I like this comment: “It’s the same science that we are drawing upon and it’s irrefutable,” he said.

Brokaw dropped out of the U of Iowa after one year, earned (according to wiki) the nickname “two point Tom” as a slap at his GPA while getting a poly sci degree at U of South Dakota, and now he can “draw upon” the science of climate change?

I’m more qualified to be a network anchor than he is to talk climate change.

the start would be for Thompson to properly publish his material the way an archaeologist would instead of writing Reader’s Digest articles for popular magazines like Science

Certainly, when Thompson can rely on the likes of a Tom Brokaw to do that job, he has even less of an excuse for his writing style and publishing choices.

The current main stream thinking on AGW becomes apparent from a preview given in a USA Today interview with Tom Brokaw here:

1. The tipping point argument will encourage the “average” Americans to think seriously about GW.

The former NBC anchorman is host of “Global Warming: What You Need to Know,” which doubles as an explainer and call to action for average Americans. It premieres Sunday, July 16 at 9 p.m. on the Discovery Channel.

In helping put together the film, Brokaw said he was surprised at the speed with which everything is happening and the growing agreement among scientists about what was once a controversial notion.

2. The evidence is overwhelming and precludes even listening to what the “minimizers” (not denialists or even skeptics, but mininmizers) might have to say.

Producers speak to no one, at least on film, who believes the current warmth is part of the Earth’s natural cycle and who minimizes the importance of what is happening.

3. The medicine will not be all that bad (at least at the economic level of a former network anchor)

He’s tried to alter some habits to save fossil fuels: changing light fixtures in his homes, for example. He owns a hybrid car, and so do both of his daughters.

“It’s not affecting our lifestyle at all, not one whit,” he said.

In summary, I’d like to think of this program’s potential as “The Hockey Stick on Steroids with No Side Effects”.

Tree line data is probably a good qualitative comparison of PAST trends, not of current conditions, **IF** one takes into account certain major assymetries.

Rates of change in treeline downward are probably far faster than rates of change upwards. A tree can die in one year, while growing even a small grove takes far longer. Also, recruitement of new young trees is generally far more sensitive to bad conditions than maintainaince of established trees. A year that wipes out a stand of seedlings might not bother an exttablished grove at all. Thus, failure of a treeline to extend upwards is NOT necessarily evidence that conditins are worse now than when a grove existed there.

Taken together, this means that one can not compare TODAY’s treeline to past treelines, to interpret CURRENT relative temperatures.