Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

My real point is they claim a billion more GT per year when China generates 12 GT per year. 

What I argued was mans additional co2 contribution of 120 ppm didnt seem large enough to be the cause of global warming
Never said co2 did not cause warming

but please go back to sleep as this is obviously a sensitive subjuct for you and I really dont want to see you all riled up

You also posted the youtube of that guy who said that we should be at 1500 ppm CO2. So are you now saying that you don't think it's a good thing if Trump's policies lead to additional CO2 emissions relative to Biden's?

Either way, it's not a hit piece. It's not like they made up anything. It's an analysis of the effects of the policies that candidates state they will implement. Is that not pretty much fair game in political reporting? 

That is true.   The article claims it would rise more under Trump than Biden which seems plausible. 

It claims Biden would do more.  

I guess I'd have to read the article but I'm not sure Trump would start building coal plants or shut down wind farms or shut down electric vehicle manufacturing

It's usually helpful to read an article before forming an opinion on it...

In the “Biden” scenario in the figure below (blue line), all federal climate policies currently in place or in the process of being finalised are assumed to continue. The scenario does not include any new climate policies that might be adopted after November’s election.

The administration’s current climate policies are expected to cut US emissions significantly, bringing the country close to meeting its 2030 target range. Nevertheless, a gap remains between projected emissions and those needed to meet the 2030 and 2050 targets (green).

The “Trump” scenario (red line) assumes the IRA and other key Biden administration climate policies are rolled back. It does not include further measures that Trump could take to boost fossil fuels or undermine the progress of clean energy.

Basically Trump has pledged to reverse the IRA and other certain policies. Whether he would be successful in doing so if elected is unclear (i.e. if the R team didn't have control of both branches of Congress it would make it difficult), but that seems to be the key differentiator where. 

Elsewhere in the article it actually makes clear that his "Drill, baby, drill" target actually isn't even included in this analysis--probably because it's a slogan and may not actually have any concrete policy metrics already defined, so it can't be definitively analyzed. 

It's usually helpful to read an article before forming an opinion on it...

usually

and drilling for oil doesn't contribute much to CO2 emissions

gotta burn baby, burn

ed zachery