China To Begin Submitting Air Pollution Reports 176
smitty777 writes "China will start to publish air pollution reports, possibly in response to reports from the U.S. Embassy in Beijing which has been publishing its own data. This report is significant in that it's based on the PM2.5 standard, which measures the more harmful particles that are less than 2.5 microns. This comes on the heels of a separate report that lists China as the worst polluter worldwide. According to this report, China now produces 6,832 m tons of CO2, a 754% increase since 1971. While the U.S. is in second at 5,195 m, this represents an increase of only 21%. This article notes 'the rapid growth in emissions for China, India, and Africa. This will continue as their middle classes buy houses and vehicles. The growth in Middle East emissions is staggering, a reflection of their growing oil fortunes.' While we're on the subject of India, their pollution levels are thought to be responsible for a dense cloud of fog that is so thick it created a cold front, and is repsonsible for a number of deaths."
Re:Stupid numbers (Score:4, Interesting)
But 1971 is such a good year to pick, after a decade of China not only stopping any real industrialization, but instead falling apart in its manufacturing and technological base, while at the same time it was the start of the EPA and the Clean Air Act in the US. It helps skew the numbers the right direction for a politically motivated article.
/sarcasm
China in 1971 might as well have been the Democratic Republic of Congo technology and manufacturing wise, actually I think the Congo today outperforms what all of China did then!
Re:Measuring CO2... only? (Score:3, Interesting)
Oddly enough far, far less then can be made from working with various PR groups (eg. Heartland Institute) denying it. A puzzle writing snakeoil salesman like Monckton makes more money as a travelling climate "expert" than any Nobel prize winner, and it's the same with the various economists that are rolled out to supply the feelgood message that we don't have to do anything.
Do you really think people are freezing their arses off in the coldest places on the planet faking data when they could be at home faking it where it is warm?
This weird science denying crap is annoying.
Well, is that a fact, though?
Also, even if so, that doesn't actually change anything -- because what you are talking about are lobby groups, not scientific researchers. Lobby groups always make a tonne of cash, but take a good look at the number of environmental organizations that are actually lobby groups, there are a great many of them and they all appear to be well funded. Its easy to say, "oh look, this climate change skeptic got paid a bunch.." but look at the other way, entire pro-climate change organizations get massively funded as well.
Let be clear here, I never said that pro-climate change people are "faking data" -- you just made that up, I never said it, and I don't even believe that. What I'm saying is that they have data showing something, and that they seed models with that data and that I doubt those models are as accurate as they believe they are. The only way to actually tell the accuracy of those models is to wait and see what happens.
If you are going to fake data for money, you should at least make the attempt look believable, so yes, you would go and chill out somewhere cold for a little bit even if you just made the numbers up.
Finally, "science" means "testable claims". "weird science denying crap" seems to have nothing to do with anything I've said. Climate research does not turn up a lot of short-term testable claims, and that's the problem with this whole issue, is that actually testing these theories is extremely difficult.