Yes, I am still distracted.  I think it is more depression into ennui, actually, and have come to appreciate Marvin the Robot.

So, in the meantime, for your viewing hysteria, let me relate to boring data that still proves the current weather hysteria is just that and the the U.S. ain't so bad, at least, regarding CO2.:

The Kyoto Protocol, which the U.S. did not sign, established caps to reduce CO2 in phases. The first phase was 2008 to 2012. The profligate Americans failed to burn more fossil fuels and there has been a significant downward trent in CO2 production. Still, we are bad boys for not becoming controlled by zealots.

Here is a bit from a recent NYT article:

...Over all, global emissions jumped 3 percent in 2011 and are expected to jump 2.6 percent in 2012, researchers reported in two papers released by scientific journals on Sunday. It has become routine to set new emissions records each year, although the global economic crisis led to a brief decline in 2009.

The level of carbon dioxide, the most important heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere, has increased about 41 percent since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and scientists fear it could double or triple before emissions are brought under control. The temperature of the planet has already increased about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since 1850.

Further increases in carbon dioxide are likely to have a profound effect on climate, scientists say, leading to higher seas and greater coastal flooding, more intense weather disasters like droughts and heat waves, and an extreme acidification of the ocean. Many experts believe the effects are already being seen, but they are projected to worsen...

So if the world production jumped 3 percent, but the U.S., the big giant hog as true believers have it, decreased, that means the righteous world is having a blast, so to speak.  This only goes to the BS level of our eco friends, the people who fly their jets to around the world to discuss the rise in CO2.

Note a few things from the Times spin. The appearance of all the cognitive dissonance fit to print is always interesting. I wanted to point out the "science" the Times is all distressed over, so I underlined a few items for you to consider. 

OK, it is more than a few items.  Unknown scientists have many inklings in unnamed journals, according to the Times. And with no attribution, we are being flooded out because of CO2.  I have seen cartoons proving this as Al Gore said it would.  In a high school this gibberish would be declaimed for any subject matter other than the politically correct fads. 

The problem is CO2 does not correlate to temperature during the history of the earth; though unnamed icentists find their statistics for  the years 1990 through 2000 show a correlation that proves otherwise (which is impossible logic as correlations prove nothing).  Actually, there is no correlation:

Indeed, the CO2 levels INCREASE after warming periods, which actually can be related to a causative assumption:  more plants increases CO2.  This is a "duh.." The graph below demonstrates CO2 follows warming. It also shows that there has been a recent spike, assuming valid (not politically correct) data. in recent years of CO2 particulates that would be a matter to study.  

However, it is NOT the cause of the non-existant warming. 

Just to make this clear, if CO2 causes warming, then the red line must precede the blue one. Rather, is follows closely behind.Also, Notice the current temperature has not topped the warm periods over the last 450,000 years.  That seems like a good comparison.  However, the recent warmth has been stubborn around the baseline, for many years. This would cause more plants; however, the "Industrial Age" does produce CO2.  

But who cares, right?