You have double quote tags at the start of your post, but only one /quote tag at the end. Do you mean for the entire post to be double-quoted?
CAFE standards will increase pollution. The USA should burn through the fossil fuels as fast as possible, lest they are left to countries like India or China, who aren’t exactly driving up emmission standards. It is our duty as Americans to drive the biggest gas guzzling vehicles we can find and burn the fossil fuels with some sort of polluton control.
I see no reason to let another country take the same fuels and piss them straight into the atmosphere sans regulation.
There are X am’ts of fossile fuels to be pumped, and it will result in Y am’t of expelled gases. Let’s blow through it, before someone else does.
Execept, of course, that we have some of the lowest fuel economy standards in the world.
Actually, I agree completely. But the equations for average speed are easier. 
Do you want to calculate out the diffusion rate?
I’d bet money that it’s really somewhere between a month and a year before many of the CO[sub]2[/sub] molecules reach Australia due to the barriers in mixing of air between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, but the point really is that CO[sub]2[/sub] doesn’t stay hanging around over an urban area like particulate smog. Would you agree that CO[sub]2[/sub] disperses far more quickly than particulate smog?
I imagine a molecule could be anywhere in the northern hemisphere within two weeks, and my real mistake was in picking a location on the other side of the equator. But I like Australia - it’s so exotic! 
Fuel economy going up does not = less total pollution output.
It means that we leave more fossil fuels for the Chinese and Indian to burn completely and utterly irresponsibly, without smog controls.
If we don’t use it, they will. Heck, if we don’t drill for it in an environmentally kind way, they will drill for it, without a fucking consideration for our ‘green’ intentions.
The won’t just use the fossil fuels, they will mine them without worrying about anything.
This is a excellent point, if anything we want it drilled for, mines and burned in the US. We should be importing the sour crude instead of the sweet crude. We can burn the dirty stuff far cleaner then them, and they will have a easier time being clean burning the light sweet crude.
It can, and European auto emission standards are tighter than those of the US.
China has ample reserves of coal, which is far dirtier than the coal we have here in the US. If the Chinese feel their oil supplies are being squeezed, they will be inclined, at the very least, to convert some of that coal to gasoline (which is really bad for the environment, far worse than letting them have all the oil they want), if they don’t decide to take military action.
If we try and cut them off from oil, we run the risk of destabilizing the entire global economy.
And what makes you think they will quietly “allow” us to cut them off from oil supplies?
No, actually, what we need is increased education about what science is really about.
Science is about peer review. You think you’ve discovered something - great - so write it up, have a third party refer it to anonymous experts in the field, who give an independent assessment about whether your evidence supports your claims. If it does, the third party publishes it in fixed format with an unambiguous reference.
Journalists are certainly not scientists, but should they ever choose to report on a real science article, there’s no ambiguity about who to contact (the corresponding author is always listed below the article title) or what their evidence was (which is usually published with the article or as an addendum).
It surprises me that not a single person on this thread has cited the two most authoritative scientific papers on this subject. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which is the most complete, and the US National Academy of Sciences Climate Change Report (2001), which is unquestionably the most unbiased assessment of the subject.
When people say, “Scientists say global warming is real and anthropogenic,” they are referring to scientific, peer-reviewed literature - actual science. When people say, “Scientists say global warming is a hoax,” they are referring to blogs, websites, and fictional books - perhaps written by bona fide scientists but not science.
Saying there is a scientific debate on whether humans are (at least partially) causing global warming is a bit like saying there is a scientific debate on whether HIV causes AIDS. You’ll certainly be able to find a scientist - perhaps even a reputable scientist - to stick up for it on a podium, but the scientific literature in scientific journals is heavily slanted in one direction.
It’s true that a lot of pro-AGW journalists are sloppy too. And Al Gore (should anyone want to bring him up) is certainly one of the worst offenders - note the vast discrepancy between his 20’ sea level rises and the 7-23" rises that the IPCC predicts.
The IPCC and NAS have both gone through great pains to make their complicated findings accessible to non-scientists. Both documents cited above have Summaries for Policymakers, a non-technical dumbed-down version so that politicians don’t have to understand radiative forcing.
There’s really no reason (for either side) to keep quoting from blogs and pundit websites when we have these great tools available (for free).
What makes you think Limbaugh has any serious incentive to verify the accuracy of what he states? His listeners don’t tune in for an accurate and objective assessment of facts, they tune in because they like to hear him. Limbaugh has clearly demonstrated over and over that he has no scruples about spouting as much made-up shit as he likes, and his listeners have no objection to hearing it. Where’s his incentive to cramp his style by limiting himself to verified accurate facts?
Well, it depends on the level of journalistic ethics. Just because Limbaugh has once again shown that he personally has no journalistic ethics isn’t enough to persuade me that other media sources must not have any.
Sloppiness and inaccuracy in the news media is definitely a serious issue, but guarding against it requires close scrutiny of individual cases, not just sloppy and inaccurate generalizing from one notorious unscrupulous liar to the entire news industry. Limbaugh’s idiotic blunder doesn’t “prove” the laziness and stupidity of any media sources except Limbaugh himself.
Whatever the merits of this argument in general, it certainly doesn’t hold up in this case. This silly hoax could have been seen through by a moderately intelligent teenager in a college freshman physics class. Come on, a formula including an expression like 2? x ?kxgt -§ mistaken for science? Nobody of even modest layperson-level scientific literacy could see that stuff without an alarm bell going off. Again, Limbaugh’s credulous doofosity in this case is an indictment of nobody but himself.
Cite that the “conventional media” are actually running “the same” (by which I suppose you must mean “equally untrustworthy”) “stories regardless of the truth”?
Holy crapoly, I’ve heard of “guilt by association”, but your absurd tactic of “guilt by opposition” really takes the cake. “Hey, if a stupid and unscrupulous alternative media star fell for an obvious scientific hoax, that proves that mainstream journalists must be doing equally stupid and unscrupulous stuff on the other side of the issue! See? Ya can’t trust any of 'em!”
Pathetic. If Limbaugh or anyone else in the anti-AGW “alternative media” really felt a journalistic obligation to “counterbalance” bias or unreliable science reporting on the part of the mainstream media, they should learn enough of the science (or employ enough people who know enough of the science) to make an honest and informed scrutiny of the mainstream media’s output on these issues. Then they’d actually be contributing something to the cause of knowledge and informed public understanding.
But when they gleefully leap at obvious fool-bait and then get caught with the hook in their mouth, they aren’t exposing anybody’s ignorance or bias but their own. Nor are they doing jack shit to serve any useful journalistic purpose.