The DNA that became NOAA was a "perfect storm" of four key players: oceanographer, naval officer and head of the Scripps Institute Roger Revelle; his protege, geochemist David Charles Keeling, who first measured the rising levels of CO[sub]2[/sub]; National Bureau of Standards solar irradiance expert Ralph Stair, who was met by accident by Robert Simpson, US Weather Bureau meteorologist who at the time was working from Mauna Loa, and who convinced Stair to come to the site to overcome dust contamination which was interfering with Stair's measurements. Stair applied his Bureau of Standards demand for precision to address the specifics of the building plan of the Mauna Loa Observatory, and Roger Revelle was instrumental in convincing the military that monitoring the atmosphere was within the scope of monitoring Russian testing of nukes, securing funding to buy equipment and to finance construction. Lore has it that Revelle managed to get troops to assist with the labor. But he had other career objectives and left the observatory to the able hands of Keeling, Simpson and Stair. By that time Revelle had already demonstrated that ocean uptake was not keeping up with emissions. He also authored a study ordered by LBJ which first elevated the issue of anthropogenic CO[sub]2[/sub] to the political arena, leading to Nixon's reorganization of government agencies like those represented above into NOAA. Revelle's report was carried to the UN by a Democratic senator who had bothered to read it, and this set the stage for the formation of the IPCC. Revelle also happened to teach a young Al Gore about global warming while a visiting professor to Gore's college campus. At that time, the Right Wing wasn't even aware of the science. Thus the denialist disparagement of Gore is a disparagement of these four visionary scientists, as well as thousands of others who actually bothered to study the material the denialists couldn't even pass the entrance exams to enroll in. The more important issue, as far as denial is concerned, is that short term averages are not monatonic. We have a roughly 100 year record of local minima and maxima. Thus, using this argument as a basis of denying the scholarship is moronic. No one cares about short term variance, but rather the overall trend, which has a positive slope. And of course the quickly disappearing global ice paints that long term trend dismally, without the need for the denialists to choke on their hockey sticks.