Richard, You start your column by stating: "As the warmest year on record moves down to its last few days,..."

The link in that statement is to a January 4th, 2007 BBC article. That article was stated as a 60% projection of what might be in the UK. In fact looking back over 2007, it is only 3rd on the list. See: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2007/12/14/2007-is-britain-s-third-warmest-year-86908-20248342/

For the US, NOAA has this: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/20071213_climateupdate.html

>>>>>>>>>
The preliminary annual average temperature for 2007 across the contiguous United States will likely be near 54.3° F- 1.5°F (0.8°C) above the twentieth century average of 52.8°F. This currently establishes 2007 as the eighth warmest on record. Only February and April were cooler-than-average, while March and August were second warmest in the 113-year record.
<<<<<<<

In reply to your "blame America first" remark about Bali, I believe China, Japan, and Canada are there too shying away for targets with or without the US.

Regarding Bali there is also this: http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/Environment/article/284800

>>>>>>>>>>>
The conference remained divided over whether Canada and other wealthy "developed" countries must accept mandatory targets for emissions cuts while "developing" nations, including China and India, continue to be excused...

The United States, backed by Canada and Japan, rejects numbers of any sort. Australia, which won cheers this month when its new prime minister ratified the protocol, won't agree to numbers until it completes a study next year.

India leads the developing nations adamantly opposed to anything that smacks of commitment – even if it's just to chart progress.
<<<<<<<<<<<<

The amount of cabon gases belched into the atomosphere by China and India will continue to grow. Meanwhile the levels in the US are faling without targets. Blaming America for Asia's unrepentant behavior and changed ways stands reality on its head.

I live in New Mexico, and incredibly ashamed of Domenici. He is an embarrassment, and for a guy who's "served" on the energy sub-committee for 25 years, he's done nothing but be a lapdog for big dinosaur (oil). He's as crooked as they come, and I hope a tumor gets the better of him soon.

Oh gee Craig, "only the 3rd warmest on record". Thank goodness, I can relax. I guess the Bush and the rest of the Republicans are right. We don't need to lead, only blur truths and continue to bank our obscene corporate profits. Let the next generation...oh, never mind.

dvs, move the the US where 2007 was only the 8th warmest year as per NOAA.

To all the whiners who say fighting global warming is impossible or will destroy the economy. Look at this chart of the leap in sulfur pollution patents after the passing of the Clean Air Act. Change brings innovation (and innovation creates jobs).
http://plumer.blogspot.com/2007_12_01_archive.html#7371048689913035686

Flounder, the underdeveloped countries that have made the argument that you refer to include India and China. They aren't whiners, they're asians.

It isn't India or China that are making that argument so much as it is the Rush Limbaugh's of the world. For some reason they don't think Americans have the know how or ingenuity to develop solutions to problems. If that isn't anti-American I don't know what is. You aren't also trying to tell me American don't have the drive or know how to solve problems are you?
Look, we actually join in with the rest of the first world on this we first inspire a technology boom and second our joint economic clout allows us to lean on India and China and get them in line. Plus we get to sell them the new technology we are creating to combat global warming and they can retrofit their coal plants with it our buy our next gen. solar cells. Imagine us actually exporting to China...

Flounder, what??????? Turn off your radio and RL goes poof! Meanwhile China, India, and the rest of the Asian tiger countries continue to belch ever increasing quantities of pollution and carbon gases. The Bali agreement does not interdict that situation. Eventhough there has been reached a compromise agreement at Bali, the Friends of the Earth call it a 'joint suicide pact.' The developing countries make the economic argument you scorn, and are, once again, left off.

Your whining about RL doesn't change what the Asian tigers are willing to do. The US did not sign Kyoto because it left off those tigers. Nothing much has changed. When the boat fills up faster than the bailers can handle, the boat still sinks. All the wishful thinking, emotional posturing, or hysterical snits blaming America first doesn't change that.

Articles like this one that make erroneous claims ( CLAIM: 2007 is hottest on record FACT: 2007 is 3rd hottest for the UK, 8th hottest for US, and 5th hottest worldwide, see citations above) does little to change minds while undermining the argument presented. Pointing fingers at RL doesn't change that either.

By the way flounder, why the nom-de-guerre?

I think they extended the Bali meeting because it was too cold to go home! Perhaps we are going to be dropping even more in the hottest ranking for the year before December ends.

I'm off to put on my ski racks. Looks good in the mountains.

Here is the statement from the President's Press Secretary on the Bali agreement: http://www.pr-inside.com/statement-by-the-press-secretary-r349958.htm

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2007-12-15 18:05:45 -


- The United States extends its gratitude and congratulations to the President of Indonesia for hosting the Thirteenth Conference of the Parties in Bali and for his able leadership of this important process.

The United States joins the consensus Decision of the Conference of the Parties in Bali that is a critical first step in assuring that the UN negotiation process moves forward toward a comprehensive and effective post-2012 arrangement.

There are many features of the Decision that are quite positive, including those provisions recognizing the importance of developing clean technologies, financing the deployment of those technologies in the developing world, assisting countries in adapting to climate change, exploring industry sector agreements on emissions, and addressing deforestation.

The United States does have serious concerns about other aspects of the Decision as we begin the negotiations. Notably, the United States believes that, in three important ways, we have not yet fully given effect to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities that is a pillar of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

First, the negotiations must proceed on the view that the problem of climate change cannot be adequately addressed through commitments for emissions cuts by developed countries alone. Major developing economies must likewise act. Just as the work of the IPCC has deepened our scientific understanding of the scope of the problem and action required, so too empirical studies on emission trends in the major developing economies now conclusively establish that emissions reductions principally by the developed world will be insufficient to confront the global problem effectively.

Second, negotiations must clearly differentiate among developing countries in terms of the size of their economies, their level of emissions and level of energy utilization, and sufficiently link the character or extent of responsibility to such factors. We must give sufficient emphasis to the important and appropriate role that the larger emitting developing countries should play in a global effort to address climate change.

Third, the negotiations must adequately distinguish among developing countries by recognizing that the responsibilities of the smaller or least developed countries are different from the larger, more advanced developing countries. In our view, such smaller and less developed countries are entitled to receive more differentiated treatment so as to more truly reflect their special needs and circumstances.

Accordingly, for these negotiations to succeed, it is essential that the major developed and developing countries be prepared to negotiate commitments, consistent with their national circumstances, that will make a due contribution to the reduction of global emissions. A post-2012 arrangement will be effective only if it reflects such contributions. At the same time, the United States believes that any arrangement must also take into account the legitimate right of the major developing economies and indeed all countries to grow their economies, develop on a sustainable basis, and have access to secure energy sources.

We have seen what can be accomplished when we come together to work for a common cause. Only by doing the necessary work this year will it be possible to reach a global consensus under the Convention in 2009. The United States looks forward to participating in the negotiations envisioned in the Bali Roadmap, in the Major Economies Process, in the G8 and in other appropriate channels in order to achieve a global and effective post-2012 arrangement.

White House Press Office
1-202-456-2580
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

India put a proposal on the floor where the industrialized countries would assist the less industrialized countries with pollution control. This sounds reasonable to me, and goes back to incentives for the US to take the lead in technology. Instead we fought it tooth and nail.
The Global Warming denialists have gone through the following metamorphosis:
1. Deny it existed, and have guys like Fred Singer (whose I will note for context was getting paid in the 1990's to deny that smoking was bad for you, and was claiming in the 1980's that there was no hole in the ozone layer) made up data and staged phony conferences with couple TV weathermen proclaiming there was no evidence.
2. Conceed it was happening, but say humans have no role (but blame it on everything from the Sun to the Freemasons).
3. Conceed that humans might have a role, but that we can't fight it because it would cost money, and besides, those Eskimos might want to grow corn too. Besides, Al Gore is fat.
4. Conceed it is happening, and we could do something, but since China and India run the world and we are just bit-players, we might as well wait for them to take the lead.
The whole blame China thing is just another in a line of smokescreens thrown up while the Exxon guys and the politicians they own pad the yearly bonuses for a while longer.
I'm willing to bet, Craig Moore that you have taken every single one of these positions one by one from say 1998 on.

To keep things absolutely accurate, we technically did not fight India's proposal "tooth and nail." We actually fought it fang and claw. Under the past seven years of this GOP trash, we truly have regressed a bit in evolutionary terms.

Flounder, nice story but pure BS. Put names to your claims and show proof.

mike, "GOP trash?" Please remember who gored Kyoto.

http://www.commondreams.org/pressreleases/June98/060998a.htm

>>>>>>>>>>>>
JUNE 9, 1998
10:00 AM

Clinton/Gore Administration Retreats From Kyoto Global Warming Treaty Promises In Bonn Talks
Seeks To Cut Global Warming Pollution Abroad, But Not Here

BONN - June 9 - At a critical negotiating session underway for the rest of this week in Bonn, Germany, the Clinton/Gore Administration is staking out gigantic loopholes abandoning the core principles of the global warming treaty signed last December in Kyoto, Japan.

The Administration's intransigence during an interim negotiating session now underway in Bonn, Germany threatens to derail the global warming treaty altogether by driving away both our industrial trading partners and the developing nations which are needed to make the deal work. The stealthy reversal stands in marked contrast to more than six years of high-profile rhetoric, in which both Clinton and Gore stood in the media spotlight promising to protect the climate:

As candidates in 1992, both Clinton and Gore hounded then-President George Bush for avoiding legally binding cuts in US emissions of the pollution that causes global warming. Upon election both Clinton and Gore pledged to cut US global warming pollution to 1990 levels by the year 2000 through improved efficiency and clean energy sources.

Last December, the Administration agreed with more than 160 other countries to a landmark global warming treaty that would cut global warming pollution below 1990 levels. Joining 38 industrial competitors, the U.S. which by itself causes 22 percent of global warming pollution promised a seven percent cut in its emissions by 2012.

During a last-minute trip to the Kyoto talks, Vice President Gore positioned himself before the television cameras in the leadership spotlight: "All Americans can be proud of the role our country played in securing this comprehensive agreement. The core elements were those laid out in President Clinton's proposal, and in the final hours, our skillful negotiating team...led the way in bridging gaps among nations," Gore said at the end of the talks.

Now, working behind the scenes, the Clinton/Gore Administration has abandoned any pretense of living up to its rhetoric about cutting global warming pollution.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Read the NYT article from today. My claim is accurate.

As Craig and most other neo-cons are working to re-write history (and science) to justify the economic and environmental agenda the rest of the world knows who has obstructed action on climate change. We all know who is working to subvert world and American action on climate change.

We've all heard the phony arguments used by the ditto heads. They are hard for the conservatives to resist because they play into the hate and fear that is core to conservatives every action.

Now, that their junk science arguments are laughed at they are doing what conservatives have done countless times before. They are trying to blame the liberals, if they can't make that stick they will blame other countries (hopefully ones that aren't populated by caucasians).

Fact is America has led the world in green house gas production and pushed deforestation in the third world for the last 50 years. China just caught up. We invented the game now it is our responsibility to redesign the playing field.

If two people commit a crime can one point the finger and say "he kept doing it so why should I stop"? That's just another phony neo-con argument. Shift blame, reframe reality and deny the facts. More of the same old thing.

Flounder, I accept your bet. What are your stakes?

Tim from MT, you remind me of the Wizard of OZ, standing behind the screen, pulling levers that create the sound, fire, smoke, and fury of obfuscation.

Common Dreams is hardly a neo-con publication. Most people see it as a clarion voice for the progressive community. They are the ones with the harsh rebuke for Clinton/Gore over the US not stepping up to Kyoto.

Craig, thanks as always for your heavily documented comments, and please pardon the misstatement on 2007. Here's the key section from the NOAA report:

<< Including 2007, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1997. The global average surface temperature has risen between 0.6°C and 0.7°C since the start of the twentieth century, and the rate of increase since 1976 has been approximately three times faster than the century-scale trend. >>

Ha, Ha, Ha Craig. Really, "I'll bet" is a figure of speech, but I looked up your past global warming comments here and I should take a bet, as you have my points #2, 3, and 4 covered in just these two comment threads.:
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/global_warming_deniers_effectively_sowing_fear_uncertainty_and_doubt/C38/L38/
and here
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/dire_global_warming_forecast_sugarcoated/C38/L38/
I give you extra credit for citing Bjorn Lomborg as a source. He is exactly the type of dishonest person I describe in #1. Lomborg has never wrote a single paper in a peer-refereed journal on the environment or Global Warming.
He got brought before the Danish Committee for Scientific Dishonesty because he was making other Danish Scientists look stupid in one of his articles. Here's what the committee had to say about him:
"the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice". They further stated "there has been such perversion of the scientific message in the form of systematically biased representation that the objective criteria for upholding scientific dishonesty ... have been met".

Flounder, you have no cajones. Your premise starts with attacking Global Warming Denilaists 1,2,3, and 4. Then you accuse me. That means you claim I have denied global warming - climate change. Nothing is further from the truth and I can prove it with documented statements. Now, you are missing something. Put aside the causation arguments of AGW and concentrate on man's ability to alter carbon gas emissions through interdictive action. Unless everyone participates, including China and Inda, we cannot bail the boat fast enough to counter the additional water being added by Asia. That was the sense of the 97-0 vote in the US senate in 1997 before Gore went to Japan, singed up to Kyoto which excepted countries like China and India, and Clinton/Gore failed to submit the treaty for ratificaton. That was cynical.

Richard, I wonder how good any of the data is given information that recording stations are often located in heat islands in cities. Also, Steve McIntyre seemed to find an error in the data itself as it related to US records.

See: http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html

>>>>>>>>>>>
According to the new data published by NASA, 1998 is no longer the hottest year ever. 1934 is.

Four of the top 10 years of US CONUS high temperature deviations are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900. (World rankings of temperature are calculated separately.)

Top 10 GISS U.S. Temperature deviation (deg C) in New Order 8/7/2007

Year Old New
1934 1.23 1.25
1998 1.24 1.23
1921 1.12 1.15
2006 1.23 1.13
1931 1.08 1.08
1999 0.94 0.93
1953 0.91 0.90
1990 0.88 0.87
1938 0.85 0.86
1939 0.84 0.85

Here’s the old order of top 10 yearly temperatures.

Year Old New
1998 1.24 1.23
1934 1.23 1.25
2006 1.23 1.13
1921 1.12 1.15
1931 1.08 1.08
1999 0.94 0.93
1953 0.91 0.90
2001 0.90 0.76
1990 0.88 0.87
1938 0.85 0.86
<<<<<<<<<<<<

By the way, I wonder if they will take Gore's Nobel away given these recent findings: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071216133126.htm

It's easy to find some hack somewhere in the world who says something that "sugests" or "implies" what ever you want Craig. If I had countless hours to burn I or anyone else for that matter could fill these pages with links that say just about anything.

I'm certain that there is web content that "proves" the earth is 6000 years old and I have no doubt there are countless web sites that "prove" Bush was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. I've even seen a web site that had documented proof that there was an entire civilization living in the middle of the earth. It was pretty convincing. Maybe they are responsible for climate change?

A link isn't proof and someones commentary isn't scientific fact and your interpretation of selected data is only meaningful to those who want to believe Rush Limbaugh and the ExxonMobil sponsored misinformation machine because they support their politics.

You don't know if I am a man or a woman, so there is a good chance that I don't have any "cajones". That doesn't change the fact that you are filling in the gaps in my evolution of a global warming denialist chart as fast as you can. I didn't claim that you fulfilled number #1 on my scale, but it took me about 5 minutes to find comments from you filling in #'s 2-4, so I figure #1 is just floating out there in the internets for someone to track down. If I fill that one in I can call Bingo and win a prize!
I love how you bring up the "heat island" argument. Brings me back to 1998 or so. Tell me about the current heat wave on Pluto and how benthic microbes are really at fault.

I have asked before in various places and no one has answered me. How much has the growing season been extended and where? I still do not seem to be able to grow much but the most winter hardy trees, and my plants freeze if I put them out before the end of May.

Here are a few of the quotes from an AP article I read yesterday:

["We seek your leadership," (a delegate from Papua New Guinea told the U.S.) "But if for some reason you are not willing to lead, leave it to the rest of us. Please get out of the way."

Paula J. Dobrinsky of the U.S. delegation said this of India's amendment that would strengthen requirements for richer nations to help poorer with technology to limit emissions and adapt to climate change's impacts:

"We are not prepared to accept this formulation," Dobrinsky said, setting off loud, long boos in the hall.

Next, delegate after delegate took aim at the United States. Dobrinsky's intervention was "most unwelcome and without any basis," the South African delegate said. "We would like to beg them" to relent, he said, then (he) delivered his sharp rebuke of U.S. leadership. America's isolation was complete. No one spoke
in support.]

There you go. We may not be the only nation in the world but we sure act like it.

We could take a leadership role, develop and export technology to ease climate change, be a hero. Instead, we are vilified. And rightfully so.

(Sorry I can't link to this story. I spent an hour of my life, that I'll never get back, searching the archives. It was on Page A12 of Sunday's Missoulian -- no where on their website, though.)

Flounder, logic is not your strong suit is it? I am not now and never have been a denialist, in no way does your argumentation hold. Back in 2006 when I first commented on the subject I wrote the following:

>>>>>>>>>>>
By Craig Moore, 6-14-06
In my opinion, Galileo's finger points the way towards true science, challenging the conventional, consensus wisdom. Always pointing to the "yeah buts" of inconvenient facts that undermine the agenda driven arguments of consensus claimed by the orthodoxy of true believers. Science is apolitical. Democracy describes a political process and political institutions by humankind to make decisions, which may be grounded on valid or faulty science. I believe we have a choice to make as to how we spend our public funds regarding climate. Either develop plans and build infrastructure that works in harmony with Mother Earth's cycles or throw it away in the fruitless attempt to challenge or alter the cyclical pattern of cooling and warming. In my opinion an example of such waste is the rebuilding of New Orleans. All of the flood gates and walls will not hold back rising sea levels when disaster strikes again. We should adapt and work in harmony with our changing environment.


By Craig Moore, 6-15-06
Pete, I think there is a third question. Is there anything we can do that actually will make a difference to the problem identified? We could spend a trillion dollars worldwide to build a teacup to take one scoop from Flathead Lake. The result is that we did lower the lake level, but the gain is hardly worth the pain. Asia is building more and more factories while continuing to devour growing quantities of coal and dino fuel. Trying to revert to 1990 carbon emission levels is not only not going to happen, that rate won't even begin to drain the carbon pond.

By Craig Moore, 7-11-06

Tim my opinion on climate change is pretty well summed up by professor L.M. Cathles at Cornell University. See: http://www.theithacajournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060711/OPINION02/607110308/1014

He writes:

>>>>There is also little dispute regarding natural climate change. Climate has never been static. Over the last few million years the climate has changed particularly dramatically and rapidly. Ice caps have developed in North America and Europe, melted, and then grown again 15 to 20 times. The ice takes about 90,000 years to grow, and 5,000 years or so to melt. The warm periods between glaciations last about 10,000 years. Ours has already lasted for this long. If the natural cycles of the past prevail, the climate should soon quite suddenly cool (over a few years or decades, although the climate switch may initially flicker). The North American ice cap will then expand to cover Canada, and reach Ithaca in about 50,000 years. Less dramatic cycles (the Holocene climate optimum, the little ice age, and the current warming) have affected humanity within our interglacial period. Natural climate change is real, rapid, and significant.

What we don't know is the relative magnitude of natural and human-induced climate change. The academy presidents of 11 countries quoted in the “Global warming is real” (Guest column, June 14) do not take a stand on this issue, saying only “It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activity,” which leaves open the possibility that natural cycles could control climate change despite human inputs. The situation is complex. Ice ages may start when warming melts ice in the Arctic and Greenland, and the meltwater turns off the haline convection that helps keep Europe warm. Global warming may thus cause global cooling, and human greenhouse gases may hasten the arrival of the next ice age. The sun, ocean circulation, and a host of “tipping points” make the future difficult to predict, and here there is no consensus at all...
<<<<<<<<<

What you fail to understand, unintentionally or intentionally, is that it is possible to discuss other issues without having changed ones underlying opinion. To point out that cabon gases are likely not to decline does not go the heart of the debate over carbon gases causing global warming. Recent science says that the earth began to warm before the increase in carbon gases. See: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=48F687F3-E7F2-99DF-3E042E20A4B66A99&chanID=sa007

>>>>>>>>>>>>
In Hot Water: Ice Age Defrosted by Warming Ocean, Not Rise in CO2
Warmer waters in the deep Pacific triggered the end of the last ice age, preceding the rise in greenhouse gas levels
By David Biello

...By studying sediment cores from the deep Pacific near the Philippines, paleoclimatologist Lowell Stott of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles and his colleagues revealed that the temperatures of the deepest seas rose by around 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) at least 1,000 years before sea-surface temperatures. "Even accounting for the uncertainties of the age of CO2, the deep sea warmed substantially before the CO2 began to rise," Stott says. "The deep Pacific is such an enormously large volume of water that [this warming] reflects the input of a tremendous amount of energy into the global system."

<<<<<<<<<<<<

Pete, from the perspective of a "left" leaning point of view about Gore, Kyoto, his movie, and the environment and how the US lead during the 8 years of Clinton/Gore there is this: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jul2006/gore-j15.shtml

All of the proposed cuts in power production and use are not without consequence. I think I have posted this article before on how the poorest of the poor view many of the conservation efforts. The problems felt by those with virtually nothing are totally ignored by those wanting a perfect world.

http://www.rangemagazine.com/features/summer-06/su-sr-06-enemies-of-conservation.pdf

Marion, in fact indigenous peoples are quite upset. See: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0712/S00891.htm

>>>>>>>>>>
Bali Outcomes Trample Indigenous Peoples Rights
Sunday, 16 December 2007, 9:18 am
Press Release: Global Forest Coalition

As the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change ends, Global Forest Coalition [1] expresses great concern that market-based mechanisms promoted here do not give enough guarantees to indigenous peoples and forest dependent peoples to ensure their rights.

Global Forest Coalition's Managing Coordinator, Simone Lovera stated, "The outcomes of the forest negotiations here in Bali do not include any guarantee that the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities regarding their forests, which have been enshrined in the UN Declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, will be respected. Instead, this entire process is dominated by the corporate interests of logging, soy and palmoil companies that have started to demand compensation for every tree they don't cut down. Carbon offset projects financing such compensation schemes do not contribute anything to mitigating climate change, they are no more than a convenient lie to subsidize some of the most destructive industries on earth. Considering the crisis we are in, carbon offsets are unacceptable: We desperately need both forest conservation AND policies that cut emissions at source"

"Indigenous peoples and women are the traditional caretakers of the forest," said Anne Petermann, Co-director of Global Justice Ecology Project. [2] "The fact that they are being ignored and excluded in this process is typifying for the way in which we are moving in the wrong direction."

The International Forum of Indigenous Peoples on Climate Change, expressed their profound concern in a statement read inside the UNFCCC about Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries (REDD) [3]:

"REDD will not benefit Indigenous Peoples, but in fact, will result in more violations of Indigenous Peoples' Rights. It will increase the violation of our Human Rights, our rights to our lands, territories and resources, steal our land, cause forced evictions, prevent access and threaten indigenous agriculture practices, destroy biodiversity and culture diversity and cause social conflicts. Under REDD, States and Carbon Traders will take more control over our forests."
<<<<<<<<<<<

I believe palm oil for biofuel production is already causing dislocations.

Regarding the association of CO2 and warming I read an anology that asked, "Do tomestones cause death because there are a lot of dead people wherever you find tomestones?" Read again my link to Scientific American regarding the USC study on which came first, CO2 or warming.