Slashdot Mirror

https://www3.epa.gov/climatech...

It is starting to happen, and with solar, wind, and nat gas becoming cheaper than coal, it will happen quicker. Now that China is on board as well, maybe some real change will happen.

What I wonder is, who will stop those horrible polluters in Australia and Saudi Arabia?

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_w...

But nothing says those grants must reach a pre-decided conclusion. It's purely an assumption that these academics would not get grants to study other aspects of the climate, should global warming be disproved.

That's not an "assumption" at all. For example, all the EPA grants on climate change research already presume that it is happening and that it needs to be stopped: https://www.epa.gov/climate-re...

In fact, I have no idea what "disproving global warming" is even supposed to mean. Climate change activists have a never-ending barrage of supposed disaster scenarios that are going to happen that there aren't enough scientists in the world to check scientifically.

You know what would cause that even faster than your grant not being renewed? Getting caught lying about your results, or showing consistent bias.

Quite the opposite: people who don't agree with the party line on climate change find it almost impossible to publish, get academic positions, or get research grants. This is nothing new either; the same bullshit was happening with governmental dietary guidelines, which have been unraveling the last few years, but not after causing millions of people to become sick unnecessary.

Again, I find it amazing that people simply refuse to see the distorting influence of such large sums of money on the public debate, despite the oil and coal industry demonstrating it for decades.

We aren't talking about "the public debate" here, we are talking about the credibility and bias of academics and scientists, and the pressures they are under. Furthermore, the idea that oil companies are somehow able to buy more publicity or influence the debate significantly compared to thousands of government employees, a president that merely needs to fart in order to be on the news, and government budgets that run into the trillions is laughable. In addition, most people speaking out against the AGW FUD have nothing to do with the fossil fuel industry.

Let me be clear about it: human CO2 emissions cause the planet to warm moderately; Exxon knew that, and there is good evidence for that, but that fact is nearly irrelevant to climate change activism, and it's not what we are talking about here.

It's going to take decades, even in China:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And the numbers aren't anywhere near as good as you might think:

https://gailtheactuary.files.w...

Electric cars are a harder sell:

http://www.bls.gov/green/elect...

And are contributing to much higher peak energy usage (some rapid chargers are 45KW or more).

However, their impact is limited. To get people to ditch ICE and go all EV, what would that take? We're talking replacing 75 million annual car sales into EV that are currently selling in the hundreds of thousands at best.

Even at TEN TIMES that rate, it will be decades before it makes a dent in total car ownership.

And total greenhouse gas emission of them isn't as large as you might think:

https://www3.epa.gov/climatech...

(Don't forget that "transportation" at 1/4 of total emissions includes support for industry which makes up another 1/4.) Assuming you cut car emissions and electricity emissions BY HALF over the next, what, century? That's only 25% of current emissions. Which takes us back to 1991 levels of emissions, roughly.

So by two major, radical changes in policy (energy production and transport), with millions of knock-on effects (how do you convince people to buy new EV cars?), and assuming quite good ratios of conversion, efficiency, discounting "cost", and investing decades of work, we might get back to where we were... two decades ago.

I'm literally googling this as I go, I'm not claiming it as gospel. But even TRYING to follow that path, I can't see the way out that would make any significant difference. Certainly not compared to, say, doubling the price of electricity or fuel by taxation, for instance.

Which is a paperwork exercise that can be reverted in a day.

"One of the worst disasters in US history"? Cows and other livestock release 238 million metric tons of methane per year [source]. The estimated 97,100 metric tons from this leak amounts to a whopping 0.04% of that amount.

Using the CO2 car data from here: https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cons... and the CO2 to methane values here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... I get either 1.9M cars (20yr time horizon) or around 750K cars (100yr time horizon)

Welll, that sucks for sure, but it's a rounding error in annual methane emission calculations.

>> the real misinformation would be continuing to spread the lie that CO2 will have a significant impact on temperature increase,

Is this some attempt at humour that I'm just not getting, or do you _actually_ believe that CO2 is having no significant impact?

http://climate.nasa.gov/causes...
http://www3.epa.gov/climatecha...
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessm...

Well, if you audit your food you will be disgusted...
http://www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulation/guidancedocumentsregulatoryinformation/sanitationtransportation/ucm056174.htm
If that's too long, CBS made a little photo tour
http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/11-revolting-things-government-lets-in-your-food/
and then there is water, no simple chart from the EPA on that...
http://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/drinking-water-rule-quick-reference-guides.

We got to the point that you have to roll your own BIOS. So we have already lost, for if we go to all that trouble, we will have the only secure machine, as far as we know... and what will we hook it to?

No superfund site has been created for activities that has taken place after 1986. The private sector simply doesn't operate that way anymore.

That is entirely unknown. They are still adding locations so they may just not have gotten to them yet. Full disclosure: I have not fully researched this topic, my conclusions are based on the fact that sites are still being added, and incidents like this mine spill and these leaks and these incidents. The latter was only not a fund candidate because a) company had significant resources and b) cleanup needed to happen asap.

Co2 most definitely is born by the private sector. Almost all negative aspects if any are actually measurable are realized through reduced costs of products and lowered land values (most of which is controlled or owned by the rich who can afford the losses ).

You are partially correct, the costs are born by the land owners, many of whom are not rich, as they don't hold the mineral rights. Perhaps you should take a good look at the issues around fracking wells and who bears the cost. Here's a hint, it's not the company and in many cases not the land owners that are affected.

For example, see the exemptions for fracking in the US. Or the EPA fear-mongering over radon, or the selective application of regulations based on the discredited LNT theory. No gas, coal, or hydrothermal plants would be allowed to operate, if they were held to the same unreasonable radiation standards applied to nuclear. For an idea of just how absurd the EPA's regulations are, the limits are set below what is found in a person, owing to the natural occurring yet radioactive potassium.

Citation on the mines causing radioactive contamination?

Ask and ye shall receive. http://www.nti.org/analysis/ar...

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/...

http://toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/tex...

http://cumulis.epa.gov/supercp...

http://thestarphoenix.com/busi...

http://masecoalition.org/navaj...

http://worstpolluted.org/proje...

http://technology.infomine.com...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...

http://forgottennavajopeople.o...

http://www.sric.org/uranium/do...

https://www.researchgate.net/p...

http://nuclear-news.net/2011/0...

http://thestarphoenix.com/busi...

On Jan 25th, 2016 "the world will reach a point of no return".

Of course, the world did not just continue on its pre-2006 path, but has been making changes. In the US and Europe, GHG emissions are down by 5-10%. Even globally, CO2 emissions seem to be leveling off and that before the recent global agreement. Nevermind that the "point of no return" was about conditions likely to produce a couple of degrees temperature rise in 2100, not the date when New York City would be taken back into the sea.

Sure, the activists tend to use worse-case predictions (in exactly the same way that the "deniers" use better-case predictions). But it's disingenuous to pick out some 10-year old predictions, ignore the corrective actions taken to prevent disaster, and claim that the predictors were idiots. Remember the Y2K problem and how it turned out to be no-big-deal? That's not an argument to ignore the Epoch bug.

There are nitrogen oxides that arguably contribute to global warming (and some that arguably have a cooling effect.)

As a source, I guess the EPA is no one: http://www3.epa.gov/climatecha...

While total N2O emissions are much lower than CO2 emissions, N2O is approximately 300 times more powerful than CO2 at trapping heat in the
atmosphere (IPCC 2007). Since 1750, the global atmospheric concentration of N2O has risen by approximately 20 percent (IPCC 2007 and NOAA/ESRL 2015).

http://www3.epa.gov/climatecha...

Granted, if we want to be pedantic about what "nitrogen" means then that's not nitrogen gas (N2).

There are nitrogen oxides that arguably contribute to global warming (and some that arguably have a cooling effect.)

As a source, I guess the EPA is no one: http://www3.epa.gov/climatecha...

While total N2O emissions are much lower than CO2 emissions, N2O is approximately 300 times more powerful than CO2 at trapping heat in the
atmosphere (IPCC 2007). Since 1750, the global atmospheric concentration of N2O has risen by approximately 20 percent (IPCC 2007 and NOAA/ESRL 2015).

http://www3.epa.gov/climatecha...

Granted, if we want to be pedantic about what "nitrogen" means then that's not nitrogen gas (N2).

Why do you imagine that a majority of the American public is hardly concerned? Are they all nuts? [Lonny Eachus]

Why did US NAS & 12 other science academies say this? Are they all nuts? "... the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable." [Dumb Scientist]

because the data was fudged and we all know it now. Nice try, genius. [SmallCorpses4Sale]

Can you link credible evidence that data cited by the NAS statement was "fudged"? Who's the guilty fudging culprit? [Dumb Scientist]

www3.epa.gov/climatechange/...

principia-scientific.org/breaking-new-c... [SmallCorpses4Sale, 2015-12-11]

Your first link is credible, but it doesn't claim that data cited by the NAS statement were "fudged". If you disagree, please quote the relevant passage explaining what data was "fudged".

Your second link leads to one of the many baseless accusations from PSI Sky Dragon Slayer "Steven Goddard". If that's the most credible evidence you can find, please understand that some American patriots might find the US National Academy of Sciences more credible than a rant on a conspiracy theory website run by psychopathic pedophile John O'Sullivan.

And even the baseless accusations on that conspiracy theory website only pertain to US temperature data. Were those data cited by the NAS statement? No. It's difficult to imagine a dozen other countries signing a statement citing data over a mere ~2% of Earth's surface. Why would that matter to them? Why would such a tiny cherry-picked sample matter to any scientist diagnosing global warming?

Scientists studying global warming use global data. If "Steven Goddard's" conspiracy theories were true, wouldn't raw global data show less warming (or maybe even cooling!) over the last century compared to the "fudged" global surface data?

But once again that's not true. Karl et al. 2015 Fig 2(b) (backup) shows that NOAA's global raw surface temperatures ("without corrections") have warmed faster than the corrected (fudged?) temperatures.

Isn't that the exact opposite of what you'd expect from a conspiracy to "fudge" global warming data?

"The countries that have refused to sing/ratify"

Who are they?

The US (signed, but never ratified)
Canada (ratified, then withdrew in 2011)
Andorra
South Sudan
Palestine
The Vatican.

"collectively reduced their carbon emissions"

Ok, I'll ignore the minnows (I assume I can ignore the CO2 emissions of Andorra).

The idea is to reduce emissions from the 1990 base line, so how have the US and Canada done?

Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in te United States increased by about 7% between 1990 and 2013.

and. looking at the graph, emissions rose steadily to 2008 then fell quite a bit. Seems causing a major economic downturn is the way the US cuts its emissions, not fracking.

And Canada? Same story, rose from 600 megatonnes C to 700, steady rise 'till 2008, sudden drop, then a slow rise since 2010-2011..

"by more than those that did sign up".

Well, no. The EU and Russia have reduced their emissions since 1990, Japan has very slightly increased them, but nothing like the emissions growth of the US or Canada.

Looks like you need to do a little more reading.

To put that into perspective, the EPA reports the average annual NOx production for a passenger vehicle is about 18.32 lbs. If we say 1 lb per hour, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, that's 8760 lbs. Or about 478 cars. That's a worst-case if you're running it every second of the year. That's serious, but I wouldn't put it in the same category as knowingly and willfully cheating on smog tests. If they built more than 478 cars in a year, its still a net benefit.

I agree that moving away from IC engines would be good for the enviironment, and I agree that motor vehicles are a significant contributor to human-caused emissions of greenhouse gasses, but lets get this into persspective:
  The entire transportation sector only accounts for about 27% of the total man-made greenhouse gas (MMGG) emissions:
http://www3.epa.gov/climatecha...

Of that 27%, Road transport accounts for 72%,
http://www3.epa.gov/climatecha...
the rest is aviation and marine. That means about 19% of all MMGG is road vehicles.
From http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/clima...
  About 23% of that 19% is from heavy duty vehicles (so 18 wheelers etc are responsible for 4.37% of all MMGG), which means that all the millions of family cars on the road are actually only responsible for 14.6%.
Clearly we need to target electricity generation (31%) and industry (21%) long before just beating up on car drivers more.

I agree that moving away from IC engines would be good for the enviironment, and I agree that motor vehicles are a significant contributor to human-caused emissions of greenhouse gasses, but lets get this into persspective:
  The entire transportation sector only accounts for about 27% of the total man-made greenhouse gas (MMGG) emissions:
http://www3.epa.gov/climatecha...

Of that 27%, Road transport accounts for 72%,
http://www3.epa.gov/climatecha...
the rest is aviation and marine. That means about 19% of all MMGG is road vehicles.
From http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/clima...
  About 23% of that 19% is from heavy duty vehicles (so 18 wheelers etc are responsible for 4.37% of all MMGG), which means that all the millions of family cars on the road are actually only responsible for 14.6%.
Clearly we need to target electricity generation (31%) and industry (21%) long before just beating up on car drivers more.

I agree that moving away from IC engines would be good for the enviironment, and I agree that motor vehicles are a significant contributor to human-caused emissions of greenhouse gasses, but lets get this into persspective:
  The entire transportation sector only accounts for about 27% of the total man-made greenhouse gas (MMGG) emissions:
http://www3.epa.gov/climatecha...

Of that 27%, Road transport accounts for 72%,
http://www3.epa.gov/climatecha...
the rest is aviation and marine. That means about 19% of all MMGG is road vehicles.
From http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/clima...
  About 23% of that 19% is from heavy duty vehicles (so 18 wheelers etc are responsible for 4.37% of all MMGG), which means that all the millions of family cars on the road are actually only responsible for 14.6%.
Clearly we need to target electricity generation (31%) and industry (21%) long before just beating up on car drivers more.

That's actually why I'm a bit skeptical of the EPA claims in this case. The EPA cites only the 2014 Touareg, 2015 Cayenne, and various 2016 Audi models for having the defeat device. But all three of those vehicle lines sharing the same engine all three years. If you found it on those specific vehicles, you'd expect to find it on all those vehicles for all three years because it's the same engine.

same reason Honda was forced to deal with self destructing transmissions in Accords, but not with the exact same transmission installed in Odysseys or ridgelines. if anyone ever finds out what that reason is please let us know.

That's actually why I'm a bit skeptical of the EPA claims in this case. The EPA cites only the 2014 Touareg, 2015 Cayenne, and various 2016 Audi models for having the defeat device. But all three of those vehicle lines sharing the same engine all three years. If you found it on those specific vehicles, you'd expect to find it on all those vehicles for all three years because it's the same engine.

I'm inclined to believe VW on this one. The EPA letter narrows the problem down to an odd mix of vehicles. The 2014 Touareg, the 2015 Cayenne, and various 2016 Audi models. This despite all these vehicles sharing the same 3.0 liter engine each year. If the 2014 Touareg had the defeat device, you'd expect the 2014 Porsche and Audi vehicles to also have it. You'd also expect the 2015 Touareg to have it since it uses the same engine as the 2014 model, but for some reason only the Porsche is flagged as having it for 2015. Also, unlike the 2.0 liter TDI engine scandal, the 3.0 liter engines all use urea injection systems to reduce NOx emissions.

There is something else going on here.

I suspect that the added heat would be tiny compared to displaced fossil fuel-burning carbon emission heat-trapping, but just though someone should crunch the numbers to make sure we wouldn't be shooting ourselves in the foot with this technology.

I'm not in a position to crunch the numbers, but my sense is that redirecting sunlight to replace burning of fossil fuels would be a net advantage when it comes to reducing global warming.

Burning fossil fuels would introduce waste heat, pretty much the same way that using redirected sunlight would. However, burning fossil fuels also introduces greenhouse gases that trap even more heat from sunlight, and these gases can hang around for a very long time.

Other manufacturers of diesel engines just sucked it up and licensed the Daimler urea-injection thing, and don't have these problems.

They only started doing that very recently, on Euro 6 models. Most current diesel cars do not use urea injection. They use (cooled) EGR and/or an NOx adsorber (LNT), like in the affected VW models. Since it has already been shown that almost all current diesel cars (even some that use urea injection) emit far more NOx in real-world situations than they do in test conditions, and several manufacturers have been caught doing things similar to VW's "defeat device", I expect a few more manufacturers to get in trouble.

...Now the real question is Why isn't there serious study of the environmental impact of fracking. Not just from the oil companies, and not just from groups who have a tendency to be environmental extremist. There are enough areas now to measure water quality and other factors and make a good measurements on what pollutants are out there.

Just a couple month ago the USEPA completed a multi-year study of fracking in several areas of the US, which found no risk to groundwater quality. Anti-frackers wrote it off that study claiming the gov't is paid off by the gas companies. Link to USEPA page: http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy

The media doesn't help because creating sensationalist news articles is easier and more profitable than attempting to accurately explain complex geology, petroleum engineering techniques, contaminate migration, geochemistry, and risk evaluation to a general public that can't pay attention longer than it takes them to read a headline and click "share."

FWIW, I have a degree in geology, I am a certified Professional Geologist for Pennsylvania, I am environmental consultant who works with groundwater contamination, I do not work for oil and gas companies, I am generally liberal and typically vote Democrat, and I think fracking is OK. Like anything fracking is not without some risks, but those risks are being greatly exaggerated by the media and activists.

1. EPA is trying to ban wood burning stoves. With that type of trend, in thirty years you will end-up in jail for having a barbecue in your backyard.

2. EPA actually polluted rivers by letting industrial waste/poison to them. 1 million gallons... http://www.denverpost.com/envi...

3. EPA is a money stealing organization, waste of taxpayer's funds. http://www2.epa.gov/sites/prod...

4. And lastly, EPA is cool with fracking. I am not. But because EPA is cool, you are also ok.

EPA is completely incompetent agency, 100% wast of taxpayer's funds, should have been closed. All they do is pretend to be working. And you must be one of those who says more government and more taxes is the best answer to every issue. Perhaps you should leave to North Korea.

You believe that the material in landfills 'flows out into the ocean'?

Have you ever considered that the source of the oceanic plastic waste may not be 'any source of plastic waste we happen to be discussing right now'?
Read this: http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb...

"Only a little bit off"? They emit 10-40 times as much NOx as they're supposed to (EPA source[PDF warning]). That's not "a little bit", that's "actually a fuckload".

Come on.. .. the limit is 0.053 parts per million..... 40 times that 2.12 parts per million. Only in the top 15 polluted cites in the US will the monitors even have a chance of noticing it and that is mostly because there are only 500,000 in the entire US. Europe and Asia the story is obviously different do to the volume of the cars 11M.

-> it looks like this motors are only a bit off in the laboratory test (they are almost EURO 6 - but not without the cheat)

"Only a little bit off"? They emit 10-40 times as much NOx as they're supposed to (EPA source[PDF warning]). That's not "a little bit", that's "actually a fuckload".

-> EURO 6 from VW is fine (see http://www.theicct.org/nox-con...) as other German manufacturers, but some others have problems.

The linked paper only shows test results from a single VW vehicle. Not enough to say anything about VW's general compliance or lack thereof.

I looked up your claim, since you couldn't be bothered to cite a source for your quotation. Sure enough, the EPA has stated "the cars remain legal to drive and resell. Owners of cars of these models and years do not need to take any action at this time."

However, according to this letter from the EPA, emissios-control defeat devices are in violation of EPA regulations and VW further violated regulations by selling these vehicles. So yes, VW knowingly sold their customers defective vehicles that are illegal by EPA regulations. It's absolutely reasonable for consumers to get their full purchase price back, as making the VW emissions "switch" an always-on option significantly reduces the performance and fuel mileage of the vehicles, which was part of their selling point.

I looked up your claim, since you couldn't be bothered to cite a source for your quotation. Sure enough, the EPA has stated "the cars remain legal to drive and resell. Owners of cars of these models and years do not need to take any action at this time."

However, according to this letter from the EPA, emissios-control defeat devices are in violation of EPA regulations and VW further violated regulations by selling these vehicles. So yes, VW knowingly sold their customers defective vehicles that are illegal by EPA regulations. It's absolutely reasonable for consumers to get their full purchase price back, as making the VW emissions "switch" an always-on option significantly reduces the performance and fuel mileage of the vehicles, which was part of their selling point.

Read the EPA complaint: it anticipates the "but they passed the test!" argument and goes into great detail about what the "defeat device" is in this context. And in any case, since VW has admitted wrongdoing, hair-splitting is pointless.

I see this a lot: "hey, they passed the EPA's test, so they're technically not in violation."

Unfortunately, the EPA regs also state that you may not include devices designed to defeat EPA testing. See the EPA complaint for details.

If they use the same shop/lab model to pass EU and USA testing, there must be a switch in there for "Detected_testing_regime == EPA." And they might have intended to turn on the same controls when "vehicle_sold_to == USA," but the guy responsible for that code screwed something up.

Having a different tune in the ECU for every region would be a waste of memory. Just flash the modules with with region specific binary files. Also, your postulation doesn't explain why it passes US emissions tests, but doesn't meet the standards outside of the test environment.

Your are correct, having different modes is allowed by the EPA. It just has to be documented. What VW is actually accused of is switching to a mode that is, "neither described nor justified in applicable COC applications..." They didn't document their code.

Who exactly is "They"?

The original EPA press release specifies NOx emissions.

"This results in cars that meet emissions standards in the laboratory or testing station, but during normal operation, emit nitrogen oxides, or NOx, at up to 40 times the standard."

I skimmed through the Federal Test Procedures, and didn't find an explicit rule saying "car should be in normal operating mode", however, I did not search exhaustively, and this is a SECRET mode.

All modes have to be communicated to the EPA in the certification documents as an AECD (auxiliary emission control device). Volkswagen is in trouble for an AECD that is "neither described nor justified" in certification documents.

There is also a "Not to Exceed" emissions law that was put into effect when manufacturers tried to do something similar years ago. In my opinion as a diesel emissions engineer, (IANAL) Volkswagen violated that regulation as well.

Remember software engineers, always document your code. There could be a legal obligation to do so!

Something like 20+ years ago US emissions standards for cards and light trucks were changed from focusing on percentage pollutants in the tailpipe to "grams per mile".
It has been that way for ages - if you are in the US, go look at the sticker on any new car at a dealership, or check out this EPA document
http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/consu...

Well, the entire synopsis is pretty bad, but that is often the standard on /., isn't it?

Why does the synopsis spend so much time comparing what VAG has done with malware (huh?), but doesn't mention key info like how this issue applies only to diesel-engined cars and their nitrogen oxide emissions?

As far as I been able to tell, the source of the "recall" story seems to be the NY Times story. All I have seen from the EPA is the Notice of Violation. According to the Notice, the investigation is continuing and the issue has been referred to the Justice Department. I think that the recall talk is premature at this point, though it will likely happen at some point. I think VW would need time to develop software and certify its compliance with the Federal standards before any vehicles could be recalled. BTW, one source indicated that, according to the statutes, the fine for this violation is $37500/vehicle, or over $18billion for the number of vehicles involved.

Yes, it is. See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7522.

And there is precedent for this specific case. Ford was fined millions for selling Econoline vans that disabled emissions controls at highway speeds, leading to excessive nitrogen oxide emissions. If anything this seems a more egregious violation. See: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-06/documents/defeat.pdf

You didn't really read it did you?

That's true, I skimmed it and went straight to the paper. Articles tend to be worthless.

It looks like they are getting it from here, in which case carbon from before 2015 should not be valued at $40 a tonne, they should be valued at a lower price. (Incidentally it makes little sense to value CO2 added later at a higher value, because the CO2 added later has a smaller effect).

Maybe an uninformed partisan bigot like you will at least take the information right from the EPA web site?

http://www.epa.gov/climatechan...

Of course, carbon emissions aren't down because of all the money the Obama administration wasted on "alternative energy", they are down because of fracking.

You do know that underground coal mine fires in China produce as much CO2 as the US vehicle fleet, right?

Is what you "know" right however?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_seam_fire#China : "It has been estimated that some 10-200 million tons of coal uselessly burn annually" assuming metric tons that makes 436 million metric tons (or Tg) of CO2.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climat... : U.S. Transportation GHG Emissions by Gas, 2012 (Tg CO2 Equivalent) - only the CO2 produced by passenger vehicles: 759.8.

Where I come from that's almost a factor of 2 more for US cars (and only cars, not even light duty trucks . which may include some SUVs and of course poseur trucks) compared to China's underground coal fires.

One foot of sea level rise is not a loss of one foot of beach, unless the beach has a 45-degree angle. A few feet of sea level rise is going to displace many millions of people.

Yes, because the majority of emissions are from cars, and cars aren't such a minor contributor as to actually be diverting interest and resources away from the major polluters, or even legitimate minor ones

About 13% of global carbon emission is from transportation:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechan...

--although transportation accounts for twice that in the US, 28% of the US emissions:
http://climate.dot.gov/about/t...

about a third of which is cars.

Climate change is not a death sentence. There aren't any reputable scientists saying it is. I think you may have been listening to some sensationalist media stories, and possibly embellishing what they state. If you like, you can read some of the published effects of climate change, and "all life dying" is not one of them.

But if no reputable scientists are saying that climate change is a death sentence, why do articles like the one below keep appearing? It's about Christiana Figueres, leader of the Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Figueres was trained as an anthropologist, but doesn't do anthropology professionally; she's a Costa Rican diplomat. (Being the daughter of the President of Costa Rica probably gave her a leg up here). I'm willing to add a stipulation that anthropologists who have never actually worked as scientists shouldn't be considered as "reputable scientists" on climate models.

It's titled, "The Woman Who Could Save Humanity". http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

Well, if you actually read the article, it doesn't anywhere quote her as saying that climate change will be "a death sentence". In fact, it's primarily an article about how hard it is to get diplomats to agree. The closest it gets to any such statement is the title of the article (and article titles aren't written by the reporter), and a sentence in the article saying that on the well of her office is a picture of the Statue of Liberty waist-deep in water. I'm not sure if we should judge people by the satirical pictures on their walls.

Sounds like what we really need is a tool to annotate extremists on both sides. Why does this tool do that?

I absolutely agree. Accuracy is desired in both directions. We're in luck, though, the tool discussed here does annotate both sides! Here-- from the link in TFA-- is their tool applied to the Rolling Stone article "“The Point of No Return: Climate Change Nightmares Are Already Here”:
http://climatefeedback.org/eva...
--along with the reply by the author, the very first point of which was "I didn't get to write the headline; the headlines are written by the editor."

But if no reputable scientists are saying that climate change is a death sentence, why do articles like the one below keep appearing? It's about Christiana Figueres, leader of the Framework Convention on Climate Change. It's titled, "The Woman Who Could Save Humanity".

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

Sounds like what we really need is a tool to annotate extremists on both sides. Why does this tool do that?

Climate change is not a death sentence. There aren't any reputable scientists saying it is. I think you may have been listening to some sensationalist media stories, and possibly embellishing what they state. If you like, you can read some of the published effects of climate change, and "all life dying" is not one of them.

Climate change is not a death sentence. There aren't any reputable scientists saying it is. I think you may have been listening to some sensationalist media stories, and possibly embellishing what they state. If you like, you can read some of the published effects of climate change, and "all life dying" is not one of them.

I keep hearing this "insect-resistant crops mean less insecticide" argument.

And yet pesticide use in North America has risen exponentially over the past two decades, as GM crops have taken off. (Source: EPA.) So I put that argument firmly in the "pro-IP propaganda" bucket.

Well, your data source doesn't seem to cover two decades. Two years is what I see.

But your problem here is that you started with "insecticide" (which is what insect resistant crops would reduce) and jumped to "pesticides" which is a superset that includes herbicides and fungicides (which insect resistant crops would not affect at all). If you look just at the insecticide field in your own data set, you'll notice that it dropped from 2006 to 2007. If you want to grab 20 years' worth of data, we can look over it, but I'm guessing that the majority of the general pesticide use growth is in herbicides, just like it is for the two year window in that document.

Now to be fair, the increased herbicide use is almost certainly glyphosate used in concert with Roundup Ready crops. Those crops definitely increase herbicide use. But it's a pretty benign herbicide

I keep hearing this "insect-resistant crops mean less insecticide" argument.

And yet pesticide use in North America has risen exponentially over the past two decades, as GM crops have taken off. (Source: EPA.) So I put that argument firmly in the "pro-IP propaganda" bucket.