Global warming and greenhouse gas emissions are calculated, not measured. There is a problem with this approach.

Climate Change Math in Treaties Flawed by Suspect Pollution Calculations

Euan Nisbet, a University of London earth sciences professor who has traveled the world testing the air for greenhouse-gas pollution, makes his way to a rocky outcropping on the eastern coast of Hong Kong Island on a sunny November afternoon. He takes out a battery-operated pump connected to a thin tube and a plastic bag to capture traces of the wind. "This is a good day for collecting samples," says Nisbet, 61, looking out to sea. "There´s a good, strong breeze blowing in from the mainland. It´s the breath of China." Hooking up his air-sucking device, Nisbet says the world puts too much faith in government estimates of carbon dioxide, methane and other heat-trapping gases blamed for climate change, Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its January issue. That´s because companies and countries base emissions calculations on the raw materials that go into a factory or power plant; they don´t check the pollution that comes out. "It´s like going on a diet without weighing yourself," explains Ray Weiss, a geochemistry professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in California, whose article with Nisbet in the June issue of Science argues for measuring the atmosphere.

(Source: Bloomberg)

Editor's notes: understand that it is far easier and much much less costly simply to estimate the volume of emissions than to actually measure such emissions. And that is exactly what has happened. Look, all of the global warming "doom and gloom" predictions are the result of mathematics models. As a result, none of the Gloom's dire predictions have come true. Gore predicted 20 foot tides in the city of New York; didn't happen. In the Gulf, two seasons have been predicted to be huge hurricane seasons, 2006 (the year after Katrina) and this past season (2010) ; neither proved to be true. In fact, each were less than average as relates to the more serious storms.

If you miss the point of the above article, rather than set up and measure emissions, the scientists have collected information including all the materials used in the manufacturing process and have calculated what the emissions of a particular plant might be .

Dr. Nisbit as far back as 2007, registered this complaint: "Despite Keeling's successes, long-term measurement is simply not valued as 'discovery' science." Source: Nature.com

Point of post: when the working class of this country and the world are the ones who are going to pay for the corrective measures dreamed up by the social justice ruling crowd, The least that should be expected is an all out effort at real-life accuracy and full-blown transparency, even in the face of scientific discoveries that seem to contradict. Instead, the scientific community has disappointed on both levels. Let's not forget the email scandal earlier this year and the its challenge to the credibility of the Warming scientific community.