD in what? economics?

      I can’t take it seriously when you believe in geoengineering and chemtrail.

      The same can be argued is some kind of “flat earth” society.

      How about just leaving the “name calling” part out?

      1. Bill Howland says:

        Since you don’t leave your name, there is nothing for ME to take seriously since I don’t know who you are.

      2. Martin Winlow says:

        You don’t have to have a PhD to be a scientist.

        Equally, for all we know, in the 20 years since this petition was signed, all of the petitioners could have changed their minds.

        Neither issue really take us any further forward, sadly.

    2. Nick says:

      Text book pseudoscience. Using the trappings of science to advance a position outside of the scientific consensus.

      Don’t be so credulous of the global warming deniers party line.

      1. Bill Howland says:

        Once again you are positively blind. You have not even begun to research the notoriety of some of the signers of the petition.

        How about coming up with a more prestigious list yourself?

        You can’t exactly use AL GORE any more, since he’s faded from the limelight after his divorce, and his having legal troubles due to request of Felatio from several female acquaintences.

        Since Gore is having this fading popularity problem, High School – Challenged Leonardo Di Caprio is the new “Global Warming Poster Boy”, but as this humorous (though a bit filthy) segment might show to thinking minds he won’t be the de facto spokesman for much longer either:

        1. says:

          Bill, you’re joking, right?
          Spokesmen? If this a fricking popularity contes to you?

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Real science isn’t a popularity contest. We don’t get to decide on the Laws of Nature by voting, even if some science deniers would like to believe so.

          There is plenty of evidence of the reality of climate change from many different branches of science. Even if one chooses to regard climate science as impossibly tainted by political agenda (and unfortunately, some of it certainly is), one can easily find indisputable evidence elsewhere, such the very well documented northward creep of the habitats of countless species of flora and fauna, due to global warming.

          Those species of plants which are now found living dozens or hundreds of miles north of where they used to live… those plants don’t care what you believe, or don’t believe. They live where they live, period.

          Bill, your rant here is nothing but another sorry example of how the alt-right is abandoning fact-based reasoning, in an apparent attempt to return to the Dark Ages in which “truth” was dictated by Popes and Kings. (Today it’s Breitbart and Fox News.)

          My reality is based on facts and real science. Too bad about yours.

          1. Bill Howland says:

            “Not a popularity contest”.

            No, in a perfect world, it is not. But that didn’t stop YOU from claiming “Scientific Consensus” in AT LEAST HUNDREDS OF COMMENTS over the past several years, and that those who DISAGREE with you are only the one in a million ‘nut jobs’.

            I’ve since given up trying to make a reasonable argument with people who throw silly-nonsense my way for years. I’m just throwing your own silly arguments back at you. That’s why I said before my comment was the DUMBEST thing I’ve ever said at IEV’s.

            But it is also the most profound since it is causing a mad scramble to get some new lipstick on a pig.

            1. Nick says:

              Scientific Consensus is the standard.

              That petition is not scientific consensus, it’s a popularity contest by people who are not in the field.

              1. Bill Howland says:

                Uh huh. Please list every single name of the people who are Not in the Field.

              2. Bill Howland says:

                Again proving the ignorance of your statement, there are 3800 Climatologists who agree, as well as around 3000 Biologists.

                That is hardly ‘1 in a million’ nut cases.

                Not a politician to be found – in Scientists who are DIRECTLY involved.

                1. Nick says:

                  > “3800 Climatologists who agree”

                  I call BS.

                  “Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.”

                  When I search for your number, I get National Review and a bunch of sites debunking the value they produced.

                  1. Bill Howland says:

                    If you rely on “Surveys of Peer-reviewed Literature” you’re vulnerable to the guys who did the ‘surveys’.

                    Just as many people here cannot read, nor correctly interpret research papers, the people doing the ‘surveys’ come to exactly the wrong conclusions.

                    Don’t give me bland generalizations. Give me specifically what an individual scientist has said or not said, and then we can argue that. But you are too lazy to do that.

                  2. Bill Howland says:

                    “….When I search for your number, I get National Review and a bunch of sites debunking the value they produced.”

                    Thats dumb.. You just proved you can’t research properly. The 3800 number came from the petition project cards themselves – the vetting process shows where the signers work and what their specific degrees are in.

    3. says:

      “more CO2 is BETTER for the plants and the Planet”

      What plants? Are you talking about your kitchen table begonia or the forests that are disappearing? How can we possibly have a smart conversation about this when we can’t even realize that in the very near furure there will be way less plants to process this excess CO2?

  6. ModernMarvelFan says:

    So Bill, let me ask you this question. Do you think the increase in CO2 has increased the acidity of the ocean water (it isn’t acidic and still basic. But it is getting more acidic by getting closer to neutral) which accelerated the bleaching of the coral combined with the increased water temperature around the dense coral regions of the world?

    If you agree, then do you think CO2 is a pollutant in that sense?

    If you don’t agree, then please present your argument on what CO2 absorption into sea water would do…

    I think we have discussion before on other topics so I believe we can have a reasonable discussion.

    1. SparkEV says:

      When you talk about absolute level of CO2, it’s not a problem since earth had over 10 times the level in the past, yet life thrived. You have to talk about the rate of change. Then the answer is not so easy. Corals may not do so well, but are there other things doing well?

      Unfortunately, studies are mostly the negative results of CO2, and positive aspect studies are relegated as “denier” and very few are available. Under current climate change hysteria, scientists are less likely to study the positive aspect of CO2 for fear of being labeled a denier, which result in vicious cycle of even more negativity.

      1. ModernMarvelFan says:

        “since earth had over 10 times the level in the past, yet life thrived”

        That is just partial truth. Yes, earth and life were fine but human weren’t here and wasn’t fine..

        The change will affect human lives today.

        1. SparkEV says:

          In terms of absolute level, everything including humans, will do fine. While dino days were warmer than present, it’s not like humans cannot survive in warmer climate similar to dino days in some parts of earth today.

          Look at Israel; a desert nation with very little water managed to become the bread basket of the region while under constant threat of being wiped off the map by surrounding countries. Humans will survive just fine, but some species (eg corals) will have tough time while some other species will thrive.

          1. Mister G says:

            Spark, Israel is America’s 51st state LOL that’s the only reason it is surviving LOL

            1. SparkEV says:

              You sound like some who claim Japan is the 51st state, Israel 52nd, South Korea 53rd, Taiwan 54th, …, pretty much every successful country as part of US. Fact is, Israel has its share of problems independent of US, just like any other country.

          2. Nick says:

            We humans rely on the biosphere for food. Massive crop failures will not be good for humans.

            1. SparkEV says:

              It’s not like the climate hasn’t been warming in last 50 years, yet we produce more food than ever before. All the doom scenarios talk about bad things happening overnight (literally in 12 hour period). Fact is, things will gradually change over decades, and humans will do just fine in such time scale.

              1. Nick says:

                We’re in the gradual change period now.

                Crop failures in Syria helped spark the war.

                1. Bill Howland says:

                  Thats dumb… There is no civil war in Syria.. They are being attacked by ISIS.

                  Popularly elected Assad and the Syrian Arab Army, with the requested Russian assistance is just about on the verge of crushing them.

                  Assad is so popular he can walk around Damascus without being in a bullet-proof shield. Trump is not so fortunate.

                  As far as supporting Christians, even Conservative Ann Colter has stated that these Christians will be Toast should Assad be toppled. Although not Christian himself, he maintains a secular gov’t which is their only protection.

                  Just like Iraq, and Libya, Syria is on the PNAC list of independent gov’ts to be toppled.

                  Saudi Arabia wanted to run a pipeline through Syria but Assad said no since it is in a strategic agreement with Russia – therefore Assad puts a high priority on maintaining Russian fuel sales which Assad has plainly stated he is not going to undermine since Russia is and has historically been a good friend and the Syrian people are not going to throw their friends under a bus.

                  Assad won by such a large plurality last time that its obvious the syrian people agree with his stance. They are being killed by ISIS, not him.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Corals may not do so well, but are there other things doing well?

        Do you not understand that coral reefs are the “canary in the coal mine”? Do you not understand that worldwide we’re seeing extinctions of species on a massive scale not seen since the mass extinction event which killed the dinosaurs? Do you not understand that the current ongoing mass extinction event is driven by human activities such as deforestation and the rapid rise of CO2, methane and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere?

        If you really don’t understand that, then by all means don’t take my word for it! Read up on the subject for yourself.

        1. SparkEV says:

          “canary in the coal mine”

          You don’t get research funding for saying “everything’s cool, nothing to worry about”. But if you say “my study will show we will be eaten by lions!”, money will pour in, and that’s what’s happening with climate gloom and doom.

          1. Nick says:

            That’s actually not true, not even close.

            A huge number of studies produce “null results”, it’s expected many will result in no finding.

            Additionally, if you claim “global warming is not a problem” and you have any sort of cachet or respect in the scientific community, you’ll have as much money as you could ever want from the massive infrastructure which wants to keep us buying fossil fuels. Fortunately the scientific community is hugely competitive and would challenge extraordinary claims vigorously.

            1. SparkEV says:

              Scientists are human. They respond to incentives. When some guys go around threatening to jail climate change deniers, and any positive effect of climate can slap “denier” label on you, you’d be right to fear not to pursue any positive climate change result research.

              As for no expected result, science is not clean and neat like some make it out to be. It’s really messy, especially climate science since it’s now so entangled with politics.

              If you think science will challenge extraordinary fact, I don’t see them vigorously challenging climate change gloom and doom when humans have been doing extraordinarily well even with temperature rise. Instead, positive effect of CC is hardly ever found.

              1. Nick says:

                I think your understanding of the social factors that drive scientists are largely incorrect. Shooting down someone elses findings is greatly encouraged and gives you status.

                You should follow a journal (I recommend physics), it’s hugely entertaining. 😀

      3. ModernMarvelFan says:

        ” studies are mostly the negative results of CO2, and positive aspect studies are relegated as “denier” and very few are available”

        Hmmm… So, we should only study the positive side effect and ignore the negative? Maybe the negative out weigh the positive? Anyone who grows plants knows that CO2 is good for growing crops. Back when dinosaurs were roaming the earth, the CO2 content was much higher. That can be confirmed by the amount of CO2 breathing pore sizes found on the plant leaves today as well as fossil plant. Nobody is going to deny that simple scientific facts. What doesn’t get discussed is the fact that world was a different place by then with different climate and living organism.

        The advancement of human on this planet was a relative short period which has enjoyed a “relatively” stable climate period on the planet. What is happening recently is that climate change is accelerating at a rate that will affect the ecosystem as a whole which will put our survival into question.

        With that said, I have no doubt that some human will survive this with our technology today. However, the planet ecosystem to support 7 Billion+ human is a fairly delicate balance. We know that we can survive on that “mild weather” system but has very little certainty to survive well on a different climate state. That is what worries most climate change experts. We have far more unknown than known today and we don’t really have the luxury to get it wrong because the price to pay is a big one and irreversible.

        Do I think majority of the people will be impacted? Absolutely, especially those who live on the coast. But do I think it will be end to all? No. Nobody knows what type of political instability, wars, chaos, mass extinction or pandemic will be resulting from all these changes combined with other potential changes we have yet to understand. That is a price we probably can’t afford to pay.

        As far as the argument that economic price to pay, I think it is more than a spin. We are here because we believe EVs is affordable or at least can be and renewable energy such as solar/wind can be competitive. If so, then the economic prices concern is already overblown.

        Do I think we will end all fossil usage in the next 20-30 years? No. But if we can reduce them significantly, then it would have been a major step toward it.

        Paris Agreement isn’t perfect, no accord is. But the fact that we are giving up “world leadership” is a bad approach in my opinion which is truly shameful.

        1. SparkEV says:

          Contrary to all the gloom and doom, humans are doing far better than any time in the past even with temperature and CO2 increase. By many indications, the population will reach about 10B people and taper off, and they will be even better off than today. There’s nothing to worry about for humans from climate change.

          As for lack of positive studies, look it up yourself. Propaganda machine is on overdrive to suppress positive impact of climate change.

          As an example, I went to an ocean museum, and everything that dealt with climate change was negative, not a single point positive. It’s like brain-washing for the kids.

          1. ModernMarvelFan says:

            “There’s nothing to worry about for humans from climate change.”

            Human as a specie? sure. I even admit so in my post above.

            Some human will do better than others…

            1. SparkEV says:

              Some humans will always do better than others under any circumstance. That’s meaningless to talk about. But in time, humanity as a whole will do lot better than now, even with climate change.

        2. SparkEV says:

          As for Paris, it will accomplish nothing for the climate. It merely delays the inevitable by few years while penalizing developed countries. Saying do-nothing “isn’t perfect” is technically true, but far removed from what it really does (or doesn’t do).

          As I mentioned early, agreement should be about developing cheap and clean source of energy so that everyone will stop using the more expensive fossil fuel. That means money should go to developed countries.

          Paris does the opposite; they take money from developed nations (most from US) and give to poor nations that have no way to make lasting impact. If anything, Paris is bad for climate by taking resources away from nations that could make lasting impact.

          1. ModernMarvelFan says:

            Part of the agreement is to help developing countries with funding and technology so they don’t “repeat” the past industrial revolution mistakes of developed nations and bypass the dirty energy.

            Some of those funding were specifically for doing that.

            But that wasn’t acceptable since the claims that is US is shouldering all the bills. That isn’t the case on a per capita basis.

            1. SparkEV says:

              Let’s assume that everyone agreed to stay in Paris agreement. How long do you think it’d take before the situation is just like no one participated in Paris?

              Best case scenario is about a decade delay (1 degree instead of 4), but some say just couple of years. This is the fundamental problem with Paris. For all the “not repeating past mistakes”, it does nothing for the climate other day few years delay. And for that, countries will spend trillions?

              People make it sound like Paris agreement would stop or reverse climate change, but that isn’t the case at all. This is why Paris is bad.

    2. Bill Howland says:

      As I’ve stated before, the ‘popular view’ is much too near-sighted. For a synopsis of 25 papers dealing with this issue, click this link.

      I defer to those since I don’t claim to be an expert in this field – I just can gleen a common sense argument when I see it.

      To the magpies the fact remains that you all are challenging the wisdom of a pretty prestigious group. The simple fact that there are SO MANY of them, which is diametrically opposed to whatever the magpies have said in the past, mainly thats it just a silly nut here and there, shows that plainly the magpies are almost criminally misinformed.

      Why criminally? Its these Pseudo Big-Experts who have stated in the past that “CLEAN DIESEL” has a lower Carbon Footprint than Petrol – and the end result of that hare-brained thinking has been many Children in London and Paris have trouble breathing due to particulates in the air – thanks to the “Great Brains”.

      As far as these guys being just a bunch of Hobos, lets see the BIG EXPERTS come up with a more prestigious list. As, am example of the sophistication of the signatories, The FOUNDER of the petition worked with LINUS PAULING for heaven sake!…

      1. ModernMarvelFan says:

        “As far as these guys being just a bunch of Hobos”

        sorry, they are a bunch of hobos as you claimed. First, read the bio of the page of the so called policy center. They are made up by a bunch of conservative Republican leaning staffs. The President and chief advisors are both conservative Republicans.

        Now, further more, let us talk about the study itself.

        1. The major conclusion is that they didn’t make assertion on whether ocean is getting acidic or not. They simply said the CO2 increase rate isn’t tracking the bleaching process directly in terms of rate. They “assumed” that CO2 increase fairly linearity but the rate of bleaching around the Great Reef isn’t consistent but comes in batches where for some period it is higher than others. So, they made a “suggestion” that it was due to more of run off from the lands rather than CO2 directed bleaching.

        2. Then they used the loose wording of the “some” coral should be able to handle the extra acidity. That is again another fact spinning which avoided the topic of Great Barrier Reef bleaching.

        3. The study they refer were from 2009 and 2011. The major bleaching event of 2016 wasn’t even part of it. 2009 and 2011 years also had some major flooding in Australia which wasn’t taken into account.

        4. Then they recited a single study by Chinese scientists on a single atoll in the South China Sea as an exception where within the short study period by using X-ray image to show that it wasn’t follow the devastating trend. That is like saying there is no global warming when your local city is experiencing a cold trend.

        5. Most of the study were published with pre-2012 study and data and there are now more data on the bleaching. The only thing those studies have questioned is the speed of which they are bleaching based on the CO2 emission rate. No, they didn’t die off linearity as some has predicated. But none of the study is denying the ocean is getting more acidic and corals are dying off. They just question the speed of which they do that doesn’t track in a straight line as CO2 concentration.

        Lastly, as far as your point of credibility on the “expert” is concerned, back when big Tobacco was under the public pressure to ban smoking, there were plenty of “studies” and doctors were testifying in front of Congress to say that smoking isn’t harmful or there weren’t conclusive evidence to show such links. We all know how that turned out… Now, the fossil fuel/conservative wing of the industry has far more money and far more power than the big tobacco.

        One point I agree is that some of so called “media spin” of exaggeration is probably over the top. One such study is that Ocean will rise 100 ft in the next 100 years due to the melting snow and ice on lands. I disagreed with the claim at the time. Some have called me a denier for that. But my point was that study didn’t take into account that the amount of moisture holding capability of the air at a higher temperature. So I questioned some of those claims. But it doesn’t mean we aren’t having those effects.

        1. Bill Howland says:

          That’s nonsense. Apparently the position paper, with 120 references to other research papers – not all of which I agree with – but calling it the product of hobos is too easy.

          It would be rather like someone taking my “Statics and Dynamics” calculus-based text books which was required reading and still is for undergraduate engineering students, and saying the whole book is the product of hobos, when the end result is people trained using such documents have successfully built bridges, and other steel structures without colapse.

          But instead of arguing a specific point, you take, excuse me, the uneducated approach, and are not able to argue a single point from one of the research papers.

          1. ModernMarvelFan says:

            Bridges still collapse today and your example of statistics and dynamics are proved theory that can be easily replicated and verified.

            The research paper that you are quoting have a lot of “loose wording” in them.

            Beside, I even pointed out the fact that itself didn’t even refute the fact about bleaching but only questioned the “cause” by questioning the bleaching rate which is isn’t uniformly increasing as the CO2 level.

            I called out that level of reasoning suspect because they didn’t disapprove the theory but simply stated the relationship wasn’t uniform so they instead to look for other “potential reasons”…

            But I sense that you aren’t going to listen to any of those reasoning so it is probably a waste of time here.

            1. Bill Howland says:

              Yeah, one point to agree on is it is basically a waste of time as you say.

              IN the first place, people can’t see the big picture: In that the earth was MUCH WARMER in the Middle Age warm period than it is now, as I’ve quoted experts in the past, along with religious historian St. Thomas Aquinas as well as Chaucer – verified that London was at one time warmer than it is now.

              The Polar Bears, threatened today by something other than temperature, survived this period. Unknown to many, Polar Bears are actually hearty animals, being able to swim around 50 miles at a crack. Up until recently, their population had quadrupled until just a few years ago, mainly by enacting laws banning their over-hunting.

              So whatever happens to acidification of various places is not of super great concern since the world has survived all this before, and the world seems to get richer every time it gets warmer, which is reasonable since crop yields are greater in more locales. Life (it stands to reason) gets harder for the vast majority of people, the colder it gets. So these guys have it exactly backwards – nothing new for politicians. It has already also been proven that Plants starved for CO2 will increase crop yields once they have provided just a bit more so as to be not so starved. That should also help improve the General Welfare – less hungry people and/or less effort required to meet daily sustenance needs.

              Your statements are very loose – not the position paper, at least as far as the CO2 statements are concerned. There, the stance is documented. You can argue the documentation – but I’m still waiting for that.

              But again, hurling silly wife’s tales that go against a serious position paper ain’t cutting it. And even that doesn’t matter in the final analysis since Factual History is already against your stance.

            2. Bill Howland says:

              “Bridges still collapse”

              That is the DUMBEST thing you’ve ever said here MMF. Its total BS – BEYOND STUPIDITY.

              There are some makes and models of cars where the wheels fall off… Does that mean I should live in fear of MY car’s wheels falling off. NO!

              There are some makes and models of cars that explode. Does that mean my car will explode? NO!.

              The fact is there are thousands and thousands of bridges that remain standing and handle the designed for loading, and are perfectly safe to drive on.

              An engineer would not take the position you’ve just taken.

              Just because someone somewhere is incompetent doesn’t mean everyone is totally incompetent or without reason.

              But I guess we can agree there’s a dearth of that here.

      2. ModernMarvelFan says:

        “Its these Pseudo Big-Experts who have stated in the past that “CLEAN DIESEL” has a lower Carbon Footprint than Petrol – and the end result of that hare-brained thinking has been many Children in London and Paris have trouble breathing due to particulates in the air – thanks to the “Great Brains”.”

        Bill, I think you would understand the difference between an ideal policy intention vs. actual implementation of the policy.

        If the regulators in Europe actually held diesels to the “real emission” standards and not allowing them to cheat in any way or form, the result would have been intended. A “clean diesel” can actually match the exhaust emission level of a gasoline vehicle while returning a higher MPG. It will cost more to clean the emission up at the vehicle tailpipe and doable but companies such as VW cheated it and pushed for regulators to loosen the emission testing to NOT reflect the real world emission. That isn’t the fault of so called “experts” in this case.

        From our past exchange, I do detect some frequent and often bashing of so called “educated intellectuals”, whether it is engineers or scientists. Are you one of those “working class” people who would like to thumb your nose at those so called “intellectual elites” just to prove them wrong? Lots of Trump supporters fill easily into that category. I hope you aren’t one of those.

        1. Bill Howland says:

          I mentioned before that I was a somewhat reluctant supporter of Trump, but have since fallen off that bandwagon.

          But this forum seems to constantly bash him by name – calling only, so in the interest of fairness, lets take a minute or two to look at the alternative candidate:

          1. ModernMarvelFan says:

            Well, that explained everything then…

            I had a hypothesis and now it is confirmed.

            1. Bill Howland says:

              Clearly you have a problem with Reading Comprehension. We both read the same research paper, but you totally twisted its conclusions and therefore, I had to quote it to prove my point. Letting you summarize it is totally erroneous. See what I mean a few paragraphs down.

            2. Bill Howland says:

              Oh, MMF are you one of those conceited engineers who think once you say something it is deemed from ‘on high’; that’s the way it is?

              I’ve had to correct many in my time who come to erroneous conclusions and/or don’t concentrate on the things worth worrying about.

              Of course in my field, – it was easy to spot because under certain circumstances their crappy designs would fail and I’d have to troubleshoot/rebustify their designs to get them useable.

              Just like here, some would go away red-faced (which is good because at least they admit the mistake), but most would just stomp their feet and say their design was perfect.

              Perfect for what I don’t know.

    3. Bill Howland says:

      Since all you guys state the value of old research papers are junk, (a totally incorrect view); perhaps a 2017 paper (using results from 2012 and 2016 studies is more to your liking:

      1. says:

        Quote from their website explaining their funding…
        “ExxonMobil made some donations to us a few times in the past”

        I love when big oil supports the real science….lol.

        1. Bill Howland says:

          Oh yeah? Who is paying you to comment here?

          As I’ve previously explained to PUSHI, you cannot argue the merits of a position with facts, you merely argue who paid for the paper, even if it was only a small portion of the funding for it.

          Some people have referred to the position of Man-Made-Global Warming as being a DUNG-HEAP.

          I’m sure many here will defend that Dung-Heap to the bitter end. All your great spokesman, such as AL GOre and DiCaprio have been dishonored as either Hypocritical in the extreme, or else just perverts.

          1. says:

            “Who is paying you to comment here?”
            No one…and i should get paid! Maybe i can apply for a job with your employer…

      2. ModernMarvelFan says:

        “Since all you guys state the value of old research papers are junk,”

        I said it wasn’t junk but had questionable authors and the study wasn’t really disapproving any of the claims.

        “paper (using results from 2012 and 2016 studies is more to your liking:”

        Did you actually read your own study reference before making comments? The study shows that it is “possible” that bleaching can be reversed to recover on its own in certain conditions defined by the specific experiment which brings “hope” that we might have a chance to revert some of those damages. In NO WAY it suggested that bleaching was caused by the CO2 and increases in acidity.


        1. Bill Howland says:

          The problem here is you never get specific. Pull the exact quote you have a problem with.

          1. Bill Howland says:

            OH heck. here’s the quote “…Regardless of the actual mechanism responsible for the densely aggregated corals to maintain calcification rates in the face of ocean acidification, the study of Evensen and Edmunds, in their words, offers “a compelling case for differential densities of branching coral colonies (i.e. aggregation types) mediating the sensitivity of coral communities in at least some habitats” and it further supports “recent indications that neighboring organisms, such as conspecific coral colonies in the present example, can create small-scale refugia from the negative effects of ocean acidification”.

            The bottom line is that through various mechanisms the ‘coral communities’ survive. Under many different conditions. Which is exactly what the LAST group of papers I’ve presented showed, but those were supposedly too old, or did not explain IN DETAIL exactly what happened in a then FUTURE EVENT. No paper written TODAY can give a DETAILED explanation of something that happens later with specificity since the specific case of the future event has yet to be delineated. DUH.

            But it doesn’t mar the value of the paper.

            I’m tiring of discussing this picayunne subject matter: I’ve PROVEN that the corals will do just fine under various conditions.

            No wife’s tales of impending doom have much of an effect on my point of view from something so beneficial overall.

            Even other commenters, lately, are beginning to realize that Al GORE’s ” !!! THE EARTH HAS A F E A V E R ! ! ! ! ” alarmism may have to be taken with a grain of salt…. Or that he doesn’t believe it himself since he makes use of unbelievable amounts of hydrocarbons, and he buys ocean-front property – something he wouldn’t do if he were truly worried about it.

            Same with his side kick fellow hypocrite Leonardo, Bono, and plenty of other Celebrity Experts.

  7. FISHEV says:

    Sadly neither Ford nor GM are on the “Werestillin” list.

  8. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    Altho it’s very likely true that the Trumpster administration’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Accords was largely symbolic, since previous policy changes from the administration have already made compliance nigh-impossible, still the symbolism is highly important regarding the standing of the United States on the world stage.

    The only real winner here is Vladimir Putin, who must be dancing with joy every day for having such a “useful idiot” in the position that used to be called “Leader of the free world”, but likely won’t be called that after such an important abandonment of responsibility on the part of wannabe dictator El Trumpo.

    Is it too soon to talk about impeachment? No, I think it’s already past time!

  9. Shawn Marshall says:

    Many smug know-it-alls will have to eat a lot of crow when they finally realize that modest warming(as it has been for 150+ years)is beneficial and increasing CO2 is beneficial(record crop levels globally and the earth has greened by 14% over 30years). There is no known CO2 budget – natural sources dominate – human contribution estimates from 3-15%. The physics of CO2 even causing warming is highly suspect and many papers contest this view. The Paris Accord was simply a pact to hobble the US economy while transferring US wealth to foreign governments – all for the sake of .2 degrees C- speculation. I am a fan of EVs for their many great features – especially as a competing resource with gas and natural gas. The magic hand of the market has created the greatest wealth from the greatest economy the world has ever seen – it is highly regulated. transferring USA sovereignty to foreign bodies will do absolutely nothing to affect unproven causes of global warming.

    1. floydboy says:

      Wow the paranoia of the conservative mind knows no bounds! Careful, ‘those people’ might get something or derive some benefit! US sovereignty has already been transferred UPWARD. You conservatives were just too preoccupied with maintaining social stratification to notice.

      Conservative policies have, through the “magic hand” of the free market, benefited the few mightily, the many, poorly and the climate none at all.

      1. Bill Howland says:

        Notice that the discussion that is hoped for with people such as Shawn Marshall and me, is a fact-based – with plenty of details, namely that human caused CO2 generation amounts to around 8 GT, when the rest of the planet’s stores around to 30-40,000 GT and much of that circulates.

        So even if the stuff was harmful which it is not, it COULDN’T be having any effect since the amount of CO2 made by industrialization is like dust on the scales.

        Meanwhile, even that argument is too difficult to understand from most of the flame-throwers. They actually cannot try to ‘get scientific’ since if they did there would be something to discuss and shoot down. So they just name call, without providing their own names of course

        1. Dan Hue says:

          Argument from incredulity. Fail!

          It’s the concentration of CO2 in the air that matters, and it has jumped up from 280ppm to over 400. And before you say that these are tiny amounts, keep in mind that it’s the overall quantity that matters, not the fraction relative to other molecules. The more CO2 molecules mixed in the air, the greater the chance IR photons get caught and scattered, increasing back radiation. It’s basic physics, as understood since the 19th century.

          1. SparkEV says:

            In absence of anything else, what you say is true of CO2. But for something as complex as climate, it’s not that simple. For example, extra CO2 would warm the atmosphere (air above ground), yet satellite measurements shows the air not as warm as it should be with CO2 only effect with respect to surface temperature. Something else is going on that we don’t fully understand.

            But regardless, Earth is warming, no question about it.

          2. Bill Howland says:

            Dan Hue you better make plans to drain both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans for two very basic reasons:

            1). Increasing ocean temperatures will release much more entrained CO2; those ‘hazardous CO2 Molecules’.

            2). CO2 doesn’t have nearly the ‘green house gas’ effect that CH4 does, and neither of those can hold a candle to that BIGGEST CONTRIBUTOR OF GHG POLUTION (!!!) – water (over 90% in efficacy).

            1. SparkEV says:

              Actually, CH4 dissipate pretty quickly while CO2 lingers far longer. There’s really not much to worry about CH4, unlike Al Gore’s “perma frost is going to release lots of methane” hysteria.

              Water vapor is about 85% of green house gas, but they are not as effective as CO2 in trapping heat. Increase in temperature could increase water vapor, which could cause vicious cycle (positive feedback), which some non-science hysterics point to as doomsday scenario. Obviously, this doesn’t happen, otherwise, earth would be Venus by now.

              1. Paul Smith says:

                CH4 is not dissipating nearly as fast as we are adding to it. It’s concentrations in the atmosphere have risen steadily for over 4 decades and are now higher than in the last 800,000 years.

                1. SparkEV says:

                  True, but once we stop / reduce emitting, they will be gone in pretty short time. Even with perma frost emissions, the effect will be short lived.

                  1. Nick says:

                    ~400 years. That’s both pretty short and painfully long.

                    Also CH4 is 84 times more effective than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Very scary.

        2. SparkEV says:

          Humans generate about 25 GT per year for now and growing. Unlike what was there naturally which had homeostasis, human sources accumulate, and the total can get really large. That in itself isn’t a problem. The problem is how quickly it’s accumulating.

          There really is no question the climate is warming and some due to man made sources (primarily CO2). Even the so called denier scientists agree on this. They do disagree on how much warming is due to man made and how much is natural.

          1. Bill Howland says:

            SparkEV the NET increase due to man-made usage is smaller; one reason being that the formerly Starved vegetation starts getting more of the Life-Saving substance, and they start consuming the excess. And that’s only 1.

            1. SparkEV says:

              If there’s additional vegetation, what you say is true. But the rate at which things are increasing, there isn’t enough time for vegetation to catch up.

              1. Bill Howland says:


                1. ModernMarvelFan says:

                  Two ways:

                  1. Amount of global coverage of forest and plants are actually lower today than before.

                  2. Conservation of matter. As more Carbon are dug out of the ground and gets convert to CO2, it will get added to the existing “surface” cycle of the carbon cycle where plants absorb them and release them as they are consumed/burned/decompose. The surface cycle of carbon will be much greater which tend to make the amount of CO2 in the system increases.

                  1. Bill Howland says:

                    Actually Co2 levels LAG eustatic ocean changes by around 800 years.

                    This is the ‘very complicated’ relationship mentioned by Al Gore in his movie “Inconvenient Truth”. He’s correct in stating there is a direct correlation – that CO2 Levels and Ocean temperature levels ‘track’ – but the complication he never mentions is that CO2 LAGS, and never LEADS. The temperature goes up, and then CO2 in the atmosphere goes up, conversely when the temperature in the ocean goes down, so do atmospheric CO2 levels.

                    Coincidentally, the same effect appears in a glass of Club Soda.

                    1. SparkEV says:

                      Suppose it is true that CO2 comes after temperature. CO2 is now 400 ppm and growing when it was steady about about 200 ppm before the industrial revolution. It makes no difference whether CO2 leads or lags when we’re 2X where it was for many millenia of the past.

                      Typical argument is regarding medieval warming period. But if temperature relation with CO2 is true (lead or lag), what we’re experiencing now would be primarily dominated by CO2 effects.

                    2. SparkEV says:

                      By the way, we know the CO2 increase is due to man made source by analyzing carbon isotope of CO2. When you burn fossil fuel, they leave distinct carbon isotope “signature” that’s different from naturally sourced CO2.

                      Of course, some people don’t believe carbon isotope analysis for determining the age of fossils older than 6000 years (they believe earth is only 6000 years old).

                2. SparkEV says:

                  Bill, I should ask you for the proof how it’s 8 GT when humans emit 25 GT. Earth has been greening, but primarily for agriculture. Giant carbon sink like the Amazon has been shrinking.

                  1. Bill Howland says:

                    I already said its the NET increase. If things are historically starved and suddenly not so starved, each individual plant will start consuming more food, and in short order there will be more plants consuming ever more food.

                    Let me look around and see if there are other effects since its been a few years since I last was forced to research this.

                  2. Bill Howland says:

                    Ok here’s the amount of “carbon” per Oak Ridge National Laboratories (those tin-foil-hat people- I’m sure they’ll be characterized that way:

                    “…Ranking of the world’s countries by 2014 total CO2 emissions
                    from fossil-fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring.
                    Emissions (CO2_TOT) are expressed in thousand metric tons of
                    carbon (not CO2).

                    Source: Tom Boden and Bob Andres
                    Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
                    Oak Ridge National Laboratory

                    Gregg Marland
                    Research Institute for Environment, Energy and Economics
                    Appalachian State University

                    doi 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2017

                    RANK NATION CO2_TOT

                    1 CHINA (MAINLAND) 2806634
                    2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1432855
                    3 INDIA 610411
                    4 RUSSIAN FEDERATION 465052
                    5 JAPAN 331074
                    6 GERMANY 196314
                    7 ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN 177115
                    8 SAUDI ARABIA 163907
                    9 REPUBLIC OF KOREA 160119
                    10 CANADA 146494
                    11 BRAZIL 144480
                    12 SOUTH AFRICA 133562
                    13 MEXICO 130971
                    14 INDONESIA 126582
                    15 UNITED KINGDOM 114486
                    16 AUSTRALIA 98517
                    17 TURKEY 94350
                    18 ITALY (INCLUDING SAN MARINO) 87377
                    19 THAILAND 86232
                    20 FRANCE (INCLUDING MONACO) 82704
                    21 POLAND 77922
                    22 TAIWAN 72013
                    23 KAZAKHSTAN 67716
                    24 MALAYSIA 66218
                    25 SPAIN 63806
                    26 UKRAINE 61985
                    27 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 57641
                    28 ARGENTINA 55638
                    29 EGYPT 55057
                    30 VENEZUELA 50510
                    31 IRAQ 45935
                    32 NETHERLANDS 45624
                    33 VIET NAM 45517
                    34 PAKISTAN 45350
                    35 ALGERIA 39651
                    36 QATAR 29412
                    37 PHILIPPINES 28812
                    38 UZBEKISTAN 28692
                    39 CZECH REPUBLIC 26309
                    40 NIGERIA 26256
                    41 KUWAIT 26018
                    42 BELGIUM 25457
                    43 COLOMBIA 22932
                    44 CHILE 22515
                    45 BANGLADESH 19959
                    46 ROMANIA 19090
                    47 TURKMENISTAN 18659
                    48 GREECE 18358
                    49 ISRAEL 17617
                    50 BELARUS 17316
                    51 PERU 16838
                    52 OMAN 16681
                    53 MOROCCO 16325
                    54 AUSTRIA 16011
                    55 LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYAH 15543
                    56 SINGAPORE 15373
                    57 NORWAY 12988
                    58 FINLAND 12899
                    59 TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO 12619
                    61 PORTUGAL 12286
                    62 ECUADOR 11977
                    63 SWEDEN 11841
                    64 BULGARIA 11567
                    65 HUNGARY 11477
                    66 DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE S REPUBLIC OF KOREA 11052
                    67 SERBIA 10272
                    68 AZERBAIJAN 10223
                    69 SWITZERLAND 9628
                    70 CUBA 9500
                    71 ANGOLA 9480
                    72 NEW ZEALAND 9453
                    73 IRELAND 9290
                    74 DENMARK 9135
                    75 BAHRAIN 8546
                    76 SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC 8373
                    77 SLOVAKIA 8366
                    78 TUNISIA 7862
                    79 JORDAN 7213
                    80 LEBANON 6564
                    81 YEMEN 6190
                    82 BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA 6063
                    83 MYANMAR (FORMERLY BURMA) 5899
                    84 DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 5874
                    85 MONGOLIA 5683
                    86 PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA 5566
                    87 ESTONIA 5323
                    88 SRI LANKA 5016
                    89 GUATEMALA 4998
                    90 CROATIA 4593
                    91 REPUBLIC OF SUDAN 4190
                    92 GHANA 3945
                    93 KENYA 3896
                    94 LITHUANIA 3501
                    95 SLOVENIA 3494
                    96 ZIMBABWE 3278
                    97 ETHIOPIA 3163
                    98 UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA 3153
                    99 COTE D IVOIRE 3012
                    100 AFGHANISTAN 2675
                    101 LUXEMBOURG 2634
                    102 KYRGYZSTAN 2620
                    103 HONDURAS 2583
                    104 BRUNEI (DARUSSALAM) 2484
                    105 GEORGIA 2451
                    106 SENEGAL 2415
                    107 PANAMA 2400
                    108 MOZAMBIQUE 2298
                    109 NEPAL 2190
                    110 COSTA RICA 2116
                    111 MACEDONIA 2048
                    112 JAMAICA 2024
                    113 BOTSWANA 1918
                    114 REPUBLIC OF CAMEROON 1910
                    115 LATVIA 1902
                    116 URUGUAY 1840
                    117 CAMBODIA 1823
                    118 BENIN 1723
                    119 PAPUA NEW GUINEA 1723
                    120 EL SALVADOR 1714
                    121 CYPRUS 1653
                    122 CURACAO 1604
                    123 ALBANIA 1559
                    124 PARAGUAY 1555
                    125 ARMENIA 1508
                    126 EQUATORIAL GUINEA 1458
                    127 UGANDA 1426
                    128 GABON 1416
                    129 TAJIKISTAN 1415
                    130 REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA 1345
                    131 NICARAGUA 1326
                    133 ZAMBIA 1228
                    134 NEW CALEDONIA 1170
                    135 MAURITIUS 1153
                    136 REUNION 1138
                    137 NAMIBIA 1024
                    138 CONGO 844
                    139 MADAGASCAR 839
                    140 HAITI 780
                    141 BURKINA FASO 777
                    142 OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY 774
                    143 MAURITANIA 739
                    144 TOGO 715
                    145 GUADELOUPE 700
                    146 LESOTHO 673
                    147 GUINEA 668
                    148 BAHAMAS 659
                    149 MALTA 640
                    150 MARTINIQUE 627
                    151 MONTENEGRO 603
                    152 NIGER 580
                    153 GUYANA 548
                    154 SURINAME 543
                    155 ICELAND 541
                    156 LAO PEOPLE S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC 533
                    157 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH SUDAN 408
                    158 MALI 385
                    159 MALDIVES 364
                    160 SIERRA LEONE 357
                    162 MALAWI 348
                    163 BARBADOS 347
                    164 SWAZILAND 328
                    165 FIJI 319
                    166 BHUTAN 273
                    167 LIBERIA 255
                    168 ARUBA 238
                    169 RWANDA 229
                    170 FRENCH POLYNESIA 219
                    171 SAINT MARTIN (DUTCH PORTION) 200
                    172 FRENCH GUIANA 200
                    173 CHAD 199
                    174 DJIBOUTI 197
                    175 ERITREA 190
                    176 SOMALIA 166
                    177 FAEROE ISLANDS 163
                    178 BERMUDA 157
                    179 CAYMAN ISLANDS 148
                    180 ANTIGUA & BARBUDA 145
                    181 GIBRALTAR 144
                    182 GAMBIA 140
                    183 GREENLAND 138
                    184 BELIZE 135
                    185 SEYCHELLES 135
                    186 CAPE VERDE 134
                    187 TIMOR-LESTE (FORMERLY EAST TIMOR) 128
                    188 ANDORRA 126
                    189 BURUNDI 120
                    190 SAINT LUCIA 111
                    191 BONAIRE, SAINT EUSTATIUS, AND SABA 88
                    192 CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC 82
                    193 GUINEA BISSAU 74
                    194 PALAU 71
                    195 GRENADA 66
                    196 ST. KITTS-NEVIS 63
                    197 ST. VINCENT & THE GRENADINES 57
                    198 TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS 56
                    199 SOLOMON ISLANDS 55
                    200 SAMOA 54
                    201 BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS 49
                    202 COMOROS 42
                    203 VANUATU 42
                    204 FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA 41
                    205 ANGUILLA 39
                    206 DOMINICA 37
                    207 TONGA 33
                    208 SAO TOME & PRINCIPE 31
                    209 MARSHALL ISLANDS 28
                    210 ST. PIERRE & MIQUELON 21
                    211 COOK ISLANDS 19
                    212 KIRIBATI 17
                    213 FALKLAND ISLANDS (MALVINAS) 15
                    214 MONTSERRAT 13
                    215 NAURU 13
                    216 LIECHTENSTEIN 12
                    217 WALLIS AND FUTUNA ISLANDS 6
                    218 SAINT HELENA 3
                    219 NIUE 3
                    220 TUVALU 3 “

                    1. Bill Howland says:

                      SparkEV: “…

                      Typical argument is regarding medieval warming period. But if temperature relation with CO2 is true (lead or lag), what we’re experiencing now would be primarily dominated by CO2 effects.

                      SparkEv that is TOTALLY NONSENSICAL. Of course it matters whether it is a lead or a lag effect. IF we can’t agree on the ground rules, then there is no point in discussing any more subtle details.

                      The ice core samples show the correlation is a LAGGING effect of 800 years. I won’t live to see any CO2 effects from Eustatic Ocean changes, other than what was happening back in the 1200’s.

                      The point being – the earth has been warmer in the past and it has survived and thrived.

                      There hasn’t been any warming in the past 17 years anyway so its a rather moot point.

                      Can we please get back to talking about ev’s?

                      I’ve answered (to my satisfaction at least) every objection on this subject matter, and I’ve provided more technical documented detail than any other commenter, and more references.

            2. says:

              “formerly Starved vegetation starts getting more of the Life-Saving substance”

              MY EYES! MY EYES! I think i’m going blind!
              From the time this article was posted about 50 square miles of Amazonian forest has gone up in flames. Are the burning trees also happy with the excess CO2?

    2. MisterG says:

      “If you throw a frog into boiling water he will jump out, but if put in when the water’s cold he will sit there and boil to death”
      You are the frog LOL

    3. says:

      “the earth has greened by 14% over 30years”
      Some can argue that due to the global warming the Earth got greener due to the extended growing season and plants extending their range further towards the poles. Personally, i think the plants are smarter than us and just try to correct the imbalance…lol

  10. Bill Howland says:

    The general tenor of the discussion here is disappointing – to show the preeminence of some of the signers/founders of the ‘co2 lovers’, here’s one of the qualifications:

    “…From Frederick Seitz

    This letter from Professor Frederick Seitz is circulated with the petition. Physicist Frederick Seitz was President of the US National Academy of Sciences and of Rockefeller University. He received the National Medal of Science, the Compton Award, the Franklin Medal, and numerous other awards, including honorary doctorates from 32 Universities around the world. In August 2007, Dr. Seitz reviewed and approved the article by Robinson, Robinson, and Soon that is circulated with the petition and gave his enthusiastic approval to the continuation of the Petition Project. A vigorous supporter of the Petition Project since its inception in 1998, Professor Seitz died on March 2nd, 2008.

    For his letter: click here:

    Anyone here more qualified than the National Academy of Sciences head? Or have more than 32 PhD. degrees? Or have more prestigious awards than him? No? I didn’t think so. Now to me, I’d listen to this guy very carefully and give weight to what he says. Those that can fathom and learn from him, that is. Of course, this guy actually WORKED and served mankind – increasing the body of Scientific Knowledge.