CO2 emissions in U.S. drop to 20-year low

PITTSBURGH (AP) — In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from dirtier-burning coal.
Many of the world's leading climate scientists didn't see the drop coming, in large part because it happened as a result of market forces rather than direct government action against carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere.
Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, said the shift away from coal is reason for "cautious optimism" about potential ways to deal with climate change. He said it demonstrates that "ultimately people follow their wallets" on global warming.
"There's a very clear lesson here. What it shows is that if you make a cleaner energy source cheaper, you will displace dirtier sources," said Roger Pielke Jr., a climate expert at the University of Colorado.
In a little-noticed technical report, the U.S. Energy Information Agency, a part of the Energy Department, said this month that total U.S. CO2 emissions for the first four months of this year fell to about 1992 levels. The Associated Press contacted environmental experts, scientists and utility companies and learned that virtually everyone believes the shift could have major long-term implications for U.S. energy policy.
While conservation efforts, the lagging economy and greater use of renewable energy are factors in the CO2 decline, the drop-off is due mainly to low-priced natural gas, the agency said.
A frenzy of shale gas drilling in the Northeast's Marcellus Shale and in Texas, Arkansas and Louisiana has caused the wholesale price of natural gas to plummet from $7 or $8 per unit to about $3 over the past four years, making it cheaper to burn than coal for a given amount of energy produced. As a result, utilities are relying more than ever on gas-fired generating plants.
Both government and industry experts said the biggest surprise is how quickly the electric industry turned away from coal. In 2005, coal was used to produce about half of all the electricity generated in the U.S. The Energy Information Agency said that fell to 34 percent in March, the lowest level since it began keeping records nearly 40 years ago.
The question is whether the shift is just one bright spot in a big, gloomy picture, or a potentially larger trend.
Coal and energy use are still growing rapidly in other countries, particularly China, and CO2 levels globally are rising, not falling. Moreover, changes in the marketplace — a boom in the economy, a fall in coal prices, a rise in natural gas — could stall or even reverse the shift. For example, U.S. emissions fell in 2008 and 2009, then rose in 2010 before falling again last year.
Also, while natural gas burns cleaner than coal, it still emits some CO2. And drilling has its own environmental consequences, which are not yet fully understood.
"Natural gas is not a long-term solution to the CO2 problem," Pielke warned.
The International Energy Agency said the U.S. has cut carbon dioxide emissions more than any other country over the last six years. Total U.S. carbon emissions from energy consumption peaked at about 6 billion metric tons in 2007. Projections for this year are around 5.2 billion, and the 1990 figure was about 5 billion.
China's emissions were estimated to be about 9 billion tons in 2011, accounting for about 29 percent of the global total. The U.S. accounted for approximately 16 percent.
Mann called it "ironic" that the shift from coal to gas has helped bring the U.S. closer to meeting some of the greenhouse gas targets in the 1997 Kyoto treaty on global warming, which the United States never ratified. On the other hand, leaks of methane from natural gas wells could be pushing the U.S. over the Kyoto target for that gas.
Even with such questions, public health experts welcome the shift, since it is reducing air pollution.
"The trend is good. We like it. We are pleased that we're shifting away from one of the dirtiest sources to one that's much cleaner," said Janice Nolen, an American Lung Association spokeswoman. "It's been a real surprise to see this kind of shift. We certainly didn't predict it."
Power plants that burn coal produce more than 90 times as much sulfur dioxide, five times as much nitrogen oxide and twice as much carbon dioxide as those that run on natural gas, according to the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress. Sulfur dioxide causes acid rain and nitrogen oxides lead to smog.
Bentek, an energy consulting firm in Colorado, said that sulfur dioxide emissions at larger power plants in 28 Eastern, Midwestern and Southern states fell 34 percent during the past two years, and nitrous oxide fell 16 percent. Natural gas has helped the power industry meet federal air pollution standards earlier than anticipated, Bentek said.
Last year the Environmental Protection Agency issued its first rules to limit CO2 emissions from power plants, but the standards don't take effect until 2014 and 2015. Experts had predicted that the rules might reduce emissions over the long term, but they didn't expect so many utilities to shift to gas so early. And they think price was the reason.
"A lot of our units are running much more gas than they ever have in the past," said Melissa McHenry, a spokeswoman for Ohio-based American Electric Power Co. "It really is a reflection of what's happened with shale gas."
"In the near term, all that you're going to build is a natural gas plant," she said. Still, she warned: "Natural gas has been very volatile historically. Whether shale gas has really changed that — the jury is still out. I don't think we know yet."
Jason Hayes, a spokesman for the American Coal Council, based in Washington, predicted cheap gas won't last.
"Coal is going to be here for a long time. Our export markets are growing. Demand is going up around the world. Even if we decide not to use it, everybody else wants it," he said. Hayes also said the industry expects new coal-fired power plants will be built as pollution-control technology advances: "The industry will meet the challenge" of the EPA regulations.
The boom in gas production has come about largely because of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Large volumes of water, plus sand and chemicals, are injected to break shale rock apart and free the gas.
Environmentalists say that the fluids can pollute underground drinking water supplies and that methane leaks from drilling cause serious air pollution and also contribute to global warming. The industry and many government officials say the practice is safe when done properly. But there have been cases in which faulty wells did pollute water, and there is little reliable data about the scale of methane leakage.
"The Sierra Club has serious doubts about the net benefits of natural gas," said Deborah Nardone, director of the group's Beyond Natural Gas campaign.
"Without sufficient oversight and protections, we have no way of knowing how much dangerous pollution is being released into Americans' air and water by the gas industry. For those reason, our ultimate goal is to replace coal with clean energy and energy efficiency and as little natural gas as possible."
Wind supplied less than 3 percent of the nation's electricity in 2011 according to EIA data, and solar power was far less. Estimates for this year suggest that coal will account for about 37 percent of the nation's electricity, natural gas 30 percent, and nuclear about 19 percent.
Some worry that cheap gas could hurt renewable energy efforts.
"Installation of new renewable energy facilities has now all but dried up, unable to compete on a grid now flooded with a low-cost, high-energy fuel," two experts from Colorado's Renewable and Sustainable Energy Institute said in an essay posted this week on Environment360, a Yale University website.
How much further the shift from coal to natural gas can go is unclear. Bentek says that power companies plan to retire 175 coal-fired plants over the next five years. That could bring coal's CO2 emissions down to 1980 levels. However, the EIA predicts prices of natural gas will start to rise a bit next year, and then more about eight years from now.
Despite unanswered questions about the environmental effects of drilling, the gas boom "is actually one of a number of reasons for cautious optimism," Mann said. "There's a lot of doom and gloom out there. It is important to point out that there is still time" to address global warning.
___
Associated Press writers Seth Borenstein in Washington and Jonathan Fahey in New York contributed to this story.
Many of the world's leading climate scientists didn't see the drop coming, in large part because it happened as a result of market forces rather than direct government action against carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere.
Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, said the shift away from coal is reason for "cautious optimism" about potential ways to deal with climate change. He said it demonstrates that "ultimately people follow their wallets" on global warming.
"There's a very clear lesson here. What it shows is that if you make a cleaner energy source cheaper, you will displace dirtier sources," said Roger Pielke Jr., a climate expert at the University of Colorado.
In a little-noticed technical report, the U.S. Energy Information Agency, a part of the Energy Department, said this month that total U.S. CO2 emissions for the first four months of this year fell to about 1992 levels. The Associated Press contacted environmental experts, scientists and utility companies and learned that virtually everyone believes the shift could have major long-term implications for U.S. energy policy.
While conservation efforts, the lagging economy and greater use of renewable energy are factors in the CO2 decline, the drop-off is due mainly to low-priced natural gas, the agency said.
A frenzy of shale gas drilling in the Northeast's Marcellus Shale and in Texas, Arkansas and Louisiana has caused the wholesale price of natural gas to plummet from $7 or $8 per unit to about $3 over the past four years, making it cheaper to burn than coal for a given amount of energy produced. As a result, utilities are relying more than ever on gas-fired generating plants.
Both government and industry experts said the biggest surprise is how quickly the electric industry turned away from coal. In 2005, coal was used to produce about half of all the electricity generated in the U.S. The Energy Information Agency said that fell to 34 percent in March, the lowest level since it began keeping records nearly 40 years ago.
The question is whether the shift is just one bright spot in a big, gloomy picture, or a potentially larger trend.
Coal and energy use are still growing rapidly in other countries, particularly China, and CO2 levels globally are rising, not falling. Moreover, changes in the marketplace — a boom in the economy, a fall in coal prices, a rise in natural gas — could stall or even reverse the shift. For example, U.S. emissions fell in 2008 and 2009, then rose in 2010 before falling again last year.
Also, while natural gas burns cleaner than coal, it still emits some CO2. And drilling has its own environmental consequences, which are not yet fully understood.
"Natural gas is not a long-term solution to the CO2 problem," Pielke warned.
The International Energy Agency said the U.S. has cut carbon dioxide emissions more than any other country over the last six years. Total U.S. carbon emissions from energy consumption peaked at about 6 billion metric tons in 2007. Projections for this year are around 5.2 billion, and the 1990 figure was about 5 billion.
China's emissions were estimated to be about 9 billion tons in 2011, accounting for about 29 percent of the global total. The U.S. accounted for approximately 16 percent.
Mann called it "ironic" that the shift from coal to gas has helped bring the U.S. closer to meeting some of the greenhouse gas targets in the 1997 Kyoto treaty on global warming, which the United States never ratified. On the other hand, leaks of methane from natural gas wells could be pushing the U.S. over the Kyoto target for that gas.
Even with such questions, public health experts welcome the shift, since it is reducing air pollution.
"The trend is good. We like it. We are pleased that we're shifting away from one of the dirtiest sources to one that's much cleaner," said Janice Nolen, an American Lung Association spokeswoman. "It's been a real surprise to see this kind of shift. We certainly didn't predict it."
Power plants that burn coal produce more than 90 times as much sulfur dioxide, five times as much nitrogen oxide and twice as much carbon dioxide as those that run on natural gas, according to the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress. Sulfur dioxide causes acid rain and nitrogen oxides lead to smog.
Bentek, an energy consulting firm in Colorado, said that sulfur dioxide emissions at larger power plants in 28 Eastern, Midwestern and Southern states fell 34 percent during the past two years, and nitrous oxide fell 16 percent. Natural gas has helped the power industry meet federal air pollution standards earlier than anticipated, Bentek said.
Last year the Environmental Protection Agency issued its first rules to limit CO2 emissions from power plants, but the standards don't take effect until 2014 and 2015. Experts had predicted that the rules might reduce emissions over the long term, but they didn't expect so many utilities to shift to gas so early. And they think price was the reason.
"A lot of our units are running much more gas than they ever have in the past," said Melissa McHenry, a spokeswoman for Ohio-based American Electric Power Co. "It really is a reflection of what's happened with shale gas."
"In the near term, all that you're going to build is a natural gas plant," she said. Still, she warned: "Natural gas has been very volatile historically. Whether shale gas has really changed that — the jury is still out. I don't think we know yet."
Jason Hayes, a spokesman for the American Coal Council, based in Washington, predicted cheap gas won't last.
"Coal is going to be here for a long time. Our export markets are growing. Demand is going up around the world. Even if we decide not to use it, everybody else wants it," he said. Hayes also said the industry expects new coal-fired power plants will be built as pollution-control technology advances: "The industry will meet the challenge" of the EPA regulations.
The boom in gas production has come about largely because of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Large volumes of water, plus sand and chemicals, are injected to break shale rock apart and free the gas.
Environmentalists say that the fluids can pollute underground drinking water supplies and that methane leaks from drilling cause serious air pollution and also contribute to global warming. The industry and many government officials say the practice is safe when done properly. But there have been cases in which faulty wells did pollute water, and there is little reliable data about the scale of methane leakage.
"The Sierra Club has serious doubts about the net benefits of natural gas," said Deborah Nardone, director of the group's Beyond Natural Gas campaign.
"Without sufficient oversight and protections, we have no way of knowing how much dangerous pollution is being released into Americans' air and water by the gas industry. For those reason, our ultimate goal is to replace coal with clean energy and energy efficiency and as little natural gas as possible."
Wind supplied less than 3 percent of the nation's electricity in 2011 according to EIA data, and solar power was far less. Estimates for this year suggest that coal will account for about 37 percent of the nation's electricity, natural gas 30 percent, and nuclear about 19 percent.
Some worry that cheap gas could hurt renewable energy efforts.
"Installation of new renewable energy facilities has now all but dried up, unable to compete on a grid now flooded with a low-cost, high-energy fuel," two experts from Colorado's Renewable and Sustainable Energy Institute said in an essay posted this week on Environment360, a Yale University website.
How much further the shift from coal to natural gas can go is unclear. Bentek says that power companies plan to retire 175 coal-fired plants over the next five years. That could bring coal's CO2 emissions down to 1980 levels. However, the EIA predicts prices of natural gas will start to rise a bit next year, and then more about eight years from now.
Despite unanswered questions about the environmental effects of drilling, the gas boom "is actually one of a number of reasons for cautious optimism," Mann said. "There's a lot of doom and gloom out there. It is important to point out that there is still time" to address global warning.
___
Associated Press writers Seth Borenstein in Washington and Jonathan Fahey in New York contributed to this story.
'while natural gas burns cleaner than coal, it still emits some CO2. And drilling has its own environmental consequences, which are not yet fully understood'.... The decrease in CO2 is good news! However, fracking to obtain natural gas and natural gas itself are not the solution as BOTH continue the destruction of our environment. Fracking destroys the earth's crust, destroys water supply, pollutes water with benzene and other deadly chemicals. Natural gas emits huge quantities of methane and continues the CO2 problem. While better than coal, it isn't the solution to our climate change problem. We need to continue to aggressively move forward with non-polluting renewables if we want to keep the planet livable.
 @ytboarder CO2 is plant food, not "a problem." And, you do realize that Natural doesn't "emit" methane, it IS (mostly) methane?
@RN1 ok, professor
"Many of the world's leading climate scientists didn't see the drop coming, in large part because it happened as a result of market forces rather than direct government action against carbon dioxide..."
Â
Imagine that...
It's actually further proof that if the government incentivizes green technology instead of subsidies for oil and we get off burning coal we'd all have cleaner air to breathe and water to drink.
I'm not a tree hugging hippy but I know clean air is good and I know clean water is good too.
 @ducati I think it requires both - government AND green technology working together. If government isn't pushing with the continual research and focus on the problem, private technology moves on to whatever is the most profitable thing out there which may not be resolving the problem.
 "Global warming" has become a religion, it is based more on faith than it is on fact. 20,000 years ago Seattle was buried under ice 3,412 feet thick! What happened to all that ice? Well, the planet warmed and it melted. In fact what we see today is the continuation of that warming. The planet has been in a warming cycle for 20,000 years and SUV's, humans, CO2, and Al Gore have nothing to do with it. One day the warming will stop and the cooling will begin. Eventually we will experience another ice age and there isn't a reputable scientist alive that will dispute that. It is called nature and there is nothing anyone, including Al Gore can do to stop it. When are you liberals going to wake up and realize Al Gore has played you to the tune of about $100 million. While he has enriched himself at your expense he flies around the world in his private jet warning that the sky is falling. Sensible people sit back and laugh at you.
Â
  http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/pugetsound/tour/geology.html
 @ByeByeBarry You are TOTALLY wrong on this one...haven"t you noted all the research indicating continual changes in our environment that support rapid climate change? Increase in ocean acidification which has lead to the increase in jelly fish (which actually are clogging major release valves for electrical energy, nuclear plants, sewer plants, etc.); the decline in coral reef; the rise of the oceans; the disappearing glaciers; the burning of forest; droughts; the decline in harvest; the enormous increase in temperatures throughout the world - and all of this in a relatively short span of time? What more do you want? At what stage does it all need to reach before we express some level of concern? And if we wait until that point - where EVERYONE, including YOU, are on board - will there be time to work toward correction? Do you have children?
 @ytboarder  @ByeByeBarry Or it could be fishing killing off sea-turtles that are large eaters of jellyfish, iruses killing off the corals, (because some recent research actually shows INCREASED coral growth in higher acidity levels), regular periodic changes melting glaciers (after all, there have been dozens of glaciation events), etc.
@ByeByeBarry
"SUV's, humans, CO2, and Al Gore have nothing to do with it... Sensible people sit back and laugh at you." Please point me to your peer reviewed research that goes contrary to the general scientific consensus. If you have a hard time finding such research it's because it doesn't exist.
Â
I'll repost my link from a previous post:
Â
"The global warming controversy was a variety of disputes about the nature, causes, and consequences of global warming. The debates were more in the popular media than in the scientific literature, and more in the United States than globally. In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases."
Â
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
Â
Allow me to pre-empt your "Wikipedia is written by people don't believe everything you read on the internet" argument by stating that even wiki is peer reviewed and simply points to reputable data sources that support the facts.
 @ducati  @ByeByeBarry You want peer reviewed skeptical research? What, you mean like this list of 1100+ papers?
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Â
When you are done reading those, remind yourself that at one time, the consensus was that the universe was geocentric. "Factually correct" is not a respecter of the egos of scientists.
 @ducatiÂ
Â
Wikipedia is you source...as I said, I am laughing at you.
 @ducati So, follow up on that stat. Look at the study methodology. Lots of surveys sent out, few returned (meaning only the more "motivated" ones came back), and the questions were so badly worded that the study is worthless. What does "significant contributing factor" mean? Measurable? 5%? 25%? 95%? Unknown but a gut feel? Look up the debunking of the "study."
@Glassman where is the money coming from for research to attempt to contradict global warming?
 @ducati Always ask where their money comes from.
 @ByeByeBarryÂ
Â
Wow thanks for giving me a link to support my point further. The graphic on that page has this caption:
Â
"The Doran & Zimmerman study was done for a master's thesis and involved a 9-question survey. The 2009 peer reviewed publication that followed the study reported on 2 of the 9 questions. The study found, in part, that 96.4% of "climatologists who are active publishers on climate change" agree that mean global temperatures have risen "compared with pre-1800s levels", and that 97.4% (75 of 77) agree that human activity "is a significant contributing factor" in temperature change."
Â
So 97.4% of the scientists surveyed all agree "human activity is a significant contributing factor"
 @ducatiÂ
Â
Speaking of breathing, may I suggest you save your breath, you will need it tonight to inflate your date. But seeing as how you consider Wikipedia to be such a valid source of information, against my better judgement I shall lower myself to your level and fight fire with fire.
Â
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
 @ByeByeBarry I don't think it's laughing I think keeping your mouth open with teeth showing is just the way you suck air in to breathe.
Â
Click on link I provided scroll down there are 247 footnotes with published texts supporting that particular wiki page.
Â
Link #1: http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/boykoff04-gec.pdf
"Balance as bias: global warming andthe US prestige press"
Â
"
This paper demonstrates that US prestige-press coverage of global warming from 1988 to 2002 has contributed to a significant
divergence of popular discourse from scientific discourse. This failed discursive translation results from an accumulation of tactical
media responses and practices guided by widely accepted journalistic norms. Through content analysis of US prestige pressâ
meaning the
Â
New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, andthe Wall Street Journalâthis paper focuses on the
norm of balanced reporting, and shows that the prestige pressâs adherence to balance actually leads to biased coverage of both
anthropogenic contributions to global warming andresultant action.
"
"CO2 emissions in U.S. drop to 20-year low."
Â
And yet, we are having the hottest summer in years with the drought impacting food production across the US.
Â
For those of you who preach the "Humans cause Gore-bal warming" mantra, 18,000 years ago Seattle was under a mile to two miles of ice and it has been warming ever since. It must have been those darn Native Americans and their campfires that caused the ice age to recede, right?
Â
Or maybe it was their power plants.
Â
...or their cars...
Â
:-D
Well, I sure the fact that we are in a major global economic slow-down has absolutely nothing to do with human CO2 emissions, right? Because it's not like energy use is an excellent proxy for economic activity and growth or anything...
LOL CO2 was always a false flag issue. Talk to any plant biologist about co2. Read a book. CO2 is not the issue but pollution by other chemicals caused by industrialized civilizations certainly an are.
No one knows whats causing the global warming. Anyone that says they do are lieing. The most likely suspect is just the normal ebb and tide of solar activity.
 @BlindmanÂ
"No one knows whats causing the global warming. Anyone that says they do are lieing"
Â
Clearly you were "lieing" [sic] about reading books.
Â
"The global warming controversy was a variety of disputes about the nature, causes, and consequences of global warming. The debates were more in the popular media than in the scientific literature, and more in the United States than globally. In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases."
Â
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
@ducati @Blindman Ducati, stop "lieing"
 @Blindman "Anyone that says they do are lieing"
Â
are we to take you up as an expert on the whole lieing thing?
@Blindman
Its been widely proven humans are the cause of global warming. There are cycles and swings and no one has ever denied this. But humans have compounded those with our influence on the climate.
Cattle produce methane which causes the same effect as CO2. The warming environment is melting tundra ice which is releasing methane into the environment from frozen bogs. I simply dont understand how you can deny the impact we are having on the climate. Do you honestly believe coal being burned by the hundreds of thousands of tons every year, petroleum combustion, and everything else we do to emit CO2 into the atmosphere is having a benign effect?
Â
Wow, talk about a parallel universe. What stands out about your post is its all theory, and there is no citation or any conclusive evidence supporting your theory. Btw, its spelled "lying".
 @northwestsurfer Ah, yes, "proven" we have made it warmer... Like when we put a trash burn barrel next to a weather station. Like here. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/13/apparently-goverenor-brown-youve-never-visited-the-weather-station-at-lake-tahoe/
I'm sure it doesn't have THAT much effect to burn trash 5 feet from the thermometer shelter, right?
Â
Yes, parallel universe. In my world data is readily shared by honest scientists, and experiments are reproducible. Not in Mann's and the other warmists, though...
 @northwestsurfer Ever had a garden? Which do you think would cause you more problems - two degrees warmer, or two degree cooler? (Hint - cooling would be MUCH worse). And, the climate system is very complex, with LOTS of feedback mechanisms. If it was really that delicate, and easy to throw out of whack, why has it been stable enough to support life for more than a half-BILLION years? Also, read the recent Svensmark CGR paper? It has a pretty good model for cosmic ray variations being a prime driver or climate changes. Good stuff. Besides, human emissions in total are roughly the same amount as the *uncertainty* in natural emissions.
 @northwestsurfer  @RN1 Very witty and articulate reply. You must have thought a long time to come up with that.
@RN1 boy, you sure are dumb
 @northwestsurfer  @RN1 Yup, I'd believe that your knowledge level on the subject is so low that a perfectly cogent response would not be understood by you...
@RN1 I have absolutely no idea what the hell I just read.
 @northwestsurfer  What we need is for Michael "Hide the decline and no, you can't see my methodology or data"  Mann to follow through with his threatened lawsuit against National Review and Mark Steyn for calling him "fraudulent ".  Now THAT is something both sides can agree on, no?
@northwestsurfer@Sid
Essentially, Dr. Mann was called a fraud by Mark Steyn (a stellar writer and quite funny Conservative) in a National Review column.
Â
Dr. Mann had his lawyer write a letter threatening to sue. We, the Naturopathic Climate Changers are chomping at the bit.  A lawsuit would make all the good Dr.'s  data subject to discovery.  Since Dr. Mann has a martyr complex BIG TIME, we guess he won't . But his lawyer says he's not bluffing. He is.
Â
Here's Dr. Mann's fb page with the letter. Also notice the posts that challenge him. Oh... you can't find any? That's because they are all deleted.Â
Â
Â
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.401767799879428.89661.221222081267335&type=1
Â
 Hide the decline...indeed
Â
PS: Â RN1 is smarter than you and I put together. You can learn stuff from him.
Â
Edited for typo 1:20 am PDT
@Sid Vishess Maybe I am slightly naive, but I dont understand your post, or which side you are on.
@northwestsurfer
Hey Sid! Remember Penn State "investigated" and found nothing?
Â
 Penn State= Jerry Sandusky
Â
If they cover up child molesters, they would have NO problem with truth molesters.
Â
 @northwestsurfer So I  posted on his Facebook page and asked "Why do you delete posts that don't agree with you?. Wouldn't a true scientist INVITE debate by laypeople that have legitimate concerns about your data like myself? Being a scientist, you should be able to wipe the floor with them.
Â
Â
Post got deleted...
 @northwestsurfer To make it more interesting, I will declare that AGW is REAL on every one of my posts for a month IF he brings the lawsuit!
Â
Wonder why he hasn't yet? I mean, all his e-mails, data and methodology would be discoverable, right? Then we can PROVE WITHOUT A DOUBT that the AGW Deniers  are wrong!  Â
Â
In other news, a giant paper shredder was delivered to Dr. Mann's office was well as an industrial strength hard-drive wiper...
Â
 And remember kids...
Â
Even if the Earth cools, that is still AGW...