From what I've heard Cuban on average have better health than Americans at a fraction of the cost. The may not have all the high tech we have in the US but the do a good job with what they have. I don't know about Venezuelans. But I was talking mostly about countries comparable to the US like Canada, most of Europe, Japan and Australia.

The Keystone XL pipeline would employ less that 50 people after it's built. It would provide maybe 5,000 or 6,000 jobs during construction. It's not that significant a job creator. The oil in that pipeline is set for export to other countries although it might be partially refined in Houston to make it easier to transport. Personally I think the Canadian tar sands production should be shut down. It's one of the dirtiest ways possible to get oil.

"No warming" is overstating it. Surface temperatures certainly have slowed down compared to 1998 but that was an outlier year with an extreme El Nino. If you throw that outlier year out (or take the average between the preceding and following year) it still looks like warming. (Picking an outlier value to start your series with is commonly known as cherry picking.) On top of that you can't ignore the heat stored in the oceans and that hasn't slowed down at all.

So your "global warming is a hoax model" has 13 more years to go before it fits in standard climatology. We'll see what happens.

That depends on the difference in price between a non-energy saving car you might have bought and the energy saving car you might have bought. Same think with renewable energy. If you need some new source of energy to replace an old source that's worn out what's the cost difference between your various options vs. what you save in production costs after it's installed.

Climategate was an exercise in out of context quote mining and has no bearing on the science that's been published.

Yes, if I'm lucky enough live another 30 years I'll be 92. But even in the short term temperatures are still within the uncertainty ranges of climate models and until they drop out of that range for a few years I'll continue think the models are doing ok.

That's where I come down on the argument too. Until the fetus is capable of surviving on its own outside of the pregnant woman's body then only she has the right to determine its fate.

Which brings up the question "Does a clone have a soul?" Maybe it gets split between the original and the clone. (TIC)

The real question is why are we dependent on our employers for health care coverage in the first place. It's just another way for them to put their hooks in you.

When scientists discover a problem with the data it has to be fixed or thrown out. To take the recent example of the Lulling, Texas station it was discovered that a bad data cable was causing the readings to be low. They estimated the values for Lulling by taking the readings from other nearby stations and comparing them to Lulling when it produced good data. From that the estimated what the real values would have been. That's not as good as the real values would have been but it's the best we can do under the circumstances.

IPCC executive summaries are just that. Simplifications of the main reports where uncertainty is expressed in ranges of how likely or unlikely something is.

Your expectations only yours. They have no bearing on the expectations that scientific uncertainty brings.

Here you go, raw climate data.

That's sad. Since it occurred in 2006 it sounds to me like a Bush administration change.

Here you go, raw climate data.

I said in the long run. If the effects of global warming cause our civilization to break down people will have other things to worry about than providing wealthy people with the amenities.

Uncertainties are always mentioned in the scientific papers. They are often left out in main stream journalism in the interest of simplifying the reporting.

That's a non-answer. The answer has to be based on the physical limitations of the field you are studying.