Climate Denial Crock of the Week/All Wet on Sea level remixed

Sea level rise. It’s been the subject of myth, legend and pop culture for millenia. It is going to be one of the major destructive effects of global climate change. So naturally, its something that makes deniers do and say crazy things.

Here’s the updated, remixed video on a misunderstood topic.


Fox is kind to you alarmists who postulate the end of the earth as we know it.

Lets see:

CO2 has not heated the earth, since we are now cooling and CO2 is still going up. So why the deeply concerned voiced intoning disaster?

The ice core records show CO2 to be a follower, not a leader. No contra evidence exists. The evidence is that the oceans and water vapor dominates the warming and cooling of the earth.

The Antarctic ice sheet is EXPANDING, yet this video with great drama only shoes a shelf breakup, which is much much smaller than the growth.

In other words, this video is balderdash! It is another Al Gore type scare story designed to worry children and the weak minded.

If I were to list all of my links it would take days of typing to give it to you.

I recommend a thorough reading of Dr. Spencer’s works to start..

try this graph:

If that does not give an alarmist reasons to pause, then they have big blinkers on. Interpretation: natural variation is real, and the last time we were this warm globally, civilization flourished.

… it would take days of typing.” When Kevin asked for links, I am pretty sure he was hoping for something a tad more credible that Roy Spencer - currently Exxon’s favourite scientific mouthpiece. (See the Sourcewatch article here: As to your complaint of the difficulty of actually providing links, if you look up in your browser, you’ll see a heading called Edit. Click on that and you’ll see options to Cut, Copy, or Paste. Take advantage of these handy shortcuts and I am confident you can prevent injury to your digits - although I can’t measure the emotional risk you might run if you started reading credible science.

Having trouble debunking Dr Scafetta? I thought so. Why not just admit it to yourselves that Al Gore and his Global Warming environmentalist crowd are nothing more than hucksters promoting “you sinners, the end is near” and selling “carbon credits” for salvation.

As an advocate of the AGW hypothesis, the responsibility to prove it rests with you, not me to disprove it. You have science backwards my friend.

Of course, the lack of Tropospheric heating which was predicted and built into all the IPCC accepted models already has disproved your hypothesis, but no need for me to rub it in.

The burden of evidence lies upon those who say everything about climate science is wrong.

For the science of global warming to go away:
Somebody, has to show hard evidence that is repeatable that genuinely negates all the existing science.
Somebody also has to prove why all the theory is wrong.
And this needs to be repeated.

So far nobody has.
All that happens is that the evidence and the science continues to accumulate.

As a learning exercise I recommend:
Discovery of Global Warming (Weart)


Another bogus temperature reconstruction.

I call it fraud.

You warmists here are in bed with a very very bad lot. Time to cut your losses, and admit that the CO2 hypothesis yet unproven, and the precious temperature record that you hang your hopes on is riddled with urban heat effects and now FRAUD.

Take a look at Smogen Sweden, or Bergen, Norway, or Narvik, the ocean level is falling:

Given the data, which reflects glaciers melting, ocean warming, etc., is it not reasonable to wonder if the alarmists might be full of BS? Maybe there is more fraud going on, and it just seems to get through “peer review”.. What a joke!

Care to explain why you start discussing sea level, when I was discussing temperature?
Care to explain why you cherry pick data? For example, why do you not note that the water sea level also includes vertical movements of the stations at which it is measured?

The mess in “climate” science is unbelievable.

Al Gore, the purveyor of convenient mis-truths,(as proven in an English courtroom) has a lot of company!

What is the problem with Weaver, Suzuki… why are they not “peer” reviewing and picking up scientific errors? Are they complicit by their silence?

Read my post again, I wasn’t advocating the AGW hypothesis, so I have no responsibility to prove it, nor was I asking you to disprove it.

You made claims, I asked you to address your logical inconsistencies.

So far, you have not even attempted to answer my questions. Yet as you have just pointed out, you are advocating a position and it is your responsibility to prove it.

This is not ‘science’.
Dr Scafetta certainly does publish in the peer reviewed literature. However The scientific community [the ultimate peer-review] doesn’t seem to consider that his work is convincing. I suspect this is very significant. For comparison, I have included some studies chosen from the top of another search. The comparative citations indicate the reliance one should place upon Dr Scafetta’s work. It looks like Dr Scafetta should try harder. Little wonder some of his studies have received a mauling over at RealClimate.

Let’s look at the citations for some of his work as reported by Google scholar:
Climate sensitivity to solar activity: The contribution of solar cycles 21-23 to global mean surface warming
Cited by 1

Climate sensitivity to solar activity: The contribution of solar cycles 21-23 to global mean surface warming
Cited by 1

Is Climate Sensitive to Solar Variability?
Cited by 1

ACRIM-gap and TSI trend issue resolved using a surface magnetic flux TSI proxy
Cited by 8
Reconstruction of solar irradiance since 1610: Implications for climate change J Lean, J Beer, R Bradley
Cited by 578

Solar Cycle Variability, Ozone, and Climate
Shindell, Rind, Balachandran, Lean, Lonergan
Cited by 245

The Sun’s total irradiance: Cycles, trends and related climate change uncertainties since 1976
Fröhlich & Lean
Cited by 188

Son of a gun when his modeling virtually wipes out any credibility of IPCC CO2 radiative forcing..

The science has moved on,accept it!

BTW, has 20 million hits.. how many has this blog??

The public has moved on, accept it!

from : 26 Sept 09(see for graphs)

The 2007-2008 Global Cooling Event: Evidence for Clouds as the Cause
26 09 2009

World low cloud cover in January 2008. NASA

The 2007-2008 Global Cooling Event: Evidence for Clouds as the Cause

September 26th, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

As I work on finishing our forcing/feedback paper for re-submission to Journal of Geophysical Research – a process that has been going on for months now – I keep finding new pieces of evidence in the data that keep changing the paper’s focus in small ways.

For instance, yesterday I realized that NASA Langley has recently updated their CERES global radiative budget measurement dataset through 2008 (it had previously ran from March 2000 through August 2007).

I’ve been anxiously awaiting this update because of the major global cooling event we saw during late 2007 and early 2008. A plot of daily running 91-day global averages in UAH lower tropospheric (LT) temperature anomalies is shown below, which reveals the dramatic 2007-08 cool event.

I was especially interested to see if this was caused by a natural increase in low clouds reducing the amount of sunlight absorbed by the climate system. As readers of my blog know, I believe that most climate change – including “global warming” – in the last 100 years or more has been caused by natural changes in low cloud cover, which in turn have been caused by natural, chaotic fluctuations in global circulation patterns in the atmosphere-ocean system. The leading candidate for this, in my opinion, is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation…possibly augmented by more frequent El Nino activity in the last 30 years.

Now that we have 9 years of CERES data from the Terra satellite, we can more closely examine a possible low cloud connection to climate change. The next figure shows the changes in the Earth’s net radiative balance as measured by the Terra CERES system. By “net” I mean the sum of reflected shortwave energy (sunlight), or “SW”, and emitted longwave energy (infrared) or “LW”.

The changes in the radiative balance of the Earth seen above can be thought of conceptually in terms of forcing and feedback, which are combined together in some unknown proportion that varies over time. Making the interpretation even more uncertain is that some proportion of the feedback is due not only to radiative forcing, but also to non-radiative forcing of temperature change.

So the variations we see in the above chart is the combined result of three processes: (1) radiative forcing (both internal and external), which can be expected to cause a temperature change; (2) radiative feedback upon any radiatively forced temperature changes; and (3) radiative feedback upon any NON-radiatively forced temperature changes (e.g., from tropical intraseasonal oscillations in rainfall). It turns out that feedback can only be uniquely measured in response to NON-radiatively forced temperature changes, but that’s a different discussion.

The SW component of the total flux measured by CERES looks like this…note the large spike upward in reflected sunlight coinciding with the late 2007 cooling:

And here’s the LW (infrared) component…note the very low emission late in 2007, a portion of which must be from the colder atmosphere emitting less infrared radiation.

As I discuss at length in the paper I am preparing, the physical interpretation of which of these 3 processes is dominant is helped by drawing a phase space diagram of the Net (LW+SW) radiative flux anomalies versus temperature anomalies (now shown as monthly running 3-month averages), which shows that the 2007-08 cooling event has a classic radiative forcing signature:

The spiral (or loop) pattern is the result of the fact that the temperature response of the ocean lags the forcing. This is in contrast to feedback, a process for which there is no time lag. The dashed line represents the feedback I believe to be operating in the climate system on these interannual (year-to-year) time scales, around 6 W m-2 K-1 as we published in 2007…and as Lindzen and Choi (2009) recently published from the older Earth Radiation Budget Satellite data.

The ability to separate forcing from feedback is crucial in the global warming debate. While this signature of internal radiative forcing of the 2007-08 event is clear, it is not possible to determine the feedback in response to that temperature change – it’s signature is overwhelmed by the radiative forcing.

Since the fluctuations in Net (LW+SW) radiative flux are a combination of forcing and feedback, we can use the tropospheric temperature variations to remove an estimate of the feedback component in order to isolate the forcing. [While experts will questions this step, it is entirely consistent with the procedures of Forster and Gregory (2006 J. Climate) and Forster and Taylor (2006 J. of Climate), who subtracted known radiative forcings from the total flux to isolate the feedback].

The method is simple: The forcing equals the Net flux minus the feedback parameter (6 W m-2 K-1) times the LT temperature variations shown in the first figure above. The result looks like this:

What we see are 3 major peaks in radiant energy loss forcing the system: in 2000, 2004, and late 2007. If you look at the features in the separate SW and LW plots above, it is obvious the main signature is in the SW…probably due to natural increases in cloud cover, mostly low clouds, causing internal radiative forcing of the system

If we instead assume a much smaller feedback parameter, say in the mid-range of what the IPCC models exhibit, 1.5 W m-2 K-1, then the estimate of the radiative forcing looks like this:

Note the trend lines in either case show a net increase of at least 1 W m-2 in the radiant energy entering the climate system. The anthropogenic greenhouse gas component of this would be (I believe) about 0.4 W m-2, or a little less that half. I’ll update this if someone gives me a better estimate.

So, what might all of this mean in the climate debate? First, nature can cause some pretty substantial forcings…what if these occur on the time scales associated with global warming (decades to centuries)?

But what is really curious is that the 9-year change in radiative forcing (warming influence) of the system seen in the last two figures is at least TWICE that expected from the carbon dioxide component alone, and yet essentially no warming has occurred over that period (see first illustration above). How could this be, if the climate system is as sensitive as the IPCC claims it to be?

EdB offers irrelevant links – WUWT & Spencer.

You don’t seem to appreciate that science is the most reliable way we have of determining how mother nature works. Science certainly isn’t infallible, but despite that it’s far better than anything else.

FYI genuine objective ‘science’ is published in a relevant scientific journal and has successfully survived the peer-reviewed process. Even that isn’t enough, because it takes time for the scientific community to respond. Only then can we be fairly certain that the science is sound.

Instead you offer links to pseudo-science – WUWT not peer reviewed in a relevant Journal. Even those by Dr Spencer, he is a scientist, but it’s still not peer-reviewed in a relevant Journal.

Furthermore, regarding Dr. Spencer’s claims, why does he place them on a website, which is aimed at the scientifically ignorant public? When, if his claims were able to withstand robust scientific scrutiny, he would have submitted them for peer-review and publication in an appropriate journal! It’s hard to conclude that Dr Spencer is being quite as honest and objective as you maintain.

We’re interested in science, we aren’t interested in pseudo-scientific drivel!

[EdB quote]
If I were to list all of my links it would take days of typing to give it to you.
[/EdB quote]

Whereas you spent a considerable time typing drivel.

Are we in a cooling phase? Perhaps you should tell that to the satellites (including those of the deniosphere-friends at UAH). They don’t see it.

And it’s funny to see that the deniosphere always refers to natural variation, and then completely denies its result! The fact is that the last ten years just about all natural variation is towards (significant) cooling, and yet there is none.

And yes, the ice-core records show CO2 to be a follower; and amplifier, but you conveniently leave that out. Hence the concern that we now see that CO2 increase follows temperature increase.

Regarding the expanding Antarctic ice sheet: if your conclusion from that is that Antarctica is cooling, you’d be wrong. Spectacularly wrong:
And sea ice is, of course, of little concern, unless is prevents release of land ice. It seems it doesn’t:

How terribly disappointing.

Well, seeing as you are here, would you mind answering a few questions for me?

You have previously stated, “Earth is cooling despite AGW crowd maipulating (sic) the numbers”.

Question 1, how do you know the Earth is cooling?

You state;
“The ice core records show CO2 to be a follower, not a leader. No contra evidence exists.”
CO2 has not heated the earth, since we are now cooling and CO2 is still going up.”

Leaving aside the fact that mankind was not industrialised during the period covered by the ice core record, and therefore our current circumstance has not occurred before.

Question 2, since, according to you, the Earth is cooling. Why is the CO2 still going up?

This post is about sea level rise. As far as I can see the sea can rise is three ways;

a) Thermal expansion, but according to you the Earth is cooling,
b) Increased water, maybe from melting ice, but according to you the Earth is cooling,
c) Dry land is sinking. The Earth’s is about 70% ocean and 30% dry land, so being lazy with the maths that is 2:1, and dry land everywhere is sinking at 6mm per year every year, or we are losing a mountain range every year. Strange that nobody noticed. So,

Question 3, why is sea level rising?

Sea level, not unlike average temp of the earth or the sea is among those troublesome things that are hard to pin down. It would be nice if there wasn’t so much contradictory info about what exactly is happening with sea level. There are different numbers out there and as far as I can tell, the whole thing is a mess.

If this is the best you can come up with, I suggest you find yourself a new hobby. You might start by reading up in the current issues of the science journals, not the ones collecting dust in your dentist’s waiting room. All of your comments here and on other threads are SO last century (galactic cosmic rays? solar variability? Oh, please – spare us!).

There seems to be a whole new crop of trolls coming out of the woodwork in the lead-up to Copenhagen. It may also be fed by the fact that the American president is actually literate and science-savvy enough to recognize the threat. And the rhetoric of the deniers is getting more and more frantic, sounding a lot like the hysterical anti-health care reform folks that claim there will be death lists etc. To quote Obama, “Oh, come ON!”

President obama is real science savy, he doesn’t know anything about global warming. And you know what, nobody is anti healthcare reform, we’re anti write a huge bill with a bunch of craftily worded tricks. Lets put this into perspective lady. Your party has enough votes to pass anything they want. They could do climate change and healthcare. The bills they’ve come up with are so bad, they are so bad the Democratic party can’t unite and pass the bills. Also Femack, are you telling me that there are old people who won’t be denied treatment? We aren’t going to ration? Just because your young doesn’t mean your entitled to healthcare over an older person. I don’t blame the elderly one bit for being scared, many of them have contributed much more than the younger people and therefore deserve better treatment.

Well, for one thing, I am Canadian and I am very proud of our health care system. Americans have some pretty crazy ideas about how it works. I was my 76-year-old mother`s primary caregiver through the final months of her battle with cancer, and saw firsthand that she received compassionate and timely care right to the end. I`m not worried. What is being proposed in your country is nowhere near as comprehensive, but, as I understand it, would provide health care insurance for those who have been unable to qualify for or afford it in the past. That`s got to be an improvement. Rationing – that`s paranoid.

As for whether Obama knows anything about AGW, I`d say from your posts that he knows a lot more than you do. You might want to check the news now & then instead of relying on Climate Audit or whatever. The entire world is taking AGW very seriously. Your position is getting increasingly laughable – or pathetic.

Fern Mackenzie

Both of your first two points are thoroughly addressed and debunked by the authors.
The third point is clearly addressed by an article in Nature Geoscience. I am including links to each resource below:

1) ———————————
>>> CO2 has not heated the earth, since we are now cooling
>>> and CO2 is still going up. So why the deeply concerned
>>> voiced intoning disaster?

Not true at all. That argument is fully addressed:
(video presentation archived at YouTube by the author)

2) ———————————
>>> The ice core records show CO2 to be a follower, not a
>>> leader. No contra evidence exists. The evidence is that
>>> the oceans and water vapor dominates the warming and
>>> cooling of the earth.

Orbital eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth’s rotation (collectively comprising the “Milankovitch cycles”) are known to have lead the Earth’s movements into periods of warming, and thus intial warming lead C02 in past cycles. But this relativly week orbital forcing was reinforced and amplified by the CO2 released into the atmosphere as a result of initial, mild warming. This time around, however, the co2 entering the atmosphere – at vastly greater rates than ever measured in the climatological record – are NOT the result of warming from Milankovitch cycles, but rather are being directly injected by human activity.

The argument is fully addressed here:
(video presentation archived at YouTube by the author)

3) ———————————
>>> The Antarctic ice sheet is EXPANDING, yet this video
>>> with great drama only shoes a shelf breakup, which is
>>> much much smaller than the growth.

On this point, with respect on total Antartic ice mass, please refer to Nature Geoscience 2, 859 - 862 (2009) “Accelerated Antarctic ice loss from satellite gravity measurements” (abstract at: :

“Satellite remote-sensing data of ice elevations and
ice motion show significant ice loss in the range of
-31 to -196 Gt/yr in West Antarctica in recent years,
whereas East Antarctica seems to remain in balance or
slightly gain mass with estimated rates of mass change
in the range of -4 to 22 Gt/yr”

With respect to sea ice extent, the recorded extent of Southern Hemisphere sea ice from 1978 through to the present can be seen on this graph published by the Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois:

… you can see in the southern hemisphere there is no clear long-term, upward or downward trend; unlike in the Northern hemisphere:

…you would be spectacularly wrong”

I wouldn’t say that. Of the long term manned stations in Antarctica not on the peninsula probably slightly more than 1/2 of them show cooling trends since 1980 (data to 2008). The cooling stations would include Dumont, Halley, Scott-Amundsen, Scott-Base, Vostok, Novolazarevskaya, Casey, and Syowa (there’s 12 manned stations on the main part of Antarctica). Note that this “cooling” list includes the only 2 long term manned stations in the interior of Antarctica.

We’re not talking about short term cooling trends here. 29 years is long enough to be statistically significant.

…that you’re cherry picking.
(trends are for 1951-2006)

Novolazarevskaya actually shows warming (even with high significance). Scott-base actually shows warming. Vostok shows warming. Casey shows warming. Syowa shows warming. Dumont shows cooling nor warming.

That leaves your list with Amundsen-Scott and Halley…

I said since 1980 there are cooling trends at a majority of the long term manned stations outside of the peninsula. That statement stands, meaning for a major portion of the continent of Antarctica there has been no warming for the last 29 years.

…but the data shows otherwise. By the way, is it now “cooling”, or “no warming” ? That most of Antarctica isn’t warming is known, but cooling it ain’t.

The last 29 years in Antarctic, using the long term manned stations on the continent (12 in all), when normalized, averaged and regressed show a cooling trend of -0.003 degrees C per year. Barely cooling, I admit which is why I’ve used the phrase “no warming” instead. Technically it is cooling but there is pretty much zero slope on the trend line.

If I start the trend at a lower average year 1979, there is a very slight warming trend (+0.001 degrees per year), again basically no trend at all over 30 years.

It’s clear the manned weather stations show no warming for the last 30 years or so. Check out the BAS site. You can get a map with histogram icons for each station showing the trend from 1971 to 2000. No big surprise to me that 10 out of 12 stations show cooling or no trend over that period.

Confirmation of the manned station data comes from MSU Lower Troposphere data. Using the 60S to 70S latitude band (they don’t get readings over the poles), I found a trend of -0.013 degrees C per year cooling between 1979 and 2004.

As you would say “warming it ain’t”.

I wasn’t able to watch the whole thing through this time but I did see it before. First thing I noticed was the mocking tone in the first couple minutes, which indicates to me that this series of videos isn’t provided to convince anyone, but rather to entertain those who are already convinced. That’s fine of course. Entertainment is as good a reason as any other for making videos.

The problem with the “ice sheets will slide into the sea” theory is that to do that for most of Greenland they would have to slide uphill since the east and west edges of Greenland have topographic ridges the ice has to slide up to get over.

Antarctica has similar bounding ridges along it’s edges, although it appears more “open” than Greenland. From the bedrock topography map of Antarctica it appears substantial parts of the continent, particularly in West Antarctica are actually below current sea level. Obviously the land would rebound when unloaded by the ice, but the idea there are big chunks of icecap waiting to slide into the ocean doesn’t appear logical for either Greenland or Antarctica when you look at the bedrock topography.

In any case, as noted by my comments on this blog earlier, Antarctica appears to have experienced cooling since 1980 by the data from the manned long term stations, plus the sea ice extent around Antarctica shows a long term increasing trend so I can’t see any empirical evidence for alarm from the biggest icesheet.

First of all, ice sheets on Greenland (and Antarctica) are already sliding into the sea.
Second, I don’t know where you get the idea that “Antarctica has experienced cooling since 1980”, unless you do some significant cherry picking of the data.
Third, sea ice around Antarctica is not the same as land ice. Check the link I gave earlier, and you will see that Antarctica is LOSING land ice mass. The gain in sea ice is not due to cooling, but due to changes in ocean dynamics as a result of warming (that would be a paradox, not a contradiction!).

…included in the link to the BAS news release posted in the “..trolls..twist..” post you’ll see most of the continents of Antarctica and Greenland are colored green/blue, meaning they represent ice thickness no change or growth. To date the central parts of either continent, inside the “buried bedrock lips”, have not been involved in the thinning.

As for your claim of cherry picking, I don’t see that claiming a majority of the long term data sources on the main continent of Antarctica (manned weather stations) are showing a 29 year cooling trend, is cherry picking.

Finally, not everyone agrees that the recent history of the Antarctic ice sheet represents ice loss ( My link references a satellite radar altimetry which I feel offers higher resolution than gravity change studies (which your link is to).

Seems like Greenman was right on the money. Here’s some more science, that shows exactly what Greenman explained and the trolls deliberately twist the truth about.

Hamish D. Pritchard, Robert J. Arthern, David G. Vaughan & Laura A. Edwards. Extensive dynamic thinning on the margins of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.

Press Release
The most comprehensive picture of the rapidly thinning glaciers along the coastline of both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets has been created using satellite lasers. The findings are an important step forward in the quest to make more accurate predictions for future sea level rise.

Reporting this week in the journal Nature researchers from British Antarctic Survey and the University of Bristol describe how analysis of millions of NASA satellite measurements* from both of these vast ice sheets shows that the most profound ice loss is a result of glaciers speeding up where they flow into the sea.
The authors conclude that this ‘dynamic thinning’ of glaciers now reaches all latitudes in Greenland, has intensified on key Antarctic coastlines, is penetrating far into the ice sheets’ interior and is spreading as ice shelves thin by ocean-driven melt. Ice shelf collapse has triggered particularly strong thinning that has endured for decades.

New comprehensive maps of Greenland and Antarctica show extent of glacier thinning
Lead author Dr Hamish Pritchard from British Antarctic Survey (BAS) says,
“We were surprised to see such a strong pattern of thinning glaciers across such large areas of coastline — it’s widespread and in some cases thinning extends hundreds of kilometres inland. We think that warm ocean currents reaching the coast and melting the glacier front is the most likely cause of faster glacier flow. This kind of ice loss is so poorly understood that it remains the most unpredictable part of future sea level rise.”

The scientists compared the rates of change in elevation of both fast-flowing and slow-flowing ice. In Greenland for example they studied 111 fast-moving glaciers and found 81 thinning at rates twice that of slow-flowing ice at the same altitude. They found that ice loss from many glaciers in both Antarctica and Greenland is greater than the rate of snowfall further inland.
In Antarctica some of the fastest thinning glaciers are in West Antarctica (Amundsen Sea Embayment) where Pine Island Glacier and neighbouring Smith and Thwaites Glacier are thinning by up to 9 metres per year.
Issued by the British Antarctic Survey Press

I’m happy to say in a few years this big hoax will be down the toilet. I’m so happy less and less people are believing in the big hoax. You can tell that none of these people know anything because they do not advocate for nuclear energy. I also just read that the idiot Feinstein in California won’t let solar panels be built in the mojavi dessert. This whole thing is a complete joke, I would suggest shutting down this site to avoid public ridicule for acting like retards.

Dennis Avery and the Heartland Institute issued a list of “500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares” earlier this week. DeSmogBlog contacted 122 of the people on the list that they found email addresses for, and received replies from 45 of them within 24 hours, indicating that they did not agree to be on such a list and felt that the Heartland Institute had misrepresented their views. for further please visit gogle

who funds desmog? contacting that many people is not cheap. just wondering..

Let’s see, the Kyoto Protocol was a disaster, most of the countries did not even hit the target emission reduction level, and I really don’t know of any other steps countries have taken to lower CO2 emissions. Spain has high unemployment and many of the people don’t use air conditioners because they’re retarted. But you think that there is going to be a big agreement between all of the worlds countries; it ain’t gonna happen, nobody cares. As far as Obama, the only thing he has ever said is that the science is settled. Also, he said he has done more to combat climate change in the last 8 months than ever before. Explain that to me, Femack because I live in the U.S. and I didn’t know we did anything. Also, does your healthcare cover dental? I think not and I think it costs you a fortune to go to the dentist. Would I be right?

“Spain has high unemployment and many of the people don’t use air conditioners because they’re retarted.”

I am not sure what relevance this comment has to the thread, but if “retarted” is a typo for an outdated derogatory term, it is offensive as well as irrelevant.

I’m not going to get into the details of health & dental care with you. You are deflecting the conversation away from the point, which is that the American President, arguably the single biggest roadblock in the past re: getting movement on combatting AGW, has now come out and stated flatly that the science is settled. That alone is huge. I guess you haven’t been listening to the rest of the world, but that’s to be expected. The American media’s record on reporting what happens beyond their borders is abysmal. Go read the Guardian or the (London) Times, for starters.

You are sitting in a very small room with the lights out, Shooshmon.

Fern Mackenzie

HOHOHOHO! Wanna know the secret of Canadian healthcare? They don’t cover dental so when you get a cavity…whoops your screwed! That’s right, the dental prices in Canada are jacked up because their system sucks. Maybe this is why New York advertises to Canadians to come here for healthcare. Now, Femack stated that President Bush was the biggest road block to climate change. Why? Could it be that we have the most money? O HO HO HO! What’s this now! It appears that Michael the Mann and his hockey stick graph have come under more fire! Femack what are we going to power a car with if not oil? O yeah! Score one for the Coal Troll!