That really read like a misleading article. What is written by the reporter without quotes says something very different than what is actually quoted. Ten days ago I went to a a presentation by 2 U Missouri geographers who were observers at the Copenhagen meeting. They showed graphs where the global temperature has been substantially warmer the last decade than the one one before. I suppose this is a way around the fact that 1998 was such a warm year; if compared to 1998, which I think is still the record warm year, it looks like it has not warmed. But that year would be considered an outlier. Another graph showed that the release of CO2 is running along or beyond the worst case predictions. If it continues to follow worst case predictions this century, they level are predicted to be on the order of double todays. Believe me, things are going to be very different with such levels.

The small fraction of earths atmosphere that will be CO2, still less than 1 part per thousand, is misleading at best; it is how much ability that portion has to warm the earth that is important, and that is atmospheric chemistry and physics. And, the speakers did not dispute a skeptic that water vapor is more important, but for some warming from CO2, more water can be held by atmosphere, so that is a positive feedback (It's physics; warm air can hold more water (absolute humidity); for a given amount of water in atmosphere, it is the relative humidity that drops if temperatures go up.

On the other hand, I think current effects are overstated and the question is, how much of this is the media, and how much is coming from climate scientists? The climate scientists need to be careful to not overstate.

Chris