AP incorrectly claims scientist priase Gore's movie.

[Mr.Vicchio]

June 27, 2006 The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology. AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.” In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted. The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, Correll’s reported links as an “affiliate” of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides “expert testimony” in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm ======= “…Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?”- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column. Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gore’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970. "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology,” –Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press.

http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem....=rep&id=257909

algore's movie is nothing more then kool aide for the unwashed masses, hysteria disguised as science, fear mongering at it's worst.

It's good to see someone smack the liberal media for thier absurd groveling at that mans feet over this issue.

[tinybear]

Here's my question: Why's Al trying to scare us? Isn't he better off producing Scary Movie V?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Tinybear, it's a path to power, and money. Nothing more. algore knows that Global Warming is a "hot topic" if you will, and by peddling this in the manner of Michael Moore, he can gain some fame, get paid, wield some "power" and feel like he is... well relevant.

That's all this movie is.

[Pooeypants]

I'm not surprised in the slightest; politicians will always find something to endorse/condemn with inorder to boost their ratings.
I doubt that it's worse than "The day after tomorrow"...

[tinybear]

Or Fahrenheit 9/11? :)

[RickSp]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Tinybear, it's a path to power, and money. Nothing more. algore knows that Global Warming is a "hot topic" if you will, and by peddling this in the manner of Michael Moore, he can gain some fame, get paid, wield some "power" and feel like he is... well relevant. That's all this movie is.

Here you go again, Mr. V. Getting the facts wrong from top to bottom.

Al Gore is donating all the money he makes on this movie and the book to charity, so your claim about Gore being in it for the money is nonsense. And the truth is most scientists think Gore got it right. Your rants are just so much greenhouse gas.

Climate experts: Gore's movie gets the science right

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Tinybear Here's my question: Why's Al trying to scare us?

Because he's right, and we need to be scared. The science is in... global warming is real, we caused it, it's happening faster than predicted, and sitting on our butts doing nothing isn't an option.

Quote by: underbear Or Fahrenheit 9/11?

Not even close, Bear. Michael Moore is the liberal equivilant of Limbaugh and O'Reilly..meaning he's a lying sack of sh!t. Gore has it exactly right, and you'd do well to pay attention. Start by going to see the movie.

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio algore's movie is nothing more then kool aide for the unwashed masses, hysteria disguised as science, fear mongering at it's worst.

The unwashed masses, Mr.V, are the head-in-the-Sand morons who refuse to accept the consensus of the vast majority of the scientific community studying the issue.

The report you linked is a crock, a MAJORITY report, meaning only the Republicans, from a committee chaired by James Inhofe, one of the most conservative members of either chamber. And at the same time he was issuing this nonsense, the Senate science committee was listening to a report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--"The most striking evidence of a global warming trend are closely scrutinized data that show a relatively rapid increase in temperature, particularly over the past 30 years. Weather station records and ship-based observations indicate that global mean surface air temperature increased about 0.7oF (0.4oC) since the early 1970’s (See Figure). Although the magnitude of warming varies locally, the warming trend is spatially widespread and is consistent with an array of other evidence "

"Laboratory measurements of gases trapped in dated ice cores have shown that for hundreds of thousands of years, changes in temperature have closely tracked atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Burning fossil fuel for energy, industrial processes, and transportation releases carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now at its highest level in 400,000 years and continues to rise."

"Nearly all climate scientists today believe that much of Earth’s current warming has been caused by increases in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mostly from the burning of fossil fuels. The degree of confidence in this conclusion is higher today than it was 10, or even 5 years ago, but uncertainties remain."--

--"One of the major scientific uncertainties is how climate could be affected by what are known as “climate feedbacks.” Feedbacks can either amplify or dampen the climate response to an initial radiative forcing. During a feedback process, a change in one variable, such as carbon dioxide concentration, causes a change in temperature, which then causes a change in a third variable, such as water vapor, which in turn causes a further change in temperature."--

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inhofe's nonsense was simply an effort to deflect the massive attention Gore's movie is getting, and he relied on the 'usual suspects' of 3 descredited scientists, perhaps the last 3 on earth who haven't accepted the reality of global warming, and who are paid shills of either the American Petroleum Institute or conservative 'Free Market' foundations.

Then, they drag out their naysayer minority scientists, Bob Carter, the American Petroleum Institute's paid shill Richard S. Lindzen, and Roy Spencer, who's affiliated with the following:

--"Tech Central Science Foundation was formed in late November 2002 (Form 990). The Foundation appears to be a funding arm of the free-market news site, TechCentralStation.com. ExxonMobil gave the Foundation $95,000 in 2003 for "Climate Change Support."--

--"The Heartland Institute sponsors www.climatesearch.org, a web page ostensibly dedicated to objective research on global warming, but at the same time presenting heavily biased research by organizations such as the American Petroleum Institute as an FAQ section. The Heartland Institute networks heavily with other conservative policy organizations, and is part of the State Policy Network, a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition (as of 4/04), and co-sponsored the 2001 Fly In for Freedom with the Wise Use umbrella group, Alliance for America. Heartland also co-sponsored a New York state Conference on Property Rights, hosted by the Property Rights Foundation of America."--

--"Founded in 1984, The George Marshall Institute primarily focused on defense issues, advocating funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative and Star Wars. GMI has since branched out and is one of the leading think tanks trying to debunk climate change."--

Then they go on to criticize Gore's use of the "descredited Mann hockey stick", ignoring that the dispute with Mann's data has to do with temperatures going back further in time, with no significant dispute regarding the 'hockey stick' portion.

Hockey Stick Myths

"MYTH #1: Evidence for modern human influence on climate rests entirely upon the "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures indicating anomalous late 20th century warmth."

"MYTH #2: The "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction is based solely on two publications by climate scientist Michael Mann and colleagues (Mann et al, 1998;1999)."

"MYTH #3: Regional proxy evidence of warm or anomalous (wet or dry) conditions in past centuries contradicts the conclusion that late 20th century hemispheric mean warmth is anomalous in a long-term (multi-century to millennial) context."

"MYTH #4: The "Hockey Stick" studies claim that the 20th century on the whole is the warmest period of the past 1000 years."

"MYTH #5: Errors in the "Hockey Stick" undermine the conclusion that late 20th century hemispheric warmth is anomalous."

Here's what REAL science is saying...

U.S. National Academy of Sciences Earth hottest it's been in 2,000 years --"Their conclusions (in a report to Congress) were meant to address, and they lent credibility to, a well-known graphic among climate researchers — a "hockey-stick" chart that climate scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes created in the late 1990s to show the Northern Hemisphere was the warmest it has been in 2,000 years."--

American Meteorological Society --"The Arctic is presently exhibiting the largest and most diverse responses to anthropogenic climate warming; these include some of the largest surface temperature increases, rapid retreat of sea ice, and recently documented melting of glacial ice."--

American Geophysical Union --"climate change estimates for the next century may have substantially underestimated the potential magnitude of global warming. They say that actual warming due to human fossil fuel emissions may be 15-to-78 percent higher than warming estimates that do not take into account the feedback mechanism involving carbon dioxide and Earth's temperature."--

NASA Goodard Institute for Space Studies --" Recent warming coincides with rapid growth of human-made greenhouse gases. Climate models show that the rate of warming is consistent with expectations (5). The observed rapid warming thus gives urgency to discussions about how to slow greenhouse gas emissions (6)."--

.

[belverron]

Quote by: RickSp Here you go again, Mr. V. Getting the facts wrong from top to bottom. Al Gore is donating all the money he makes on this movie and the book to charity, so your claim about Gore being in it for the money is nonsense. And the truth is most scientists think Gore got it right. Your rants are just so much greenhouse gas. Climate experts: Gore's movie gets the science right

Please tell me you realize that you quoted the article V's was refuting.

[RickSp]

Quote by: belverron Please tell me you realize that you quoted the article V's was refuting.

Sure. And V's"refutation" was typical Republican swiftboating. No real scientific criticism, just personal attack and innuendo. Predictable facts be damned politics of personal destruction that Rove and his ilk are so fond of, that get the simpleton base so worked up.

[belverron]

Quote by: RickSp Sure. And V's"refutation" was typical Republican swiftboating. No real scientific criticism, just personal attack and innuendo. Predictable facts be damned politics of personal destruction that Rove and his ilk are so fond of, that get the simpleton base so worked up.

Well, no argument there.

[Sonart]

.


Here's the conservative's dilemma.

Conservatives like science. They think we should be teaching more math and science in schools instead of all that PC crap. Science is only a problem when it conflicts with their core values, and in this case their core value is, NO GOVERNMENT REGULATION!.

Government has no business telling the free market that it has to change its ways. Unfortunately, if global warming is real, the free market is going to have to change its ways. In fact, refusing to change the way they do business when it could bring about a global catastrophe is immoral in the extreme. But, conservatives see themselves as the paragons of morality, in fact the arbitors of morality.

So, faced with the dilemma of refusing to allow government to tell the market to change their ways, and the immorality of not changing their ways in the face of global warming, there's really only one solution....

...global warming isn't happening. :rolleyes:


.

[underbear1]

The "scientists" attacking Gore and global warming debate are bought and paid for by the oil and coal companies. Internationally respected scientists agree with Gore's thesis that humans are damaging this planet's climate and we have about a decade before we reach a tipping point of not being able to avert a calamity which could cause 100 million refugees..

[underbear1]

Conservatives like science.
Unless it is bad for BUSINESS or contradicts teachings of Catholics, Baptists or Mormons.then they rail against science.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: RickSp Here you go again, Mr. V. Getting the facts wrong from top to bottom. Al Gore is donating all the money he makes on this movie and the book to charity, so your claim about Gore being in it for the money is nonsense. And the truth is most scientists think Gore got it right. Your rants are just so much greenhouse gas. Climate experts: Gore's movie gets the science right

No, actually Rick, they don't. If you think that there is a consensus, with Mr. Gore, then here:

“…A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.”- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal.

http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem....=rep&id=257909

And here, 17,000 scientist that have signed a petition saying they DISAGREE with the global Warming ferar mongers blaming man and claiming to know what's happening and how to "fix" it.
http://www.sitewave.net/pproject/listbystate.htm

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio No, actually Rick, they don't. If you think that there is a consensus, with Mr. Gore, then here: http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem....=rep&id=257909 And here, 17,000 scientist that have signed a petition saying they DISAGREE with the global Warming ferar mongers blaming man and claiming to know what's happening and how to "fix" it. http://www.sitewave.net/pproject/listbystate.htm

Please don't make me laugh, the OISM petition has been debunked already. Click here and read the history of the whole organisation and its fraud.

Try harder.

[Sonart]

.

Your first link is a crock, Mr.V. It was the MAJORITY report from the Committee, meaning just the Republicans, led by Sen. James Inhofe, one of the most conservative Republicans in either house. But you're right... they went to all this trouble just to vent their opinion on Gore's successful movie. Their complaints?? The article didn't identify all of them, only interviewed 5 of them, and they saw it at {gasp} a private screening. oooOOOOooo!!

Then, they drag out the usual suspects of naysayer minority science, Bob Carter, the American Petroleum Institute's paid shill Richard S. Lindzen, and Roy Spencer, who's affiliated with the following:

--"Tech Central Science Foundation was formed in late November 2002 (Form 990). The Foundation appears to be a funding arm of the free-market news site, TechCentralStation.com. ExxonMobil gave the Foundation $95,000 in 2003 for "Climate Change Support."--

--"The Heartland Institute sponsors www.climatesearch.org, a web page ostensibly dedicated to objective research on global warming, but at the same time presenting heavily biased research by organizations such as the American Petroleum Institute as an FAQ section. The Heartland Institute networks heavily with other conservative policy organizations, and is part of the State Policy Network, a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition (as of 4/04), and co-sponsored the 2001 Fly In for Freedom with the Wise Use umbrella group, Alliance for America. Heartland also co-sponsored a New York state Conference on Property Rights, hosted by the Property Rights Foundation of America."--

--"Founded in 1984, The George Marshall Institute primarily focused on defense issues, advocating funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative and Star Wars. GMI has since branched out and is one of the leading think tanks trying to debunk climate change."--

Then they go on to criticize Gore's use of the "descredited Mann hockey stick", ignoring that the dispute with Mann's data has to do with temperatures going back further in time, with no significant dispute regarding the 'hockey stick' portion. Hockey Stick Myths

Yet the Committee Republicans completely ignore additional reports going on under their own roof.

U.S. National Academy of Sciences --"WASHINGTON - The Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years, probably even longer. The National Academy of Sciences, reaching that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by Congress, reported Thursday that the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia.

The report was requested in November by the chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert R-N.Y., to address naysayers who question whether global warming is a major threat."--

Not to mention....

U.S. National Academy of Sciences Earth hottest it's been in 2,000 years --"Their conclusions (in a report to Congress) were meant to address, and they lent credibility to, a well-known graphic among climate researchers — a "hockey-stick" chart that climate scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes created in the late 1990s to show the Northern Hemisphere was the warmest it has been in 2,000 years."--

American Meteorological Society --"The Arctic is presently exhibiting the largest and most diverse responses to anthropogenic climate warming; these include some of the largest surface temperature increases, rapid retreat of sea ice, and recently documented melting of glacial ice."--

American Geophysical Union --"climate change estimates for the next century may have substantially underestimated the potential magnitude of global warming. They say that actual warming due to human fossil fuel emissions may be 15-to-78 percent higher than warming estimates that do not take into account the feedback mechanism involving carbon dioxide and Earth's temperature."--

NASA Goodard Institute for Space Studies --" Recent warming coincides with rapid growth of human-made greenhouse gases. Climate models show that the rate of warming is consistent with expectations (5). The observed rapid warming thus gives urgency to discussions about how to slow greenhouse gas emissions (6)."--


Your second link is an equal crock. Number one, it doesn't address the science of Global Warming at all. It is a petition against the Kyoto Agreement, and no one on this thread has said diddly-squat about Kyoto. That petition was circulated back in 2000. The petition was endorsed by a past president of the U.S. Academy of Sciences. You have, on this page, the current position of the Academy, which is completely opposite to what your petition suggests. Further, Scientific American reported...

--"Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition—one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community."--

As TIME magazine pointed out, the "Environmentalists and lawmakers spent years shouting at one another about whether the grim forecasts were true, but in the past five years or so, the serious debate has quietly ended. Global warming, even most skeptics have concluded, is the real deal, and human activity has been causing it."

Gregg Easterbrook, Brookings Institute --"As an environmental commentator, I have a long record of opposing alarmism. But based on the data I'm now switching sides regarding global warming, from skeptic to convert. Once global-warming science was too uncertain to form the basis of policy decisions — and this was hardly just the contention of oil executives. "There is no evidence yet" of dangerous climate change, a National Academy of Sciences report said in 1991. A 1992 survey of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society found that only 17 percent of members believed there was sufficient grounds to declare an artificial greenhouse effect in progress. In 1993 Thomas Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center, said there existed "a great range of uncertainty" regarding whether the world is warming. Clearly, the question called for more research. That research is now in, and it shows a strong scientific consensus that an artificially warming world is a real phenomenon posing real danger: "--

Michael Shermer -- "Politics polluted the science and made me an environmental skeptic. Nevertheless, data trump politics, and a convergence of evidence from numerous sources has led me to make a cognitive switch on the subject of anthropogenic global warming. My attention was piqued on February 8 when 86 leading evangelical Christians--the last cohort I expected to get on the environmental bandwagon--issued the Evangelical Climate Initiative calling for "national legislation requiring sufficient economy-wide reductions" in carbon emissions."--[/i]

David Attenborough --"I was skeptical about climate change. I was cautious about crying wolf. I am always cautious about crying wolf. I think conservationists have to be careful in saying things are catastrophic when, in fact, they are less than catastrophic.

But I'm no longer skeptical. Now I do not have any doubt at all. I think climate change is the major challenge facing the world. I have waited until the proof was conclusive that it was humanity changing the climate. The thing that really convinced me was the graphs connecting the increase of carbon dioxide in the environment and the rise in temperature, with the growth of human population and industrialisation. The coincidence of the curves made it perfectly clear we have left the period of natural climatic oscillation behind and have begun on a steep curve, in terms of temperature rise, beyond anything in terms of increases that we have seen over many thousands of years."--

And finally, the views of American citizens have also changed over the past several years. 66% of Americans believe that global warming is having a serious impact right now. This in a country where 55% do NOT believe that humans are descended from lower forms.

It seems the case is being made.


.

[underbear1]

Quote by: Sonart . Quote by: Tinybear Here's my question: Why's Al trying to scare us? Because he's right, and we need to be scared. The science is in... global warming is real, we caused it, it's happening faster than predicted, and sitting on our butts doing nothing isn't an option. Quote by: underbear Or Fahrenheit 9/11? Not even close, Bear. Michael Moore is the liberal equivilant of Limbaugh and O'Reilly..meaning he's a lying sack of sh!t. Gore has it exactly right, and you'd do well to pay attention. Start by going to see the movie. Quote by: Mr.Vicchio algore's movie is nothing more then kool aide for the unwashed masses, hysteria disguised as science, fear mongering at it's worst. The unwashed masses, Mr.V, are the head-in-the-Sand morons who refuse to accept the consensus of the vast majority of the scientific community studying the issue. The report you linked is a crock, a MAJORITY report, meaning only the Republicans, from a committee chaired by James Inhofe, one of the most conservative members of either chamber. And at the same time he was issuing this nonsense, the Senate science committee was listening to a report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --"The most striking evidence of a global warming trend are closely scrutinized data that show a relatively rapid increase in temperature, particularly over the past 30 years. Weather station records and ship-based observations indicate that global mean surface air temperature increased about 0.7oF (0.4oC) since the early 1970’s (See Figure). Although the magnitude of warming varies locally, the warming trend is spatially widespread and is consistent with an array of other evidence " "Laboratory measurements of gases trapped in dated ice cores have shown that for hundreds of thousands of years, changes in temperature have closely tracked atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Burning fossil fuel for energy, industrial processes, and transportation releases carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now at its highest level in 400,000 years and continues to rise." "Nearly all climate scientists today believe that much of Earth’s current warming has been caused by increases in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mostly from the burning of fossil fuels. The degree of confidence in this conclusion is higher today than it was 10, or even 5 years ago, but uncertainties remain."-- --"One of the major scientific uncertainties is how climate could be affected by what are known as “climate feedbacks.” Feedbacks can either amplify or dampen the climate response to an initial radiative forcing. During a feedback process, a change in one variable, such as carbon dioxide concentration, causes a change in temperature, which then causes a change in a third variable, such as water vapor, which in turn causes a further change in temperature."-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Inhofe's nonsense was simply an effort to deflect the massive attention Gore's movie is getting, and he relied on the 'usual suspects' of 3 descredited scientists, perhaps the last 3 on earth who haven't accepted the reality of global warming, and who are paid shills of either the American Petroleum Institute or conservative 'Free Market' foundations. Then, they drag out their naysayer minority scientists, Bob Carter, the American Petroleum Institute's paid shill Richard S. Lindzen, and Roy Spencer, who's affiliated with the following: --"Tech Central Science Foundation was formed in late November 2002 (Form 990). The Foundation appears to be a funding arm of the free-market news site, TechCentralStation.com. ExxonMobil gave the Foundation $95,000 in 2003 for "Climate Change Support."-- --"The Heartland Institute sponsors www.climatesearch.org, a web page ostensibly dedicated to objective research on global warming, but at the same time presenting heavily biased research by organizations such as the American Petroleum Institute as an FAQ section. The Heartland Institute networks heavily with other conservative policy organizations, and is part of the State Policy Network, a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition (as of 4/04), and co-sponsored the 2001 Fly In for Freedom with the Wise Use umbrella group, Alliance for America. Heartland also co-sponsored a New York state Conference on Property Rights, hosted by the Property Rights Foundation of America."-- --"Founded in 1984, The George Marshall Institute primarily focused on defense issues, advocating funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative and Star Wars. GMI has since branched out and is one of the leading think tanks trying to debunk climate change."-- Then they go on to criticize Gore's use of the "descredited Mann hockey stick", ignoring that the dispute with Mann's data has to do with temperatures going back further in time, with no significant dispute regarding the 'hockey stick' portion. Hockey Stick Myths "MYTH #1: Evidence for modern human influence on climate rests entirely upon the "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures indicating anomalous late 20th century warmth." "MYTH #2: The "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction is based solely on two publications by climate scientist Michael Mann and colleagues (Mann et al, 1998;1999)." "MYTH #3: Regional proxy evidence of warm or anomalous (wet or dry) conditions in past centuries contradicts the conclusion that late 20th century hemispheric mean warmth is anomalous in a long-term (multi-century to millennial) context." "MYTH #4: The "Hockey Stick" studies claim that the 20th century on the whole is the warmest period of the past 1000 years." "MYTH #5: Errors in the "Hockey Stick" undermine the conclusion that late 20th century hemispheric warmth is anomalous." Here's what REAL science is saying... U.S. National Academy of Sciences Earth hottest it's been in 2,000 years --"Their conclusions (in a report to Congress) were meant to address, and they lent credibility to, a well-known graphic among climate researchers — a "hockey-stick" chart that climate scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes created in the late 1990s to show the Northern Hemisphere was the warmest it has been in 2,000 years."-- American Meteorological Society --"The Arctic is presently exhibiting the largest and most diverse responses to anthropogenic climate warming; these include some of the largest surface temperature increases, rapid retreat of sea ice, and recently documented melting of glacial ice."-- American Geophysical Union --"climate change estimates for the next century may have substantially underestimated the potential magnitude of global warming. They say that actual warming due to human fossil fuel emissions may be 15-to-78 percent higher than warming estimates that do not take into account the feedback mechanism involving carbon dioxide and Earth's temperature."-- NASA Goodard Institute for Space Studies --" Recent warming coincides with rapid growth of human-made greenhouse gases. Climate models show that the rate of warming is consistent with expectations (5). The observed rapid warming thus gives urgency to discussions about how to slow greenhouse gas emissions (6)."-- .

This is the SECOND time something has been presented as MY QUOTE which I never posted......WHERE THE HELL DO YOU GET OFF PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH?

[underbear1]

Sonart I demand you provide the link of where you got the quote attributed to me, or STOP quoting any of my posts PERIOD!

[Jack]

He just got confused between tinybear (whom he was actually quoting) and underbear1. All you "bear"s are just so cute and huggable, it was an honest mistake, I'm sure. :)