posted May 10, 2010 09:39 PM            

19 degrees, 4 inchs of snow, blizzard winds and more to come...

Call it what you want but global warming left us in it`s dust

------------------
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted May 10, 2010 09:50 PM            

It seems like only a few months ago that Algore was running around bloviating that we only had about 10 years to solve man made global warming....by cutting carbon dioxide emissions.

Algore began saying that in 1988 or 89...and he continues to say it. 20 years after he said we only have 10 years...he's still saying it.

My, how the mighty have fallen. They went from a consensus of settled science to backtracking on virtually everything they said. Their computer models of climate didn't work and still don't work. Their climate models missed predicting the declining downtrend in temperatures which started in 1998. Then, they had to come up with an excuse for why temperatures were going down...while carbon dioxide concentrations were going up. Their feeble excuse is that it's a temporary lull and the climb will resume in 15-30 years.

So now acoustic, you come with a website composed of 6 so called climate experts. One of those experts in a guy named Mann. That's right, the very same Mann who is under investigation at Pennsylvania State University for falsifying climate data...part of which was the fraudulent "hockey stick" graph he falsified to hide the decline in temperatures since 1998. And acoustic, there is no doubt he did falsify data to produce the now disproved hockey stick graph.

In the meantime, 31,000 real scientists, about 9000 of whom are PhDs signed a document declaring man made global warming is a crock of crap.

But, even the site you linked to now admits carbon dioxide lags temperatures by hundreds or even three thousand years....just as the ice core samples proved.

"The coolings appear to be caused primarily and initially by increase in the Earth-Sun distance during northern hemisphere summer, due to changes in the Earth’s orbit. As the orbit is not round, but elliptical, sunshine is weaker during some parts of the year than others. This is the so-called Milankovitch hypothesis [this really should say "theory" -- eric], which you may have heard about. Just as in the warmings, CO2 lags the coolings by a thousand years or so, in some cases as much as three thousand years." http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

So now, the clowns are reduced to admitting carbon dioxide does not trigger temperature rises and coolings and may not even be a factor in the first 1000 years of heating or cooling.

"Thus it is not logical to argue that, because CO2 does not cause the first thousand years or so of warming, nor the first thousand years of cooling, it cannot have caused part of the many thousands of years of warming in between." http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

Now acoustic, even the source you cite here is back peddling furiously away from earlier statements that carbon dioxide emissions CAUSE..Triggers...global warming.

There's something else the clowns have not factored into their equations.

Interglacial periods...periods of warming..last on average about 12,000 years between ice ages. We are now about 12,000 years into the current interglacial period. So, whatever effect carbon dioxide has had on temperature rises in the past 12,000 years, that's coming to a halt soon.

In a thousand years or so...when glaciation gets into high gear again, some different crackpots are going to be blaming the new ice age on falling carbon dioxide concentrations and attempting to get whatever government exists to mandate more carbon dioxide emissions.

posted May 11, 2010 10:43 AM            

The real scientists at Real Climate are NOT backpedaling. That's a ridiculous statement. In fact, it seems that every time they address something new in the sceptical world they have to reference back to previous things they've said, because the science has been consistent, and they have been making the same points repeatedly. Real Climate contends with no equivocation that man made CO2 levels are contributing to global warming.

I'll check when I get into work, but I even doubt your claim about Mann. I bet he's not under investigation for falsifying data at all.

posted May 11, 2010 11:31 AM            

A Penn State inquiry panel investigating "Climategate" professor Michael Mann dismissed three of the four claims against him, the Daily Collegian reports. After reviewing more than 1,000 E-mails, the panel said in a 10-page report that there was no substance to claims that the meteorology prof falsified or supressed data, intended to delete or conceal information, or misused privileged or confidential information. The panel could not, however, make a definitive finding on the fourth allegation, which said that Mann undermined public trust in science. Further investigation into that claim will come.
Link

So let's put that to rest right now. It's been three months since this article was even written.

quote:

---

There's something else the clowns have not factored into their equations.

---

And by "clowns" you mean actual scientists working in the field who know infinitely more about the subject than you do.

They do acknowledge the lag, but the lag doesn't dismiss the fact that CO2 is a heat "amplifier."

posted May 11, 2010 11:42 AM            

If rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere LAGS temperatures....by up to 3,000 years....

THEN RISING CARBON DIOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE ATMOSPHERE DOES NOT TRIGGER GLOBAL WARMING.

posted May 11, 2010 12:03 PM            

Where are YOUR scientists? Huh?

That's what I thought.

Don't sit there and PRETEND you something about carbon dioxide's affect on the atmosphere when the entire scientific community validates the opposite position.

You would get your ass handed to you in a debate with anyone from RealClimate or Pew.

posted May 11, 2010 01:54 PM            

Global Warming Petition
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p1845.htm

Against 31,000 scientists, you can only muster 6...one of whom is under investigation and may face federal charges for defrauding the US government in securing his government research grant.

btw, the link goes to the page where you can find the names of those 31,000 scientists filed alphabetically.

posted May 11, 2010 04:29 PM            

quote:

---

Against 31,000 scientists, you can only muster 6...one of whom is under investigation and may face federal charges for defrauding the US government in securing his government research grant.

---

There's no federal charges pending against anyone involved in the bogus "Climategate". Every investigation has instead found no such impropriety. You want to lie some more?

Let's get back on subject Jwhop.

This is very easy. This is "The world is flat" versus "The world is round." There is no credible debate about the matter. To think that you are able to debate the matter with credibility shows either a great arrogance or a great ignorance. You pick.

posted May 11, 2010 04:45 PM            

You are supposed to prove something. Use the work of one of those supposed scientists. I would suggest a live one that actually works in the field.

posted May 11, 2010 05:10 PM            

You said you could produce a phone book of 30,000 names. Since the name of the game is a list of scientists in favor of restricting carbon dioxide...to save the earth; with which to offset the list of 31,000 US scientists who say man made global warming is a hoax, a scam and a bunch of crap...

all you have to do is produce that phone book sized list.

So acoustic, when are you going to getaroundtoit?

posted May 11, 2010 05:25 PM            

quote:

---

Since the name of the game is a list of scientists in favor of restricting carbon dioxide...to save the earth; with which to offset the list of 31,000 US scientists who say man made global warming is a hoax, a scam and a bunch of crap...

---

The "name of the game" isn't producing a list.

The "name of the game" is producing SCIENCE.

I can't fathom how you can't seem to figure that out.

Producing a 30,000 strong list as you have, that consists of some people who are years dead doesn't prove anything scientifically. Understand? Comprende?

Not to mention the fact that the "information" that accompanied the request for signature was fatally flawed in the first place.

quote:

---

btw, I just love it when you go off the deep end and start talking out of your ass.

---

"Talking out your ass" is all YOU'RE doing in any of these threads regarding global warming. Like I said, the science is definitive. There is NO debate. That you think there is one, is proof of something unflattering about you.

posted May 11, 2010 10:40 PM            

Your merry little band of fraud artists don't know a damned thing about science...or the scientific method.

They had a religious experience about man made global warming. Then, they fudged all the data to conform to their crackpot theory.

Their computer models didn't work, don't work and their so called WORK in the field can't be reproduced by other scientists in the various fields.

They're a big fat bust as scientists.

So acoustic, you've got these 6 guys who swear man made global warming is real...and is destroying the earth. One of those guys is Richard Mann...who is under investigation at Pennsylvania State University for falsifying climate data.

I've got 31,000 real scientists who say man made global warming is a crock of crap, a hoax, a scam...and who have signed their names to a petition saying so.

The real science says carbon dioxide causes neither global warming or cooling and lags temperature changes by up to 3,000 years. Even your so called scientists agree with that statement.

You've got zip, zilch, nada, nothing.

Time for you to go back to Daffy Duck Cartoon Time acoustic.

posted May 11, 2010 11:25 PM            

Dead people, and others that signed on with your group that were presented with bogus information doesn't save your argument.

If those people actually worked in the field, and actually produced papers that actually contained relevant scepticism that would be one thing, but in the absence of virtually ANYTHING scientific --anything peer-reviewed-- you've still got what amounts to nothing of relevance.

You know anyone could find 33,000 Christians, for instance, but that wouldn't PROVE that Christianity was scientifically valid. It's completely inconsequential as a scientific construct.

posted May 12, 2010 09:14 AM            

It would do wonders for your credibility if you bothered to read what you post ...before you post it.

"Just as in the warmings, CO2 lags the coolings by a thousand years or so, in some cases as much as three thousand years."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

These comments from realclimate destroy the man made global warming theory. If CO2 lags heating and cooling cycles...then CO2 IS NOT NOW CAUSING ANY WARMING. NOR DID CO2 CAUSE THE WARMING IN THE 20TH CENTURY.

"CO2 does not cause the first thousand years or so of warming, nor the first thousand years of cooling"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

Your so called climate experts agree with the 31,000 scientists who signed the petition against restricting CO2.

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate"
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p1845.htm

Your position was a lost cause from the beginning.

Earth did warm...to some degree during the early 20th Century. Which is exactly what one would expect coming out of the Little Ice Age which ended in the mid 19th Century.

Increased radiance of the sun ended what scientists call the Maunder Minimum, a period of little to no sun spot activity which caused the Little Ice Age.

When the sun began producing normal sun spot activity...and the increased solar radiation which accompanies sun spots....the earth began to warm again.

This isn't rocket science acoustic; though the least intellectual output appears to be rocket science to leftists. And, it's leftists who are attempting to drive this loony-tunes theory of man made global warming.

We're beginning to come to the conclusion leftists are anti-civilization. That's an easy conclusion to reach given leftists cling to theories and policy positions which are anti-humanity and anti-civilization. Or, perhaps leftists just don't know the greatest advances in science, food production, the arts and medicine come during warm periods...like right now.

The 31,000 scientists who signed the petition recognize those facts.

"Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. "
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p1845.htm

You need to remove yourself from the ranks of the bitter clingers and religious fanatics who cling to the disproved theory of man made global warming.

Don't even attempt to float the idea the 31,000 scientists who signed the petition ARE DEAD. That's Daffy Duck territory.

posted May 12, 2010 09:54 AM            

The scientists at Real Climate, in fact contend in no uncertain terms that man has contributed to global warming. I can quickly find the link when I get in to work.

posted May 12, 2010 10:24 AM            

Simply incredible acoustic...meaning NOT CREDIBLE.

Let's see, Galileo is dead.

Does that mean his theories on MOTION are invalidated?

Does that mean his direct observation that the Earth is not the center of the universe and the Sun does not revolve around the Earth are invalidated?

Marconi is dead.

Does that mean his theory of electromagnetic radiation...radio waves is invalid?

Does that mean there are no radios?

Does that mean there are no wireless transmission instruments?

Einstein is dead.

Does that mean Einstein's theory of general and special relativity are invalid?

Does that mean his theory of photoelectric effects is invalid?

Does that mean there is no atomic bomb, no thermonuclear devices?

Does that mean there are no photoelectric devices...like solar collectors?

Hahaha There are a lot of dead scientists I could name and acoustic, their theories and inventions work as well today as when those dead scientists discovered them or invented them.

posted May 12, 2010 10:24 AM            

Too bad you didn't read what your own chosen experts said about CO2...even when I posted their own words for you to read.

posted May 12, 2010 10:44 AM            

I posted Real Climate's words for you, dear Jwhop. Have you already forgotten? I'm going to post more when I get to work.

posted May 12, 2010 11:14 AM            

This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.

From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a “feedback”, much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn’t tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]

To read more about CO2 and ice cores, see Caillon et al., 2003, Science magazine

Guest Contributor: Jeff Severinghaus
Professor of Geosciences
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California, San Diego.

Update May 2007: We have a fuller exposition of this on a more recent post. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

posted May 12, 2010 11:19 AM            

Note:This is an update to an earlier post, which many found to be too technical. The original, and a series of comments on it, can be found here. See also a more recent post here for an even less technical discussion.

Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.

One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase.

Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

Isotope geochemists have developed time series of variations in the 14C and 13C concentrations of atmospheric CO2. One of the methods used is to measure the 13C/12C in tree rings, and use this to infer those same ratios in atmospheric CO2. This works because during photosynthesis, trees take up carbon from the atmosphere and lay this carbon down as plant organic material in the form of rings, providing a snapshot of the atmospheric composition of that time. If the ratio of 13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 goes up or down, so does the 13C/12C of the tree rings. This isn’t to say that the tree rings have the same isotopic composition as the atmosphere – as noted above, plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes, but as long as that preference doesn’t change much, the tree-ring changes wiil track the atmospheric changes.

Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning. Furthermore, we can trace the absorption of CO2 into the ocean by measuring the 13C/12C ratio of surface ocean waters. While the data are not as complete as the tree ring data (we have only been making these measurements for a few decades) we observe what is expected: the surface ocean 13C/12C is decreasing. Measurements of 13C/12C on corals and sponges — whose carbonate shells reflect the ocean chemistry just as tree rings record the atmospheric chemistry — show that this decline began about the same time as in the atmosphere; that is, when human CO2 production began to accelerate in earnest.***

In addition to the data from tree rings, there are also of measurements of the 13C/12C ratio in the CO2 trapped in ice cores. The tree ring and ice core data both show that the total change in the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere since 1850 is about 0.15%. This sounds very small but is actually very large relative to natural variability. The results show that the full glacial-to-interglacial change in 13C/12C of the atmosphere — which took many thousand years — was about 0.03%, or about 5 times less than that observed in the last 150 years.

For those who are interested in the details, some relevant references are:

Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 11,731-11,748.
Francey, R.J., Allison, C.E., Etheridge, D.M., Trudinger, C.M., Enting, I.G., Leuenberger, M., Langenfelds, R.L., Michel, E., Steele, L.P., 1999. A 1000-year high precision record of d13Cin atmospheric CO2. Tellus 51B, 170–193.
Quay, P.D., B. Tilbrook, C.S. Wong. Oceanic uptake of fossil fuel CO2: carbon-13 evidence. Science 256 (1992), 74-79
—————————

Notes
*How much they can be expected to absorb in the long run is an interesting and important scientific question, discussed in some detail in Chapter 3 of the IPCC report. Clearly, though, it is our ability to produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb that it is the fundamental cause of the observed increase since pre-industrial times.
**The development of continuous series of tree rings going back thousands of years by using trees of overlapping age, is known as dendrochronology (see the Arizona Tree Ring lab web pages for more information on this).
***There is a graph illustrating the sponge data posted here. Thanks to F. Boehm for providing this link.
Link to RealClimate

posted May 12, 2010 11:39 AM            

It won’t have escaped many of our readers’ notice that there has been what can only be described as a media frenzy (mostly in the UK) with regards to climate change in recent weeks. The coverage has contained more bad reporting, misrepresentation and confusion on the subject than we have seen in such a short time anywhere. While the UK newspaper scene is uniquely competitive (especially compared to the US with over half a dozen national dailies selling in the same market), and historically there have been equally frenzied bouts of mis-reporting in the past on topics as diverse as pit bulls, vaccines and child abductions, there is something new in this mess that is worth discussing. And that has been a huge shift in the Overton window for climate change.

In any public discussion there are bounds which people who want to be thought of as having respectable ideas tend to stay between. This is most easily seen in health care debates. In the US, promotion of a National Health Service as in the UK or a single-payer system as in Canada is so far outside the bounds of normal health care politics, that these options are only ever brought up by ‘cranks’ (sigh). Meanwhile in the UK, discussions of health care delivery solutions outside of the NHS framework are never heard in the mainstream media. This limit on scope of the public debate has been called the Overton window.

The window does not have to remain static. Pressure groups and politicians can try and shift the bounds deliberately, or sometimes they are shifted by events. That seems to have been the case in the climate discussion. Prior to the email hack at CRU there had long been a pretty widespread avoidance of ‘global warming is a hoax’ proponents in serious discussions on the subject. The sceptics that were interviewed tended to be the slightly more sensible kind – people who did actually realise that CO2 was a greenhouse gas for instance. But the GW hoaxers were generally derided, or used as punchlines for jokes. This is not because they didn’t exist and weren’t continually making baseless accusations against scientists (they did and they were), but rather that their claims were self-evidently ridiculous and therefore not worth airing.

However, since the emails were released, and despite the fact that there is no evidence within them to support any of these claims of fraud and fabrication, the UK media has opened itself so wide to the spectrum of thought on climate that the GW hoaxers have now suddenly find themselves well within the mainstream. Nothing has changed the self-evidently ridiculousness of their arguments, but their presence at the media table has meant that the more reasonable critics seem far more centrist than they did a few months ago.

A few examples: Monckton being quoted as a ‘prominent climate sceptic’ on the front page of the New York Times this week (Wow!); The Guardian digging up baseless fraud accusations against a scientist at SUNY that had already been investigated and dismissed; The Sunday Times ignoring experts telling them the IPCC was right in favor of the anti-IPCC meme of the day; The Daily Mail making up quotes that fit their GW hoaxer narrative; The Daily Express breathlessly proclaiming the whole thing a ‘climate con’; The Sunday Times (again) dredging up unfounded accusations of corruption in the surface temperature data sets. All of these stories are based on the worst kind of oft-rebunked nonsense and they serve to make the more subtle kind of scepticism pushed by Lomborg et al seem almost erudite.

Perhaps this is driven by editors demanding that reporters come up with something new (to them) that fits into an anti-climate science theme that they are attempting to stoke. Or perhaps it is driven by the journalists desperate to maintain their scoop by pretending to their editors that this nonsense hasn’t been debunked a hundred times already? Who knows? All of these bad decisions made easier when all of the actually sensible people, or people who know anything about the subject at all, are being assailed on all sides, and aren’t necessarily keen to find the time to explain, once again, that yes, the world is warming.

So far, so stupid. But even more concerning is the reaction from outside the UK media bubble. Two relatively prominent and respected US commentators – Curtis Brainard at CJR and Tom Yulsman in Colorado – have both bemoaned the fact that the US media (unusually perhaps) has not followed pell-mell into the fact-free abyss of their UK counterparts. Their point apparently seems to be that since much news print is being devoted to a story somewhere, then that story must be worth following. Indeed, since the substance to any particularly story is apparently proportional to the coverage, by not following the UK bandwagon, US journalists are missing a big story. Yulsman blames the lack of environmental beat reporters for lack of coverage in the US, but since most of the damage and bad reporting on this is from clueless and partisan news desk reporters in the UK, I actually expect that it is the environmental beat reporters prior experience with the forces of disinformation that prevents the contagion crossing the pond. To be sure, reporters should be able and willing (and encouraged) to write stories about anything to do with climate science and its institutions – but that kind of reporting is something very different from regurgitating disinformation, or repeating baseless accusations as fact.

posted May 12, 2010 11:55 AM            

It starts:

"Scientists state unequivocally that the earth is warming."