Any reasonable measure of CO2 output - based on productivity or industrial output - shows the US and EU better than the world average, and vastly better than the developing countries, Russia, China and Eastern Europe.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html

If we produce 50% of the world's food, but only 25% of the world's CO2, that should be considered a giant feather in our cap.

People who are so critical of the US need to look at the world more objectively.

Yet another crock of propaganda from the Comedy Broadcast System (where's Dan Rather when you need him? Oh yeah, that's right, out of a job!). B-b-but I thought government (and more of it) was the all caring all feeling way to prevent these things??? I thought they were the catalyists to reduce those evil carbon emissions that will klll us all! And yet again, making the United States the root cause of the world's problems (or phoney problems as this is the case). Same old song. Is it any wonder why CBS News is at the bottom of the ratings?

Affectionately:

The Denier

NOT GUILTY!....;-D....

"If we produce 50% of the world's food, but only 25% of the world's CO2, that should be considered a giant feather in our cap."

Wow, so now you're saying food supply and CO2 emissions linearly related? What a joke. If anything, food supply has more relation to methane emissions.

"only" 25% of the world's emissions...LOL.

Science may have missed something Super Cooling, but I'm being called all kinds of names for pointing at it

For saying that plants release oxygen from water people claiming to be scientists chemists, biologists and horticulturists called me more names in a few hours then had ever been said directly to my face.

At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis, the internet�s largest encyclopedia, I cut and pasted its second sentence under Photosynthesis: �Oxygen is also produced, as a result of splitting water.� I included the address for you to check for yourself.

Several weeks ago, after starting a patent process, I began pointing out on the internet that it appears that theory science has not accounted for earth�s resent 40-90% loss of Atmospheric Photosynthesis, do to the clearing of most of earth�s thick surface vegetation, which would have to have an extreme effect on Global Warming, if this expansion does occur.

At typical earth surface temperatures, when 2 atoms of hydrogen exist in one molecule with one atom of oxygen, they are a condensed into a very dense liquid you may have hard of, water, H2O.
But separated, at these same temperatures, they are very sparse gases unless held under great pressure.

At sea level the difference in weight of water to air is about 800 times. So I added the observation that when Photosynthesis separates the water, (to remove the hydrogen to mix with the carbon they take from Co2 in the air to make Carbohydrates, plant food) the released oxygen (or the space between its atoms) must instantly expand somewhere around 800 times.

If the oxygen released from water did not expand as it reverted back into gas from liquid it would exist at 800 times greater density then the sounding atmosphere at seal level can maintain without being contained, which also means that this density would keep the liquid oxygen at 297.3 degrees below zero (F), (liquid Condensation point for oxygen ).

It would make no difference if Photosynthesis is a thermal, chemical, mechanical or a photo reaction because neither it nor the plants burn or use up the oxygen, so it still started as liquid about 800 more dense then its gaseous state at seal level so no matter what process they theorize about, it still has to expand into our environment. Here is why this may be so important:

Expansion is nature�s only one step super cooling process, for three simple reasons:
1. Heat always comes from a heat source.
2. Cold is only the lack of heat. No heat would be absolute cold.
3. So as matter expands the heat in it is spread out thus casing cooling, unless another heat source, like (friction) was also added.

We often think of heat causing expansion, but the heat came first, as the resulting expansion is the matter trying to cool itself down. A fire cracker may reach 3000 degrees in the first .0001 of a second after it ignites, but before that same second ends it's hottest piece may not be over 300 degrees, still hot enough to burn so we don't notice the cooling of expansion.

An expansion rate of 800 times would be a massive expansion greatly thinning the heat because the same amount must now heat the same mass at 800 times more volume, thus the temperature of the expanded oxygen has to plummet.
But no one making up theories has accounted for this.

It is not easy to notice because earth also gets its new oxygen gas massively cold one molecule at a time spread out over countless square miles of the surface of green vegetation, instead of the nuzzle of a spray can, but we can feel a coolness in leaves during strong growth or food production, on a hot day in direct sun.

So after realizing that earth has been cleared of its natural mechanism that normally counteracts extra heat sources, (more heat causes more sea evaporation thus causing more rain to spark more Photosynthesis), no Global Warming theory can be accurate if they did not account for the bitter cold effects of oxygen�s expansion, being reduced by likely over 50%.

With over one hundred responses that called me names, from people claiming to be pros, the closest they came to explaining how greatly compressed Oxygen does not expand was a guy claiming to be a scientist saying that �the oxygen released by plants comes from CO2, not water, so it is already a gas�.

This is so basic that all theories about GW are not valid without this consideration. So after the science world has pointed out fossil fuels as the cause, it turns out we simple mowed down earth�s natural cooling system.

They blame the CO2 that if the forests were not removed would have been converted into plant food instead of air pollution.

They want to launch a space umbrella when all that is needed is to divert the fresh water that just flows out major rivers into the salty seas (and desalinization) to the hottest deserts, so they can generate massive amounts of Atmospheric Photosynthesis, year around.

Denial is the common reaction of intellectuals when they missed something extremely obvious.

Paul Harvey recently told a "Rest of the Story" about the American Medical Society rejecting the idea that surgeons should also wash their hands for 40 years after some Europeans proved that infections are caused by contamination.

Maybe one year of denial is mistake or an oversight, but 40 years is a standard operating procedure for intellectuals who assume they already know.

I could easily be wrong but not a single response explained how a liquid becomes a gas without expanding, in a way any average person with a calculating mind could comprehend. But they sound so smart from people with loads of letters after their names that most people would feel stupid for questioning their complication. But I know that sweat, a car motor, a tree or a pot of stew turns liquid into gas it expands. So how can that oxygen released from water not expand?

I even had a man claiming to be a research scientist claiming that expansion is not a cooling effect. Go ask any manufacturing engineer about that.

Because everyday I show myself how little I and humanity actually know, I know I am stupid so I'll just keep asking about this likely missing expansion (major missing cooling effect) because that won't make me feel what I already do. So untill someone can explain how this expansion does not happen in a way that can be demonstrated at least in principle, or until sciences admits that it has missed something extremely cold about Global Warming, I'll just keep asking..

Please don't take science's word for things just because they sound smart and complicated, this expansion is only one single step so they should be able to demonstratible it in principle. I won't accept anything else, and the world should not either because if what I suspect is right, then earth's cooling system has been massively reduced by mankind's constant mowing down of earth's thickest vegetation, we may not have 40 years for that typical Intellectual Denial of the most simple things.

One more note, I had a few blow this off because most of earth's oxygen comes from plants in the sea. I don't disagree with that it is just that I see no evidence of an 80% loss in the oceans, just in the atmosphere, and cold sinks anyway.

Steven Craig

Good theory Steven. I never would have thought of that. Please keep digging until you can verify this one way or the other. The implications are enormous.

The oxygen equation is very interesting. When I was growing up in the 70s and 80s, there were frequent media reports stating that the topical rainforests are the lungs of the earth and that cutting them down is a crime against humanity.

The prospect of a reduction in atmospheric oxygen is a very scary indeed. However, O2 data from Moana Loa shows, that from 1991 through 2005, the O2 content of the atmosphere has dropped by 0.00248% of it's initial amount. That is an exceptionally small amount!

It can be concluded that:
a) Mankind is having a negligible effect on oxygen production and consumption. Therefore, oxygen is being produced in the same way, and at the same rate, it has for millions of years. Note that even ice age cycles do not significantly affect atmospheric oxygen.
b) Oxygen is highly unlikely to be driving climate change.

However, there is a twist. Regarding the rate of oxygen change, scientists at Moana Loa state: "The rate is mostly explained by the global combustion of fossil-fuel over this period, although the actual rate is slightly smaller than expected from fossil-fuel alone. The difference evidently reflects a global imballance between photosynthesis and respiration."

Something is obviously going on with photosynthesis and respiration, so global climate models should include the details of these processes.