Crossposted with TomDispatch.com.
The UN’s big climate conference ended Saturday in Cancún, with claims of modest victory. "The UN climate talks are off the life-support machine," said Tim Gore of Oxfam. “Not as rancorous as last year’s train wreck in Copenhagen,” wrote the Guardian. Patricia Espinosa, the Mexican foreign minister who brokered the final compromise, described it as "the best we could achieve at this point in a long process."
The conference did indeed make progress on a few important issues: the outlines of financial aid for developing countries to help them deal with climate change, and some ideas on how to monitor greenhouse gas emissions in China and India. But it basically ignored the two crucial questions: How much carbon will we cut, and how fast?
On those topics, one voice spoke more eloquently than all the 9,000 delegates, reporters, and activists gathered in Cancún.
And he wasn’t even there. And he wasn’t even talking about climate.
Barack Obama was in Washington, holding a press conference to discuss the liberal insurgency against his taxation agreement with the Republicans. He said he’d fought hard for a deal and resented the criticism. He harked back to the health-care fight when what his press secretary had called the “professional left” (and Rahm Emanuel had called “retards”) scorned him for not winning a “public option.” They were worse than wrong, he said; they were contemptible, people who wanted to “be able to feel good about ourselves, and sanctimonious about how pure our intentions are and how tough we are.” Consider Franklin Delano Roosevelt, he continued: when he started Social Security it only covered widows and orphans. Medicare, at its start, only helped a relative few. Sanctimonious purists would have considered them “betrayals of some abstract ideal.” And yet they grew.
It was powerful and interesting stuff, especially coming from a man who ran on abstract ideals. (I have t-shirts on which are printed nothing but his name and abstract ideals.) I don’t know enough about health-care policy or tax policy to be sure whether he’s making a good call or not, though after listening to much of Bernie Sanders's nearly nine-hour near-filibuster I have my doubts.
I do know the one place where the president’s reasonable compromises simply won’t work -- a place where we have absolutely no choice but to steer by abstract ideals. That place is the climate.
The terms of the climate-change conundrum aren’t set by contending ideologies, whose adherents can argue till the end of time about whether tax cuts create jobs or kill them. In the case of global warming, chemistry rules, which means there are lines, hard and fast. Those of you who remember your periodic table will recall how neat that can be. There’s no shading between one element and the next. It’s either gallium or it’s zinc. There’s no zallium, no ginc. You might say that the elements are, in that sense, abstract ideals.
So are the molecules those elements combine to form. Take carbon dioxide (CO2), the most politically-charged molecule on Earth. As the encyclopedia says: “At standard pressure and temperature the density of carbon dioxide is around 1.98 kg/m3, about 1.5 times that of air. The carbon dioxide molecule (O=C=O) contains two double bonds and has a linear shape.” Oh, and that particular molecular structure traps heat near the planet that would otherwise radiate back out into space, giving rise to what we call the greenhouse effect.
As of January 2008, our best climatologists gave us a number for how much carbon in the atmosphere is too much. At concentrations above 350 parts per million (ppm), a NASA team insisted, we can’t have a planet “similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted.” We’re already past that; we’re at 390 ppm. Which is why 2010 will be the warmest year on record, almost a degree Celsius above the planet’s natural average, according to federal researchers. Which is why the Arctic melted again this summer, and Russia caught fire, and Pakistan drowned.
So here’s the thing: Just as in Copenhagen, Obama’s delegation in Cancún has been arguing for an agreement that would limit atmospheric concentrations of CO2 to 450 parts per million, and the cuts they’ve been proposing might actually produce a world of about 550 parts per million.
Why have they been defying the science? The answer isn’t complicated: because it’s politically difficult. As chief negotiator Todd Stern said last year in Copenhagen, “We’re very, very mindful of the importance of our domestic legislation. That’s a core principle for me and everyone else working on this. You can’t jeopardize that.”
In other words, if we push too hard the Senate will say no, and the oil companies will be really, really pissed. So we’ll take the easy way. We’ll negotiate with nature, and with the rest of the world, the same way we negotiate with the Republicans.
It’s completely understandable; in fact, it’s even more understandable now that the GOP has increased its muscle in Congress. In that context, even the tepid text drafted in Cancún goes too far. Four Republican Senators sent Obama a letter earlier this month telling him to stop using any foreign-aid funds to tackle climate change. If I were Obama I’d want to make some kind of deal, and consider any deal as the start down a path to better things.
The problem, again, is the chemistry and the physics. They don’t give us much time, and they’re bad at haggling. If we let this planet warm much longer, scientists tell us that we’ll lose forever the chance of getting back to 350. That means we’ll lose forever the basic architecture of our planet with its frozen poles. Already the ocean is turning steadily more acidic; already the atmosphere is growing steadily wetter, which means desertifying evaporation in arid areas and downpour and deluge elsewhere.
Political reality is hard to change, harder than ever since the Supreme Court delivered its Citizens United decision and loosed floods of more money into our political world. But physics and chemistry are downright impossible to shift. Physics and chemistry don’t bargain. So the president, and all the rest of us, had really better try a little harder. The movement we’ve launched at 350.org has spread around the world, but it needs to get much stronger. Because this one time, in the usually messy conduct of human affairs, reaching an abstract ideal is our only hope.
Bill McKibben is Schumann Distinguished Scholar at Middlebury College and founder of 350.org. His latest book is Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet. He recently was awarded the prestigious Puffin Prize. To listen to a TomCast audio interview in which McKibben discusses various kinds of global-warming denial, click here or, to download it to your iPod, here.
Copyright 2010 Bill McKibben
Follow Bill McKibben on Twitter: www.twitter.com/billmckibben
Yawn.
The following are scientific facts:
* The Earth has warmed significanÂÂÂtly over recent decades, to what may be the highest level in 2,000 years if not far longer.
* Greenhouse gases including anthropogeÂÂÂnic CO2 -- which is generated mostly by fossil fuel burning -- warm the Earth. Without greenhouse gases the average temperaturÂÂÂe of the Earth would be below freezing.
* Satellite measuremenÂÂÂts demonstratÂÂÂe that increasing atmospheriÂÂÂc CO2 has increased heat energy retention in the atmosphereÂ.
* AtmospheriÂÂÂc CO2 has increased by almost 40% since the dawn of the fossil fuel era, to the highest level in at least 800,000 years, if not far longer.
* The scientific evidence strongly indicates that said increased atmospheriÂÂÂc CO2 is due to anthropogeÂÂÂnic CO2 emissions, and there is no other viable scientific explanatioÂÂÂn for said atmospheriÂÂÂc CO2 increase.
* There is a strong correlatioÂÂÂn between said atmospheriÂÂÂc CO2 increase and said recent warming.
* Known natural forcing agents of past global warming - including changes in orbital cycles and increases in solar radiative output - cannot explain the bulk of said recent warming. Neither has any scientific theory to explain the bulk of said recent warming other than anthropogeÂÂÂnic global warming survived scientific scrutiny.
Again these are all scientific facts. Which is to say:
The scientific evidence supporting anthropogeÂÂÂnic global warming is overwhelmiÂÂÂng.
And the evidence showing a fraud is underway is equally compelling, just not the fraud the deniers claim: "Few PR offences have been so obvious, so successful and so despicable as this attack on the science of climate change. It has been a triumph of disinformation – one of the boldest and most extensive PR campaigns in history, primarily financed by the energy industry and executed by some of the best PR talent in the world." From Jimm Hoggan at Desmog Blog.
And this from George Monbiot is also illuminating: "Reading comment threads on the Guardian’s sites and elsewhere on the web, two patterns jump out at me. The first is that discussions of issues in which there’s little money at stake tend to be a lot more civilised than debates about issues where companies stand to lose or gain billions: such as climate change, public health and corporate tax avoidance. These are often characterised by amazing levels of abuse and disruption." http://tinyurl.com/monbiot-onlinedenial
This needs to be stressed. People need to realize that they are being scammed by the fossil fuel lobby, and it is costing us our prosperity and our children their future.
Link them to the truth!
While it may be indisputable that increased atmospheric CO2 causes heat to be trapped *in computer models* it is also indisputable that there are many, many, many other factors that affect global mean temperature.
Given extremely limited data (barely 100 years of reasonably accurate temperature measurements in *select* locations) the very idea of a "normal" average global temperature is truly perposterous.
Did you see the lunar eclipse last night? Clear and spectacular in many locations because the stratosphere has been unusually free of completely natural contaminates that not only increases daytime heating but nighttime re-radiation as well. See "All Clear in the Stratosphere" at www.spaceweather.com
While poorly understood, there is also growing concensus that the "weather" of the sun has profound affects on weather on earth. Arguments that the earth faces an imminent ice age (the great climate concern during the 1970s) gain ground. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/theres-a-mini-ice-age-coming-says-man-who-beats-weather-experts-20101221-1945a.html
Spend some time in the Mediterranean region and you will see that there have been DRASTIC and COMPLETELY NATURAL climate changes in the blink of the universal eye that is human civilization.
--------------------------
Yes, medical science is at the very heart of the argument for smoking created cancer.
While it may be indisputabÂle that increased smoking causes increased cancer *in mathematical models* it is also indisputabÂle that there are many, many, many other factors that cause cancer.
Given extremely limited data (barely 100 years of reasonably accurate medical data in *select* locations) the very idea of a "normal" average cancer rate is truly perposteroÂus...
--------------------------
... yadda, yadda, yadda.
It is also indisputabÂle that increased atmospheriÂc CO2 causes heat to be trapped *in the real world*.
SwampeastMike: "it is also indisputabÂle that there are many, many, many other factors that affect global mean temperaturÂe"
It is also indisputabÂle that known natural forcing agents of past global warming - including changes in orbital cycles and increases in solar radiative output - cannot explain the bulk of warming over decades. Neither has any scientific theory to explain the bulk of said recent warming other than anthropogeÂÂÂnic global warming survived scientific scrutiny.
SwampeastMike: "Given extremely limited data (barely 100 years of reasonably accurate temperaturÂe measuremenÂts in *select* locations)"
We have FAR more data than that, going back thousands, millions, and even billions of years.
SwampeastMike: "the very idea of a "normal" average global temperaturÂe is truly perposteroÂus."
In fact, we have a very good idea of what the "normal" average global temperaturÂe range has been since the dawn of human civilization and more.
This devotion seems extreme and uncompromising to the facts we have now about increasing C02 levels- those who choose to ignore the facts- have the same kind anti government paranoia, as Ayn Rand did in 'Atlas Shrugged'.
Ayn Rand has been largely been discredited now- hopefully those in denial of the scientific facts of Anthropogenic global warming will be as well.
Patent lie.
Science denier talking points never die, no matter how many times a stake has been driven through their hearts.
The 'Urban Heat Island' Crock"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7OdCOsMgCw
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/heat-island-sprawl.html
Retired NASA physicist Edward Long has also taken the time to compile the urban vs. rural data sets.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Rate_of_Temp_Change_Raw_and_Adjusted_NCDC_Data.pdf
There you go disinforming again, SoCalWarmer - I did not say or imply that the urban heat island effect (UHIE) wasn't real. Of course the UHIE is real - Duh.
And there you go citing non-peer-reviewed "science" as it it were fact again - no surprises there either.
Hey SoCalWarner - how in your mind does your lie about the UHIE explain away the fact that not only surface temperatures show global warming over recent decades but tropospheric temperatures do too?
Yawn.
The following are scientific facts:
* The Earth has warmed significanÂÂÂtly over recent decades, to what may be the highest level in 2,000 years if not far longer.
* Greenhouse gases including anthropogeÂÂÂnic CO2 -- which is generated mostly by fossil fuel burning -- warm the Earth. Without greenhouse gases the average temperaturÂÂÂe of the Earth would be below freezing.
* Satellite measuremenÂÂÂts demonstratÂÂÂe that increasing atmospheriÂÂÂc CO2 has increased heat energy retention in the atmosphereÂ.
* AtmospheriÂÂÂc CO2 has increased by almost 40% since the dawn of the fossil fuel era, to the highest level in at least 800,000 years, if not far longer.
* The scientific evidence strongly indicates that said increased atmospheriÂÂÂc CO2 is due to anthropogeÂÂÂnic CO2 emissions, and there is no other viable scientific explanatioÂÂÂn for said atmospheriÂÂÂc CO2 increase.
* There is a strong correlatioÂÂÂn between said atmospheriÂÂÂc CO2 increase and said recent warming.
* Known natural forcing agents of past global warming - including changes in orbital cycles and increases in solar radiative output - cannot explain the bulk of said recent warming. Neither has any scientific theory to explain the bulk of said recent warming other than anthropogeÂÂÂnic global warming survived scientific scrutiny.
Again these are all scientific facts. Which is to say:
The scientific evidence supporting anthropogeÂÂÂnic global warming is overwhelmiÂÂÂng.
I then describe the data that I am hoping to see - and I expect is available - as I begin digging into the global warming issue. When I say "digging in", I mean digging into the data.
Having you make statement after statement without showing the underlying data - well, I hope you understand that my scientific curiosity will only be satisfied with data.
You wouldn't want me to be pursuaded by statements without data by a "denier", would you?
I don't understand the apparent hostility (am I mis-reading your response?) to my quest to see the data that supports global warming. I am a computer scientist with a substantial mental, mathematical and broad-based world-experience background. My experise lies in communicating complex subject matter in a factually-based, compelling fashion.
I hope you understand that climate science data can be found on the internet if you are serious about finding it. I also hope you understand that properly interpreting the data in many if not most circumstances requires a substantive background in statistics and climate science.
purlsofwisdom: "I don't understand the apparent hostility (am I mis-readinÂg your response?) to my quest to see the data that supports global warming."
Of course I have no hostility with that quest.
purlsofwisdom: "I am a computer scientist with a substantiaÂl mental, mathematicÂal and broad-baseÂd world-expeÂrience backgroundÂ."
Do you, for example, understand linear regression analysis, as well as the basics of controlling for external factors in a climate science scenario? How about atmospheric physics as it applies for example to the Greenhouse Effect? If you don't have that level of understanding then you'll need to start there before being able to properly interpret much of the data.
On a related note:
Are you "skeptical" about other areas of science where there is an overwhelming consensus and you haven't personally examined the data in detail for yourself too? For example, if you haven't personally examined the data in detail that strongly indicates that man came from apelike ancestors is "the jury still out" on evolution for you too? And if not, why the double standard with respect to climate science?
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/modeling/
NOAA has data depoistories that can be downloaded:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/ersstv3.php
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/satellite.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_data.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html
to cite a few. I doubt that you will find the spoon-fed link between CO2 - AGW and ACC that you'd like since the data is so extensive and used by researchers to massage, publish, model and publish. To get the clear answer you seek you'd probably be best served by taking a sabbatical and joining a research group ditectly invloved. Otherwise, downlod some data and do-it-yourself on a small scale.
Sorry, no easy answers. That's why it is so easy for "climate skeptics" to take pot-shots that reverberate so well in the lay community. There have probably been a 100,000 pages (if not publications) published in this area since 1975 and the best attempt to summarize the results has been the IPCC reports.
For me, the jury is still out on man-made global warming because I don't see the concise, transparent data that I need to come to a conclusion:
1) Daily, independently verifiable temperature and CO2 readings with history on each sensor's location (land, water, satellite) for as long as those readings are available, excluding locations that have been impacted by local human development.
2) Statistical/mathematical formulas that turn those voluminous readings into daily/monthly/annual "global temperatures". Is there a "daily global temperature"?
3) Models that accurately predict - based on CO2 readings - "annual global temperature" with statistical accuracy for at least 10 years.
Finally, the desire to "hold back" human progress is so consistent between some political and AGW causes, the potential conflict of interest leading each "team" doing everything possible to bolster the other "team" is very concerning and ripe for misrepresentation. The capability for these massive forces to implement such dramatic change and amass tremendous power causes skepticism for me.
Is there a place that provides concise presentation of this CO2/temperature data, the formulas, and the comparison of the model's unaltered (dated/predicted in year 2000?) future predictions compared to the actual 10 year temperature results?
You might try starting here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
1 & 2) You might try checking the websites of the various research organizations (NASA-GISS, NOAA, HAD-CRU, RSS, UHI) that produce the temperature data and analysis, as I'm pretty sure all of them explain their methodology.
3) Not possible, since CO2 is not the only factor that affects climate and unpredictable short term forcings, such as volcanic aerosol events or the intensity of the solar cycle, and natural variability, such as ENSO fluctuations, can and often do overpower any underlying trend in climate caused by any long term factor, not just greenhouse forcing, on a timescale as short as 10 years. That's why 30 years is the statistically-derived accepted time span used to detect any underlying trend in climate from the "noise" of natural variability.
That's not what Exusian said, and nor is it correct.
purlsofwisdom: "Hasn't it only been 10 years since model predictionÂs have been made public? "
Nope - not even close.
Where do science deniers get this sort of disinformation from, anyway?
Oh, right - other science deniers.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/heat-island-sprawl.html
So what does rural weather station data say about the real temperature history?
It says the earth has been cooling for 80 years.
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part3_UrbanHeat.htm
Retired NASA physicist Edward Long compared the urban and rural US data before and after NCDC adjustments. Which can be seen here:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Rate_of_Temp_Change_Raw_and_Adjusted_NCDC_Data.pdf
Urban warming can obviously be blamed on asphalt. But what will we blame for rural cooling, CO2?
Digging a little further, we discover that the president is a former Republican science policy wonk for a series of congressmeÂn from Texas, Arizona, and PennsylvanÂia.
We also notice that the chief policy advisor is none other than himself:
Lord Monckton, UK: -- ChristopheÂr, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Along with a long history of misrepreseÂnting science, Monckton has misrepreseÂnted his lineage:
"Monckton has referred to himself as "a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislaturÂe" in a letter to US Senators , but more recently as "a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote. The House of Lords has said he is not and never has been a member, and that there is no such thing as a non-voting or honorary member." -Wiki
So SoCalHotOne, your source is hardly scientificÂally credible , now is it? As for appinsys, they have been discredited many times in the past for cherry picking data. You wouldn't do that would you?
So NASA has a feature on urban heating. It is specifically NOT, as you say, an 'admission.' You were falsely presenting it that way. NASA has never claimed that urban areas do not heat up. It is also noted that you chose to skip NASA's other features on global warming.
Very poor presentation SoCalHotOne. Bad SoCalHotOne.
"Edward R. Long is a physicist who retired from NASA where he led NASA’s Advanced Materials Program, was a team member for the development of several upper atmospheric
research satellites, and was responsible for the non-manned portion of a study for the
replacement of Shuttle. He currently provides consultant support to both government and the private sector concerning radiation in the space flight environment. He also provides technical consultant support to members of the Commonwealth of Virginia’s legislative bodies."
That means he's got more street cred than you and maxwells put together.
If you trust info from an organization that has Monckton as an advisor, you might want to check out the following: http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/
But again, the CO2 data that is used comes from the most remote location possible, even though it has been measured at much higher levels in major cities over the last hundred years.
Why compare CO2 data from Antartica with temperature data from a major city? If global warming were real, you would also use temperature data from the most remote locations available.
Comparing recent temperature data from Vostok Antartica
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=700896060008&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
With CO2 data from Vostok, Antartica shows there is no correlation between the two.
There is a loose correlation in the paleoclimate record, but it's off by hundreds of years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi2QKY3zW8Q
This is the lead paragraph of an extremely informative Q&A session that a reporter of the Columbus (OH) News Dispatch had with Dr. Thompson.
The article, “Getting warmer: Climatologist says it's time to act on global warming†was published on Dec 19,2010.
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/science/stories/2010/12/19/getting-warmer.html?sid=101
“Ponder these facts: The atmospheriÂc levels of CO2 we are already committed to reach, no matter what mitigation is now implementeÂd, have no equal over the entire longevity of the Great Barrier Reef, perhaps 25 million years. And most significanÂtly, the rate of CO2 increase we are now experienciÂng has no precedent in all known geological history.
"Reefs are the ocean’s canaries and we must hear their call. This call is not just for themselvesÂ, for the other great ecosystems of the ocean stand behind reefs like a row of dominoes. If coral reefs fail, the rest will follow in rapid successionÂ, and the Sixth Mass Extinction will be upon us — and will be of our making."
These words are the last two paragraphs of a very sobering article, “Is the End in Sight for The World’s Coral Reefs?†posted on the Yale 360 website.
http://e36Â0.yale.eduÂ/feature/iÂs_the_end_Âin_sight_fÂor_the_worÂlds_coral_Âreefs_/234Â7/
The author of the article, J.E.N. Veron, is former chief scientist of the Australian Institute of Marine Science and the author of numerous books, including the three-voluÂme Corals of the World. His research has taken him to all the major coral reef regions of the world during 66 expeditionÂs. His latest book is “A Reef in Time: The Great Barrier Reef from Beginning to End.â€
Really?
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/geologic-record-shows-no-relationship-between-temperature-and-co2/
;-)
By they way, can you answer my question yet?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/22/climate-change-natural-di_n_786718.html
How do scientists know what fraction of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is anthropogenic?
SoCal: shamelessly spreading misinformation and disinformation one post at a time since April, 2010.
And read Desmog Blog's manifesto: http://www.desmogblog.com/slamming-the-climate-skeptic-scam
Want to beat the sock puppets at their little game? Link them to the truth. All of their fake science talking points can be debunked by peer-reviewed research at Skeptical Science, Climate Progress and Grist.org. But don't stop there. Show the money behind this scam. The money and the industry ties can be found at Sourcewatch and Oil Change International.
And if you want to take on the political puppets of the pollutocrats, this idea posted on Grist yesterday might be of interest: http://tinyurl.com/grist-ace-party
Link them to the truth! Happy hunting!
Bill is confusing religion with science, where very few things are "hard and fast", including the periodic table which has just been adjusted to account for inaccuracies in the atomic weights of a handful of elements.
Science draws conclusions based on prediction, experimentation and observation. These conclusions are seldom considered settled fact because any future evidence that belies them may require they be amended or discarded.
Religion on the other hand is loaded with unbending "facts" that cannot be challenged or discarded.
“In the intellectual heart of the American military and policy-making world, these are emerging not just as environmental issues, but as the potential stuff of conflict in the 21st century.â€
Source: “Why We Might Fight, 2011 Edition†Countries thirst for oil, compete for minerals and confront climate change.â€
Subheadline: “Countries thirst for oil, compete for minerals and confront climate change. The American military, with surprising allies, worries that these issues represent a new source of conflict.â€
New York Times, Dec 14, 2010.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/12/12/weekinreview/12shanker.html
http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html
If you wish for a basic science tutorial by a real scientist, there is one running on HP right now:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-gore/post_1436_b_797323.html
Look for series of posts by Maxwells.
That's very easy to do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo&feature=player_detailpage
"...and not following warming"
But it does follow warming -- at least at the end of every glaciation in the 800,000 year ice core record. Whoever, the lag does *not* show that CO2 doesn't cause warming, it only shows that CO2 was not the initial cause of the warming. But then that is exactly what was predicted *before* the ice cores were drilled, since we already knew that a spontaneous rise in CO2 is not what initiated the warming at the end of the Pleistocene glaciations. That would be a change in northern hemisphere high latitude summer solar insolation, caused by subtle changes in the geometry of Earth's orbit and axial tilt.
The fact is the initial insolation-driven warming caused CO2 to increase in the atmosphere, and then that increase in CO2 added still more warming. The *amplitude* of the warming shown in the ice core record shows that CO2 does cause warming because the change in insolation simply does not provide enough energy to end a glaciation.
Seizing on the lag of CO2 behind temperature in the ice core record and concluding that it is proof that CO2 can not cause warming demonstrates not only a poor grasp of the radiative and atmospheric physics involved, but more fundamental, a poor grasp of logical thought.
Co2 is rising now at well over 2ppm a year-approaching 2.5ppm actually- if that continues we breech 400ppm by 2015 (averaged out).
With Cancun over- they have committed us to a 550ppm C02 level by 2035-2040- this will exceed 2.5 degrees C warming easily- likely reaching 3 degrees or more. Not what they want- but politically all that is possible. more then 2 degrees will be bad enough- 3 degrees puts us in a zone of severe climate change and societal disruption.