OT - Who is your favorite climate scientist?

bgebrent

John,
Suppose we took up those policy and technological changes.  If we do, yet others don’t, is there still a positive outcome?  Or if we don’t and others do?  Lots of politics in play not to mention capital both public and private.  What do you envision as the solution?

alaskanassasin

ARE YOU HAPPY @DMW ??? ARE YOU FREAKIN HAPPY?

Markarm4119

Mother Nature..... just kidding, I don't think we can keep knocking down trees, adding more glass and steel buildings, pavement and concrete with the corresponding internal combustion equipment to construct/destruct without having a negative impact on this old blue marble we call home.
Bill Gates had some interesting ideas he discussed with Chris Wallace on Fox news this past Sunday.

nolaegghead

SaintJohnsEgger said:

JohnInCarolina said:

The only pro-life people I believe are those who are out protesting abortion clinics every day and threatening to kill the doctors who perform the procedures.  Otherwise, my view is that they don’t really believe that it’s wrong or that abortion is murder.  They’re just putting on a show for their evangelical friends.

So using your argument the only global warming advocates that we should believe are the ones that walk everywhere and live off grid. Otherwise they don't really believe in global warming and are putting on a show for their friends or are in it for the money.

You are so lacking in basic world knowledge in this regard you are irrelevant to talk to about this, just a waste of time and energy.

SemolinaPilchard

JohnInCarolina said:

SemolinaPilchard said:

JohnInCarolina said:

SemolinaPilchard said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

JohnInCarolina said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

GrillSgt said:

I detest people who resist and deny climate change because they are paid to think that way to by the people that contribute the most to climate change. Secondly I detest those that are too stupid to see that. 

I detest scientist who fly all over the world going to symposiums on climate change.

Right.  I’m sure you’d be much more likely to listen to them were they all living in tents and sending out messages on scrolls.

I would be more likely to listen when they take their own cause seriously. 

Actions speak louder than words.

I know that he isn't a scientist (although he probably thinks that he is) but an example of what you're talking about is Leonardo DiCaprio. He travels all over the world on a private jet to speak on global warming. But it's OK because he drives a Prius. He would have to drive that little weiniemobile about 100 lifetimes for it to equal out. 

Or simply offset the carbon.

Carbon offsets are like paying someone to be faithful to their wife so you can cheat on yours. People need to walk the walk, or STFU.

I don’t think anyone is calling for any and all air travel to stop.  Even if it did, it wouldn’t be enough, and besides it’s simply not practical.  No, successfully addressing climate change will take a broad set of policy and technological initiatives.  

What was in my post that led you to comment about anyone calling for any and all air traffic to stop? I was simply talking about a self important, hypocritical douche nozzle, who when flying somewhere for a global warming summit, does not need to fly on a private jet. If he, and others like him, fly on a private jet for vacations, that would be one thing. However, can they be so stupid as not to see the hypocrisy of flying private to go to a global warming summit? Oh, wait, I forgot, they buy carbon offsets.

DMW

Just watch the video I posted earlier. 

JohnInCarolina

bgebrent said:

John,
Suppose we took up those policy and technological changes.  If we do, yet others don’t, is there still a positive outcome?  Or if we don’t and others do?  Lots of politics in play not to mention capital both public and private.  What do you envision as the solution?

If we do and others don’t, the answer is no, there is not a positive outcome.  It’s a global problem, one that will require the sort of global leadership that the US used to be willing to provide.  

My own view is that we are screwed.  We are facing the largest collective action problem our species has ever faced, and I believe we will fail.  History will not look fondly on the lack of action during this time, and the missed opportunities.

TEXASBGE2018

nolaegghead said:

Man, unbelievable.  The "hypocrisy argument" -- because someone flies in planes or drives a car is the weakest sauce and just shows you a) probably wouldn't thrive in debate class...and b) don't understand the problem.

No one is saying generating *ALL* CO2 is bad.  We're looking at a global system.

"But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years)."

All animals create CO2, yeasts generate CO2.  We're talking about macro shifts in collective human behavior, which caused this, with exponential human population growth and industrialization.  No one is talking about banning planes, which will run on fossil fuels for the indeterminate future.  What the world (except for the Trump administration) is trying to do is solve the problem and knock the human industrialization's contribution down to levels the planet can absorb, through the natural process of absorption in the ocean (but not too much because of acidification - CO2 creates acidity through carbonic acid).   Obviously this needs to be done on a global scale or we are f*cked, we already might be, but mitigation is the key.

Most people, countries, government and corporations, even oil companies, see the science, the trends.  They want to thrive, and moving forward, we will advance in science and technology and will (and *ARE) getting more efficient.  From LED lightbulbs to higher fuel efficiency and increasing SEER in HVAC, things have been getting much more efficient.

The same idiots that believe the science is a conspiracy theory refuse to push birth control avocation as a US policy in the highest birth rate developing countries that are also at some level developing industrial countries.  Makes sense, right?  No, antithetical to a full solution of managing the planet.

Jets are getting more efficient because it results in higher profit.  Fuel is expensive.  But like I said, that's going to be fossil fueled for a long time.  The low hanging fruit is what needs to be worked on first, and collectively.

Since just about everyone has realized alternative energy sources are the future, ignoring that and pushing legacy fuels like coal are a piss-poor strategy to invest resources in, as the Asia and Europe are proceeding to whip our asses in developing technologies that everyone will be using. 

Dependency on oil and coal doesn't make sense in the long term, but no one is expecting to ever NOT need it.  We should be making plastics from oil, not burning it, if we have the capacity to get energy from other sources.

This development in efficiency and alternate energy sources is a relatively new industry, and it's creating jobs. 

If we don't take the lead, we'll be left behind.  But go ahead and yelp about Hollywood as the boogyman and Al Gore being a hypocrite because he flies in planes.  You are clueless.

Yawn......Don’t you have a work shop to clutter up a bit more?

nolaegghead

SemolinaPilchard said:

JohnInCarolina said:

SemolinaPilchard said:

JohnInCarolina said:

SemolinaPilchard said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

JohnInCarolina said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

GrillSgt said:

I detest people who resist and deny climate change because they are paid to think that way to by the people that contribute the most to climate change. Secondly I detest those that are too stupid to see that. 

I detest scientist who fly all over the world going to symposiums on climate change.

Right.  I’m sure you’d be much more likely to listen to them were they all living in tents and sending out messages on scrolls.

I would be more likely to listen when they take their own cause seriously. 

Actions speak louder than words.

I know that he isn't a scientist (although he probably thinks that he is) but an example of what you're talking about is Leonardo DiCaprio. He travels all over the world on a private jet to speak on global warming. But it's OK because he drives a Prius. He would have to drive that little weiniemobile about 100 lifetimes for it to equal out. 

Or simply offset the carbon.

Carbon offsets are like paying someone to be faithful to their wife so you can cheat on yours. People need to walk the walk, or STFU.

I don’t think anyone is calling for any and all air travel to stop.  Even if it did, it wouldn’t be enough, and besides it’s simply not practical.  No, successfully addressing climate change will take a broad set of policy and technological initiatives.  

What was in my post that led you to comment about anyone calling for any and all air traffic to stop? I was simply talking about a self important, hypocritical douche nozzle, who when flying somewhere for a global warming summit, does not need to fly on a private jet. If he, and others like him, fly on a private jet for vacations, that would be one thing. However, can they be so stupid as not to see the hypocrisy of flying private to go to a global warming summit? Oh, wait, I forgot, they buy carbon offsets.

This is you not understanding the problem.

JohnInCarolina

SemolinaPilchard said:

JohnInCarolina said:

SemolinaPilchard said:

JohnInCarolina said:

SemolinaPilchard said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

JohnInCarolina said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

GrillSgt said:

I detest people who resist and deny climate change because they are paid to think that way to by the people that contribute the most to climate change. Secondly I detest those that are too stupid to see that. 

I detest scientist who fly all over the world going to symposiums on climate change.

Right.  I’m sure you’d be much more likely to listen to them were they all living in tents and sending out messages on scrolls.

I would be more likely to listen when they take their own cause seriously. 

Actions speak louder than words.

I know that he isn't a scientist (although he probably thinks that he is) but an example of what you're talking about is Leonardo DiCaprio. He travels all over the world on a private jet to speak on global warming. But it's OK because he drives a Prius. He would have to drive that little weiniemobile about 100 lifetimes for it to equal out. 

Or simply offset the carbon.

Carbon offsets are like paying someone to be faithful to their wife so you can cheat on yours. People need to walk the walk, or STFU.

I don’t think anyone is calling for any and all air travel to stop.  Even if it did, it wouldn’t be enough, and besides it’s simply not practical.  No, successfully addressing climate change will take a broad set of policy and technological initiatives.  

What was in my post that led you to comment about anyone calling for any and all air traffic to stop? I was simply talking about a self important, hypocritical douche nozzle, who when flying somewhere for a global warming summit, does not need to fly on a private jet. If he, and others like him, fly on a private jet for vacations, that would be one thing. However, can they be so stupid as not to see the hypocrisy of flying private to go to a global warming summit? Oh, wait, I forgot, they buy carbon offsets.

Right, it’s just incredibly weak sauce for an argument.  The point you are making is missing the forest for Gilbert Grape in a tree.

SaintJohnsEgger

nolaegghead said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

JohnInCarolina said:

The only pro-life people I believe are those who are out protesting abortion clinics every day and threatening to kill the doctors who perform the procedures.  Otherwise, my view is that they don’t really believe that it’s wrong or that abortion is murder.  They’re just putting on a show for their evangelical friends.

So using your argument the only global warming advocates that we should believe are the ones that walk everywhere and live off grid. Otherwise they don't really believe in global warming and are putting on a show for their friends or are in it for the money.

You are so lacking in basic world knowledge in this regard you are irrelevant to talk to about this, just a waste of time and energy.

Yet you still want to argue. I'm just trying to point out the hypocrisy/fallacies on both sides. But all some people want to do is attack Trump or prolife advocates. Like that proves anything.

I have to be up until midnight so I'll be here running up my post count with sh!tposting so that I can be part of the in crowd. But I have to be careful to not go ever 17,000 for some reason that still alludes me. Maybe its part of that missing world knowledge.

SemolinaPilchard

nolaegghead said:

SemolinaPilchard said:

JohnInCarolina said:

SemolinaPilchard said:

JohnInCarolina said:

SemolinaPilchard said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

JohnInCarolina said:

SaintJohnsEgger said:

GrillSgt said:

I detest people who resist and deny climate change because they are paid to think that way to by the people that contribute the most to climate change. Secondly I detest those that are too stupid to see that. 

I detest scientist who fly all over the world going to symposiums on climate change.

Right.  I’m sure you’d be much more likely to listen to them were they all living in tents and sending out messages on scrolls.

I would be more likely to listen when they take their own cause seriously. 

Actions speak louder than words.

I know that he isn't a scientist (although he probably thinks that he is) but an example of what you're talking about is Leonardo DiCaprio. He travels all over the world on a private jet to speak on global warming. But it's OK because he drives a Prius. He would have to drive that little weiniemobile about 100 lifetimes for it to equal out. 

Or simply offset the carbon.

Carbon offsets are like paying someone to be faithful to their wife so you can cheat on yours. People need to walk the walk, or STFU.

I don’t think anyone is calling for any and all air travel to stop.  Even if it did, it wouldn’t be enough, and besides it’s simply not practical.  No, successfully addressing climate change will take a broad set of policy and technological initiatives.  

What was in my post that led you to comment about anyone calling for any and all air traffic to stop? I was simply talking about a self important, hypocritical douche nozzle, who when flying somewhere for a global warming summit, does not need to fly on a private jet. If he, and others like him, fly on a private jet for vacations, that would be one thing. However, can they be so stupid as not to see the hypocrisy of flying private to go to a global warming summit? Oh, wait, I forgot, they buy carbon offsets.

This is you not understanding the problem.

Sure, got it.

JohnInCarolina

bgebrent

JohnInCarolina said:

bgebrent said:

John,
Suppose we took up those policy and technological changes.  If we do, yet others don’t, is there still a positive outcome?  Or if we don’t and others do?  Lots of politics in play not to mention capital both public and private.  What do you envision as the solution?

If we do and others don’t, the answer is no, there is not a positive outcome.  It’s a global problem, one that will require the sort of global leadership that the US used to be willing to provide.  

My own view is that we are screwed.  We are facing the largest collective action problem our species has ever faced, and I believe we will fail.  History will not look fondly on the lack of action during this time, and the missed opportunities.

I concur.  The global leadership lacking abounds and our previous leaders were paper tigers on this for the most part barring partisanship nuance.
Sold my beachfront property.  
There most likely is no collective action man could take today that would make any dramatic difference in our future.  Not a Nihilist.  But I am a realist.

nolaegghead

TEXASBGE2018 said:

nolaegghead said:

Man, unbelievable.  The "hypocrisy argument" -- because someone flies in planes or drives a car is the weakest sauce and just shows you a) probably wouldn't thrive in debate class...and b) don't understand the problem.

No one is saying generating *ALL* CO2 is bad.  We're looking at a global system.

"But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years)."

All animals create CO2, yeasts generate CO2.  We're talking about macro shifts in collective human behavior, which caused this, with exponential human population growth and industrialization.  No one is talking about banning planes, which will run on fossil fuels for the indeterminate future.  What the world (except for the Trump administration) is trying to do is solve the problem and knock the human industrialization's contribution down to levels the planet can absorb, through the natural process of absorption in the ocean (but not too much because of acidification - CO2 creates acidity through carbonic acid).   Obviously this needs to be done on a global scale or we are f*cked, we already might be, but mitigation is the key.

Most people, countries, government and corporations, even oil companies, see the science, the trends.  They want to thrive, and moving forward, we will advance in science and technology and will (and *ARE) getting more efficient.  From LED lightbulbs to higher fuel efficiency and increasing SEER in HVAC, things have been getting much more efficient.

The same idiots that believe the science is a conspiracy theory refuse to push birth control avocation as a US policy in the highest birth rate developing countries that are also at some level developing industrial countries.  Makes sense, right?  No, antithetical to a full solution of managing the planet.

Jets are getting more efficient because it results in higher profit.  Fuel is expensive.  But like I said, that's going to be fossil fueled for a long time.  The low hanging fruit is what needs to be worked on first, and collectively.

Since just about everyone has realized alternative energy sources are the future, ignoring that and pushing legacy fuels like coal are a piss-poor strategy to invest resources in, as the Asia and Europe are proceeding to whip our asses in developing technologies that everyone will be using. 

Dependency on oil and coal doesn't make sense in the long term, but no one is expecting to ever NOT need it.  We should be making plastics from oil, not burning it, if we have the capacity to get energy from other sources.

This development in efficiency and alternate energy sources is a relatively new industry, and it's creating jobs. 

If we don't take the lead, we'll be left behind.  But go ahead and yelp about Hollywood as the boogyman and Al Gore being a hypocrite because he flies in planes.  You are clueless.

Yawn......Don’t you have a work shop to clutter up a bit more?

Yep, about to go out there and enjoy it.

JohnInCarolina

TEXASBGE2018

nolaegghead said:

TEXASBGE2018 said:

nolaegghead said:

Man, unbelievable.  The "hypocrisy argument" -- because someone flies in planes or drives a car is the weakest sauce and just shows you a) probably wouldn't thrive in debate class...and b) don't understand the problem.

No one is saying generating *ALL* CO2 is bad.  We're looking at a global system.

"But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years)."

All animals create CO2, yeasts generate CO2.  We're talking about macro shifts in collective human behavior, which caused this, with exponential human population growth and industrialization.  No one is talking about banning planes, which will run on fossil fuels for the indeterminate future.  What the world (except for the Trump administration) is trying to do is solve the problem and knock the human industrialization's contribution down to levels the planet can absorb, through the natural process of absorption in the ocean (but not too much because of acidification - CO2 creates acidity through carbonic acid).   Obviously this needs to be done on a global scale or we are f*cked, we already might be, but mitigation is the key.

Most people, countries, government and corporations, even oil companies, see the science, the trends.  They want to thrive, and moving forward, we will advance in science and technology and will (and *ARE) getting more efficient.  From LED lightbulbs to higher fuel efficiency and increasing SEER in HVAC, things have been getting much more efficient.

The same idiots that believe the science is a conspiracy theory refuse to push birth control avocation as a US policy in the highest birth rate developing countries that are also at some level developing industrial countries.  Makes sense, right?  No, antithetical to a full solution of managing the planet.

Jets are getting more efficient because it results in higher profit.  Fuel is expensive.  But like I said, that's going to be fossil fueled for a long time.  The low hanging fruit is what needs to be worked on first, and collectively.

Since just about everyone has realized alternative energy sources are the future, ignoring that and pushing legacy fuels like coal are a piss-poor strategy to invest resources in, as the Asia and Europe are proceeding to whip our asses in developing technologies that everyone will be using. 

Dependency on oil and coal doesn't make sense in the long term, but no one is expecting to ever NOT need it.  We should be making plastics from oil, not burning it, if we have the capacity to get energy from other sources.

This development in efficiency and alternate energy sources is a relatively new industry, and it's creating jobs. 

If we don't take the lead, we'll be left behind.  But go ahead and yelp about Hollywood as the boogyman and Al Gore being a hypocrite because he flies in planes.  You are clueless.

Yawn......Don’t you have a work shop to clutter up a bit more?

Yep, about to go out there and enjoy it.

Im actually really jealous. It looks like the ultimate man cave.

JohnInCarolina

TEXASBGE2018 said:

nolaegghead said:

TEXASBGE2018 said:

nolaegghead said:

Man, unbelievable.  The "hypocrisy argument" -- because someone flies in planes or drives a car is the weakest sauce and just shows you a) probably wouldn't thrive in debate class...and b) don't understand the problem.

No one is saying generating *ALL* CO2 is bad.  We're looking at a global system.

"But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years)."

All animals create CO2, yeasts generate CO2.  We're talking about macro shifts in collective human behavior, which caused this, with exponential human population growth and industrialization.  No one is talking about banning planes, which will run on fossil fuels for the indeterminate future.  What the world (except for the Trump administration) is trying to do is solve the problem and knock the human industrialization's contribution down to levels the planet can absorb, through the natural process of absorption in the ocean (but not too much because of acidification - CO2 creates acidity through carbonic acid).   Obviously this needs to be done on a global scale or we are f*cked, we already might be, but mitigation is the key.

Most people, countries, government and corporations, even oil companies, see the science, the trends.  They want to thrive, and moving forward, we will advance in science and technology and will (and *ARE) getting more efficient.  From LED lightbulbs to higher fuel efficiency and increasing SEER in HVAC, things have been getting much more efficient.

The same idiots that believe the science is a conspiracy theory refuse to push birth control avocation as a US policy in the highest birth rate developing countries that are also at some level developing industrial countries.  Makes sense, right?  No, antithetical to a full solution of managing the planet.

Jets are getting more efficient because it results in higher profit.  Fuel is expensive.  But like I said, that's going to be fossil fueled for a long time.  The low hanging fruit is what needs to be worked on first, and collectively.

Since just about everyone has realized alternative energy sources are the future, ignoring that and pushing legacy fuels like coal are a piss-poor strategy to invest resources in, as the Asia and Europe are proceeding to whip our asses in developing technologies that everyone will be using. 

Dependency on oil and coal doesn't make sense in the long term, but no one is expecting to ever NOT need it.  We should be making plastics from oil, not burning it, if we have the capacity to get energy from other sources.

This development in efficiency and alternate energy sources is a relatively new industry, and it's creating jobs. 

If we don't take the lead, we'll be left behind.  But go ahead and yelp about Hollywood as the boogyman and Al Gore being a hypocrite because he flies in planes.  You are clueless.

Yawn......Don’t you have a work shop to clutter up a bit more?

Yep, about to go out there and enjoy it.

Im actually really jealous. It looks like the ultimate man cave.

It is amazing, and it’s all Nola, in more ways than one.

GATraveller

A.I. will destroy us long before climate change so why worry? 

alaskanassasin

nolaegghead said:

This seems suspiciously like a troll-thread, except for a much smarter audience.   hmmmmm....hmmmm

Yes and no

JohnInCarolina

GATraveller said:

A.I. will destroy us long before climate change so why worry? 

I thought Ex Machina was a pretty good movie, all things considered.

GrillSgt

It is so convenient that because an ignorant dooshnozzle preaches about climate change that it gives someone the proof they need that climate change is fake news. 

GrillSgt

It is not illegal to ask for asylum at a border crossing. There is no law that parents and children have to be separated. 

DMW

GrillSgt said:

It is not illegal to ask for asylum at a border crossing. There is no law that parents and children have to be separated. 

Wrong thread.

GrillSgt

Yep

Gulfcoastguy

Okay the big reason that carbon dioxide is rising is the rate of population increase in the developing world. Right now the eart is at more than 7 billion people. But the rate of reproduction is below replacement level in the US, Canada, the UK, and Europe including Russia. Yet the worlds population is still increasing. With the exception of a minor increase last year the carbon dioxide levels of the countries that I named have been dropping for at least 20 years. 
As to me I have driven a 4 cylinder car since 1977, two years I spent a bundle on a 17 SEER heat pump for my all electric 1972 edition house, this year I spent a fortune on a white reflective metal roof. Last months bill was $48 for 740 Kwh. 

Now those complaining about about the environment, ask yourself just what you have done.

YukonRon

People:
It is time to recognize the house is on fire, and our children and grandchildren are trapped upstairs.
What are you prepared to do?
Nothing?
I hope you stand up.

nolaegghead

Gulfcoastguy said:

Okay the big reason that carbon dioxide is rising is the rate of population increase in the developing world. Right now the eart is at more than 7 billion people. But the rate of reproduction is below replacement level in the US, Canada, the UK, and Europe including Russia. Yet the worlds population is still increasing. With the exception of a minor increase last year the carbon dioxide levels of the countries that I named have been dropping for at least 20 years. 
As to me I have driven a 4 cylinder car since 1977, two years I spent a bundle on a 17 SEER heat pump for my all electric 1972 edition house, this year I spent a fortune on a white reflective metal roof. Last months bill was $48 for 740 Kwh. 

Now those complaining about about the environment, ask yourself just what you have done.

Thanks for being more efficient.  Nice to have lower bills, right?

Now lets look at the numbers.

Population growth by natural increase (excludes immigration/emigration)

You can see it's above positive in the US, Canada, UK and Russia, albeit low.  Where it is negative is Japan and much of Europe. 

Now by population growth which includes immigration/emigration:

Looks very similar, except Russia goes negative, from emigration, obviously. Still, the negative growth in Europe is still negative.  That means the immigration isn't keeping up with the negative birth rates.

Now note the CO2 release graph.  BY FAR, the areas of large release are developed nations, and we're talking many orders of magnitude.  That means you can have a billion people in an undeveloped area, but they have a very low per capita CO2 generation, but still get blown away by say, 100 million in a developed nation.  You probably also can see the US and China are the crankin' out the most CO2.

So eventually, as other countries become more industrialized, and thanks to China which is moving in like a dog pack on these countries, turning them into capital resources, this will be an issue.

But lets look at right now: 

Americans constitute 5% of the world's population but consume 24% of the energy. 

Also, fun fact, we have become energy independent with all the exploration in the Obummer years, but we only have about 2-3 % of the proven world oil reserves (something like 15 years to deplete them if we stopped new exploration).  So we have to either constantly find new (and more expensive to extract, usually) reserves, cut our use, or become more dependent on (argh!) foreign supplies.  Sounds like we should be looking to ween ourselves off, eh?

CO2 usage in the countries you named have been dropping, but they're orders of magnitude above average on a per-capita basis. 

I'm not exactly sure of your point, but my exercise here is to show the argument that the growing (mostly 3rd world countries) are not the issue your presentation of data seems to emphasize, at least in terms of mitigating an issue that science is, with a high degree of certainty, modeled as an issue now and potentially world-altering issue in the future.

nolaegghead

*burrp*.  I should stop drinking. It's raising my CO2 level via flatulence.

nolaegghead

Actually, probably through urination.