Global Warming Page 1

Home    Back

-- UAE Snowfall - Do you still believe Al Gore
-- Another Dagger in the Heart of Global Warming Advocacy
-- Sizzling study concludes: Global warming 'hot air'
-- Record-Breaking Ice Core May Hold Key to Climate Variation
-- Hurray for global warming!
-- The Heat is On
-- Gore's home energy use
-- Climate scientists feeling the heat
-- If you can't control the sun - you can't control the climate.  Sun Spots Rule!

 Al Jees mountain, 5,700 feet (1,737 metres) above sea level and 25 kilometres (15 miles) northeast of Ras Al Khaimah city, was covered in 20 centimetres (eight inches) of snow, the state news agency WAM said.

"Although limited snowfall was recorded on the mountain some years back, for the first time the peak of the mountain was fully covered in snow," it said.

Local authorities said temperatures plunged to minus 3 degrees Celsius (26.6 Fahrenheit) on Friday and again to below zero on Saturday, The National newspaper reported.

Major Said al-Yamahi of Ras al-Khaimah police told the newspaper that an area of five square kilometres (almost two square miles) was covered in snow.

The emirates of Abu Dhabi and Dubai also had heavy rains on Friday and Saturday, in a spell of rare chilly weather in a desert state where summer temperatures can reach 50 Celcius (122 Fahrenheit).

 Another Dagger in the Heart of Global Warming Advocacy

Posted Nov 16, 2008 by Barbara Sowell

When GISS made the announcement last week it was shocking. All over the world were reports of unseasonal cold temperatures and record snowfalls. Even the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month of October.

What caused this major blunder? According to the UK’s Telegraph, a detailed analysis of the GISS data found that the reason for the “freak figures” was that “scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all.”

Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

When the errors were discovered by meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the GISS began to revise their figures. To compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, and not wanting to admit that they were wrong, the GISS claimed to have discovered a new “hotspot” in the Arctic. The only problem was that satellite images of the Arctic were telling quite a different story.

GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

Finally a GISS spokesperson tried to explain the error by claiming that the GISS does not have the resources to “exercise proper quality control over the data they receive.” The figures published by the GISS are “one of four data sets that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) rely on to promote the case for global warming . . .”

GISS is run by Al Gore’s “chief scientific ally, Dr. James Hanson”. The Telegraph accused Dr. Hansen and GISS of making extreme claims and creating several global warming scares over the years.

Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.

As more and more scientists reject the “fact” of global warming, it becomes obvious that something needs to be done to insure accurate data. Science based upon advocacy isn’t really science.

Here’s a quote from Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey:

The admission from GISS that they can’t verify their source data when reaching to conclusions should embarrass scientists throughout the profession, as verification of data is absolutely necessary before reaching any conclusions. Without that, GISS may as well be studying the entrails of goats to make predictions about the future climate.

For more details on how this error was discovered see Anthony Watts’ blog Watts Up With That and Steve McIntyre’s blog Climate Audit.

 Sizzling study concludes: Global warming 'hot air'
'You can spit, have same effect as doubling the carbon dioxide'

August 20, 2007

© 2007

A major new scientific study concludes the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on worldwide temperatures is largely irrelevant, prompting one veteran meteorologist to quip, "You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."

Meteorologist Reid Bryson

That comment comes from Reid Bryson, founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin, who said the temperature of the earth is increasing, but that it's got nothing to do with what man is doing.

"Of course it's going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we're coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air."

"Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust," declared astronomer Ian Wilson after reviewing the newest study, now accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed Journal of Geophysical Research.

The project, called "Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System," was authored by Brookhaven National lab scientist Stephen Schwartz.

"Effectively, this (new study) means that the global economy will spend trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of (about) 1.0 K by 2100 A.D.," Wilson wrote in a note to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Sunday.

He was referring to the massive expenditures that would be required under such treaties as the Kyoto Protocol.

"Previously, I have indicated that the widely accepted values for temperature increase associated with a double of CO2 were far too high, i.e. 2-4.5 Kelvin. This new peer-reviewed paper claims a value of 1.1 +/- 0.5 K increase," he added.

Bryson's and Wilson's comments were among those from a long list of doubters of catastrophic, man-made global warming, assembled by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., and posted on a blog site for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Another leader, Ivy League geologist Robert Giegengack, chairman of the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, said he doesn't even consider global warming among the top 10 environmental problems.

(Story continues below)

"In terms of [global warming's] capacity to cause the human species harm, I don't think it makes it into the top 10," he said. "[Former Vice President Al Gore] claims that temperature increases solely because more CO2 in the atmosphere traps the sun's heat. That's just wrong … It's a natural interplay. As temperature rises, CO2 rises, and vice versa. It's hard for us to say CO2 drives temperature. It's easier to say temperature drives CO2."

Gore made – and stars in – a film about purported global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth," that won an Oscar. It has become mandatory for students in many high schools and colleges.

Former Vice President Al Gore wrote and stars in 'An Inconvenient Truth'

However, the studies assembled by Inhofe's team said that's not necessarily so, according to the scientists.

"If we were to stop manufacturing CO2 tomorrow, we wouldn't see the effects of that for generations," Giegengack said.

"Carbon dioxide is 0.000383 of our atmosphere by volume (0.038 percent)," said meteorologist Joseph D'Alea, the first director of meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chief of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecast.

"Only 2.75 percent of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in origin. The amount we emit is said to be up from 1 percent a decade ago. Despite the increase in emissions, the rate of change of atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa remains the same as the long term average (plus 0.45 percent per year)," he said. "We are responsible for just 0.001 percent of this atmosphere. If the atmosphere was a 100-story building, our anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor."

Former Harvard physicist Lubos Motl added that those promoting the fear of man-made climate changes are "playing the children's game to scare each other."

"By the end of the (CO2) doubling, i.e. 560 ppm (parts per million) expected slightly before (the year) 2100 – assuming a business-as-usual continued growth of CO2 that has been linear for some time – Schwartz and others would expect 0.4 C of extra warming only – a typical fluctuation that occurs within four months and certainly nothing that the politicians should pay attention to," Motl explained.

Joel Schwartz, of the American Enterprise Institute, said, "there's hardly any additional warming 'in the pipeline' from previous greenhouse gas emissions. This is in contrast to the IPCC, which predicts that the Earth's average temperature will rise an additional 0.6 degrees C during the 21st Century even if greenhouse gas concentrations stopped increasing," he added.

"Along with dozens of other studies in the scientific literature, [this] new study belies Al Gore's claim that there is no legitimate scholarly alternative to climate catastrophism. Indeed, if Schwartz's results are correct, that alone would be enough to overturn in one fell swoop the IPCC's scientific 'consensus,' the environmentalists' climate hysteria, and the political pretext for the energy-restriction policies that have become so popular with the world's environmental regulators, elected officials, and corporations. The question is, will anyone in the mainstream media notice?" AEI's Schwartz concluded.

The Senate committee assessment said 2007 could go down in history "as the 'tipping point' of man-made global warming fears."

Meteorologist Joseph Conklin, of the website Climate Police said "global warming" is disintegrating.

"A few months ago, a study came out that demonstrated global temperatures have leveled off. But instead of possibly admitting that this whole global warming thing is a farce, a group of British scientists concluded that the real global warming won't start until 2009," Conklin wrote.

However, a United Nations scientist, Jim Renwick, recently conceded that climate models do not account for the variability in nature, and so are not reliable. And Conklin noted the U.S. National Climate Data Center has compiled data that shouldn't be used, because its reporting points are located on hot black asphalt, next to trash burn barrels and even attached to hot chimneys, a methodology that is "seriously flawed."

WND has previously reported on significant doubts about global warming.

Last September, a leading U.S. climate researcher claimed there's a decade at most left to address global warming before environmental disaster takes place, but the federal government issued a report showing the year 1936 had a hotter summer than 2006.

"The average June-August 2006 temperature for the contiguous United States (based on preliminary data) was 2.4 degrees F (1.3 degrees C) above the 20th century average of 72.1 degrees F (22.3 degrees C)," said the NOAA report. "This was the second warmest summer on record, slightly cooler than the record of 74.7 degrees F set in 1936 during the Dust Bowl era. This summer's average was 74.5 degrees F. Eight of the past ten summers have been warmer than the U.S. average for the same period."

WND also reported on NASA-funded study that noted some climate forecasts might be exaggerating estimations of global warming.

The space agency said climate models possibly were overestimating the amount of water vapor entering the atmosphere as the Earth warms.

The theory many scientists work with says the Earth heats up in response to human emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, causing more water to evaporate from the ocean into the atmosphere.

In addition, WND reported that Dr. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, maintains there has been little or no warming since about 1940.

"Any warming from the growth of greenhouse gases is likely to be minor, difficult to detect above the natural fluctuations of the climate, and therefore inconsequential," Singer wrote in a climate-change essay. "In addition, the impacts of warming and of higher CO2 levels are likely to be beneficial for human activities and especially for agriculture."

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit

 Record-Breaking Ice Core May Hold Key to Climate Variation
SCIENCE NEWS    June 10, 2004     By Sarah Graham     Posted 8/16/2007

Scientists have successfully drilled through an Antarctic ice sheet to extract the longest ice core ever recovered, according to a report published today in the journal Nature. The cylinder of ice dates back nearly three quarters of a million years and will help researchers better understand our planet¿s history of cyclical climate variation. "This has the potential to separate the human-caused impacts from the natural and place it in a much clearer context," explains James White of the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder, who was not involved in the research but penned a commentary on the find for this week¿s issue of the journal Science.

An international collaboration known as the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA) recovered the nearly three-kilometer-long core from a region of the East Antarctic ice sheet known as Dome C. The bottom of the 10-centimeter-wide cylinder dates to some 740,000 years ago and nearly doubles the reach of the next-longest ice core, which was drilled at Vostok, Antarctica, in the late 1990s and spanned the past 420,000 years. Temperature records for eight ice ages are documented in the new core. Of particular interest to climatologists is the complete record of the interglacial time period known as Marine Isotope Stage 11 (MIS11), which occurred around 400,000 years ago, a time when our planet's positioning was similar to its current orbital configuration. MIS11 lasted 28,000 years--considerably longer than the next three interglacial periods before present--and understanding its progression may help scientists better predict what¿s in store for the earth¿s future climate.

The core also reveals that not all ice ages are created equal. From the Vostok core, scientists deduced that those that occurred in the last 400,000 years were very intense, lasting around 80,000 to 100,000 years each. The new data suggest that earlier ice ages were shorter and the longer-lasting interglacial periods had lower temperatures, a finding that agrees with lower-resolution marine sediment cores. Because they have not yet reached the bottom of the ice sheet, the researchers hope that they will be able to extend the climate record even further back in time through continued drilling at the same site. Notes White: "The possibility of a million-year ice core is out there and a million years ago is a really significant period in the earth¿s climate history."

MORE SCIENCE NEWS:   Capturing the Atlantic's Capricious Currents

 If you can't control the sun - you can't control the climate.  Sun Spots Rule!
The mud at the bottom of B.C. fjords reveals that solar output drives climate change - and that we should prepare now for dangerous global cooling.   New research suggests that by 2020 the planet will begin two decades of global cooling - yes, cooling! Two things are needed, says R. Timothy Patterson, director of Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center: continue the research, and "immediately halt wasted expenditures on the King Canute-like task of 'stopping climate change'."

For the truth about climate change, check out our recent Policy Express piece, Global Warming: What You Haven't Been Told, by Dr. Roy Spencer.

Politicians and radical environmentalists these days convey the impression that climate-change research is an exceptionally dull field with little left to discover.   We are assured by everyone from David Suzuki to Al Gore to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that "the science is settled."   At the recent G8 summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel even attempted to convince world leaders to play God by restricting carbon-dioxide emissions to a level that would magically limit the rise in world temperatures to 2C.

 Hurray for global warming!
4/4/2007     by Ed Ogle     © 2007

There was a time when almost the entire earth was a ball of ice. Without this last cycle of global warming there would be ice covering all of North America or worse.  The warming half of the cycle we are currently in has been going on for over 12,000 years.   These Warm and Cold Cycles have occurred dozens of times over the last few million years.  To declare that we insignificant humans can effect something controlled by the sun is foolish nonsense.

Where did all the ice go that now allows us to live here?  Where did the cold go that allowed the Vikings to discover grapes in North America, and the English to grow grape vineyards in England? Think of this, England no longer has grape vineyards because of the cold.  Something so obvious speaks loudly to thinking people, but the alarmist hear nothing.

Those primates that lead to us were living over six million years ago. If you presume them to be our ancestors, then our ancestors have survived ever ice age and every warming period since.  As a thinking human you need to consider the history of the earth and all living things together, you need to wonder what is wrong with warming.

We have adjusted to ice and warming cycles ever since there was an us, we will continue to do so.  Adjust to the fact that we live on a living planet, one that has nurtured life for hundreds of million of years and will continue to do so.  Scaring Kids are just political tactics used by foolish people to get control over you.

March 16, 2007    © 2007

British show exposes global warming 'lies'   ---   Documentary's scientists, climatologic agree: 'The whole thing stinks'

"THE ICE IS MELTING," blares the opening headline in the latest TV documentary on global warming. Amid thunderous music and video bites of furious ocean waves, melting glaciers and tornadoes, the headlines continue:




But then, the dramatic documentary, produced by the UK's Channel 4 TV, deviates from the rest of today's dire presentations on impending global-warming disaster. The headlines continue:




In "The Great Global Warming Swindle," British TV director Martin Durkin interviews scientist after scientist who claim the current hysteria over global warming is, in a word, nonsense.

Here's how the announcer introduces the controversy at the outset of the 60-minute program:

"Manmade global warming is no longer just a theory about climate change.   It is the defining moral and political cause of our age.   Campaigners say the time for debate is over.   Any criticism, no matter how scientifically rigorous, is illegitimate – even worse, dangerous.   "But in this film, it will be shown that the earth's climate is always changing, that there is nothing unusual about the current temperature, and that the scientific evidence does not support the notion that climate is driven by carbon dioxide, manmade or otherwise.

"Everywhere, you are told that manmade climate change is proved beyond doubt.   "But you are being told lies."

Readers can view the entire British documentary on YouTube.

Currently, the video is going viral in the online world, and threatens to break the stranglehold that global-warming hysteria has on the world's major media.

But what's behind the hysteria?   The current edition of WND's popular Whistleblower magazine – titled "HYSTERIA: Exposing the secret agenda behind today's obsession with global warming" – reveals why so many scientists, journalists and others are so gripped by global warming fever.

Whistleblower shows how all the main players – from politicians and scientists to big corporations and the United Nations – benefit from instilling fear into billions of human beings over the unproven theory of man-made global warming. Indeed, just three weeks after the U.N. ratcheted up international fears over global warming.

A panel of 18 scientists from 11 countries has now reported to the U.N. that the only thing that can stop catastrophic climate change is a global tax.

 Gore's home energy use is 20 times average

February 26, 2007    © 2007
Tennessee think tank presents former veep's own 'inconvenient truth'

Al Gore

Al Gore deserves an Oscar for hypocrisy to go along with the two Academy Awards his movie won last night, contends a think tank from his home state Tennessee.

The former vice president's mansion in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, says the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, citing data from the Nashville Electric Service.

Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth, a 95-minute film warning of a coming cataclysm due to man-made "global warming," won the award for best documentary feature and best song.

"My fellow Americans, people all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis," Gore said after taking the stage. "It's not a political issue, it's a moral issue. We have everything we need to get started, with the possible exception of the will to act. That's a renewable resource. Let's renew it."

Standing with Gore on the stage last night, actor Leonardo DiCaprio said, to applause, "The American film industry has always taken its obligations to society very seriously and it's now stepping up once again. Tonight, we're proud to announce that for the first time in the history of the Oscars, this show has officially gone green.

Gore then followed with, "Which means that environmentally intelligent practices have been integrated fully into every aspect of the planning and production of these Academy Awards. And you know what: It is not as hard as you might think. We have a long way to go. But all of us can do something in our own lives to make a difference."

But according to the Tennessee think tank, while the average American household consumed 10,656 kilowatt-hours last year, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 – more than 20 times the national average.

Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson said that "as the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use."

Last August alone, according to Johnson' group, Gore burned through 22,619 kilowatt-hours of electricity, more than twice the amount in one month that an average American family uses in an entire year.

Gore's average monthly electric bill, the think tank says, is $1,359.

Since the release of Gore's film, the former vice president and presidential candidate's energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kilowatt-hours per month in 2005, to 18,400 per month in 2006.

The Tennessee group also points out natural gas bills for Gore's mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

Gore paid a total of nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

Responding to critics, Gore has described the lifestyle he and his wife Tipper live as "carbon neutral," meaning he tries to offset any plane flight or car trip by "purchasing verifiable reductions in CO2 elsewhere."

 Climate “scientists” feeling the heat
As public debate deals in absolutes, some experts fear predictions 'have created a monster'
By Eric Berger      Jan. 22, 2007
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

Scientists long have issued the warnings: The modern world's appetite for cars, air conditioning and cheap, fossil-fuel energy spews billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, unnaturally warming the world.

Yet, it took the dramatic images of a hurricane overtaking New Orleans and searing heat last summer to finally trigger widespread public concern on the issue of global warming.

Climate scientists might be expected to bask in the spotlight after their decades of toil.  Generally the public now cares about greenhouse gases, and with a new Democratic-led Congress, federal action on climate change may be at hand.

Problem is, global warming may not have caused Hurricane Katrina, and last summer's heat waves were equaled and, in many cases, surpassed by heat in the 1930s.

In their efforts to capture the public's attention, then, have climate scientists oversold global warming?  It's probably not a majority view, but a few climate scientists are beginning to question whether some dire predictions push the science too far.

According to Kevin Vranes a climate scientist at the University of Colorado, “Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster”.

Vranes, who is not considered a global warming skeptic by his peers, came to this conclusion after attending an American Geophysical Union meeting last month.  Vranes says he detected "tension" among scientists, notably because projections of the future climate carry uncertainties — a point that hasn't been fully communicated to the public.

The science of climate change often is expressed publicly in unambiguous terms.

For example, last summer, Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences, told the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce: "I think we understand the mechanisms of CO2 and climate better than we do of what causes lung cancer.  ...  In fact, it is fair to say that global warming may be the most carefully and fully studied scientific topic in human history."

Vranes says, "When I hear things like that, I go crazy”.

Nearly all climate scientists believe the Earth is warming and that human activity, by increasing the level of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, has contributed significantly to the warming.

But within the broad consensus are myriad questions about the details.  How much of the recent warming has been caused by humans?  Is the upswing in Atlantic hurricane activity due to global warming or natural variability?  Are Antarctica's ice sheets at risk for melting in the near future?

To the public and policymakers, these details matter.  It's one thing to worry about summer temperatures becoming a few degrees warmer.  It's quite another if ice melting from Greenland and Antarctica raises the sea level by 3 feet in the next century, enough to cover much of Galveston Island at high tide.

Models aren't infallible

Scientists have substantial evidence to support the view that humans are warming the planet — as carbon dioxide levels rise, glaciers melt and global temperatures rise.  Yet, for predicting the future climate, scientists must rely upon sophisticated — but not perfect — computer models.

"The public generally under appreciates that climate models are not meant for reducing our uncertainty about future climate, which they really cannot, but rather they are for increasing our confidence that we understand the climate system in general," says Michael Bauer, a climate modeler at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in New York.

Gerald North, professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, dismisses the notion of widespread tension among climate scientists on the course of the public debate.  But he acknowledges that considerable uncertainty exists with key events such as the melting of Antarctica, which contains enough ice to raise sea levels by 200 feet.

“  We honestly don't know that much about the big ice sheets," North says.  "We don't have great equations that cover glacial movements.  But let's say there's just a 10 percent chance of significant melting in the next century.  That would be catastrophic, and it's worth protecting ourselves from that risk."

Much of the public debate, however, has dealt in absolutes.  The poster for Al Gore's global warming movie, An Inconvenient Truth, depicts a hurricane blowing out of a smokestack.  Katrina's devastation is a major theme in the film.

Judith Curry, an atmospheric scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has published several research papers arguing that a link between a warmer climate and hurricane activity exists, but she admits uncertainty remains.

Like North, Curry says she doubts there is undue tension among climate scientists but says Vranes could be sensing a scientific community reaction to some of the more alarmist claims in the public debate.

For years, Curry says, the public debate on climate change has been dominated by skeptics, such as Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and strong advocates such as NASA's James Hansen, who calls global warming a ticking "time bomb" and talks about the potential inundation of all global coastlines within a few centuries.

That may be changing, Curry says.  As the public has become more aware of global warming, more scientists have been brought into the debate.  These scientists are closer to Hansen's side, she says, but reflect a more moderate view.

“  I think the rank-and-file are becoming more outspoken, and you're hearing a broader spectrum of ideas," Curry says.

Young and old tension

Other climate scientists, however, say there may be some tension as described by Vranes. One of them, Jeffrey Shaman, an assistant professor of atmospheric sciences at Oregon State University, says that unease exists primarily between younger researchers and older, more established scientists. 

Shaman says some junior scientists may feel uncomfortable when they see older scientists making claims about the future climate, but he's not sure how widespread that sentiment may be.  This kind of tension always has existed in academia, he adds, a system in which senior scientists hold some sway over the grants and research interests of graduate students and junior faculty members.

The question, he says, is whether it's any worse in climate science.

And if it is worse?  Would junior scientists feel compelled to mute their findings, out of concern for their careers, if the research contradicts the climate change consensus?

“  I can understand how a scientist without tenure can feel the community pressures," says environmental scientist Roger Pielke Jr., a colleague of Vranes' at the University of Colorado.

Pielke says he has felt pressure from his peers: A prominent scientist angrily accused him of being a skeptic, and a scientific journal editor asked him to "dampen" the message of a peer-reviewed paper to derail skeptics and business interests.

“  The case for action on climate science, both for energy policy and adaptation, is overwhelming," Pielke, says.  "But if we oversell the science, our credibility is at stake."

Home  -  Top