digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at dailytech.com

Temperature Monitors Report Massive Global Cooling

dailytech.com — Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures erases global war

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Doofy, on 02/27/2008, -95/+159How could the earth possibly cool off so fast with all that evil CO2 in the atmosphere?
    Unless... Man-made global warming is the biggest scam in history.
    • Faubio, on 02/27/2008, -34/+28Only wish I could digg you more.
    • WiseWeasel, on 02/27/2008, -24/+25I blame those low-emission hybrids and foreign cars... Smug causes global cooling.
    • sgtbutterscotch, on 02/27/2008, -36/+23WTF. Why are all these comments "against" global warming and getting dugg up so high? Does the submitter have a network of friends who share similar ideologies which just so happen to all think global warming is fake or did all the people "against" global warming jump onto this one story because they all read about it from the websites that serve their particular interests. I've always been skeptical of global warming but I am also skeptical of this. There has to be more that one report against global warming, before I make up my mind, and by that time, time will probably already have shown whether global warming is for real or not.
      That being said, I think it would be completely awesome if the idea of global warming was proved to be complete malarkey just because almost everybody was persuaded it was real.
      • p0s3r, on 02/27/2008, -15/+37How dare people who have a different ideology or world view than the far-left norm comment much less submit here on digg!
        • sgtbutterscotch, on 02/27/2008, -14/+27Why the ***** does global warming have to be included exclusively in one ideology or the other? And I assure you global warming is not something only "far-left" people believe in.
          • ShadowMerchant, on 02/27/2008, -3/+11Because regardless of whether or not global warming is true, it is unquestionably the case that statists and collectivists on the far Left have seized upon it as a means of browbeating the public into accepting harebrained social engineering and higher taxes that otherwise would not stand a chance in a democratic vote.
        • p0s3r, on 02/27/2008, -10/+21Because the Church of Global Warming is a social movement. The world isn't coming to end. And even if it were, global wealth redistribution via various UN scams wouldn't stop it from happening.
          • sgtbutterscotch, on 02/27/2008, -3/+8You mean unless it was hypothetically something that man could "fix."
          • tenrec, on 02/27/2008, -4/+6Actually you missed the name change a few months ago. The new name is the Church of Climate Change. The Church elders may have seen this coming and got in front of it. I'm just glad that I didn't load up my portfolio with carbon credit company stocks. This news will hit them hard.
        • bitcloud, on 02/27/2008, -5/+7It's not so much that they have a different ideology... more just the fact that they haven't got a ***** clue what they're talking about...
          This article could be titled "Lying with statistics 101"...

          If you look at a longer term graph (which is what the climate is all about) you understand that a 12 month *WEATHER* recordings are irrelevant to *CLIMATE* research...

          http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02 ...
        • bobbi21, on 08/22/2008, -0/+1Yeah... I don't think people understand what weather is... They hear global warming and they think it's all false when winter comes around since it's so cold out now. "shouldn't it be getting warmer? global warming is a lie!"

          Temperatures fluctuate. Especially in different areas of the world. Global warming will make some areas cooler by effecting ocean currents and such, but I've seen ppl use that as evidence that global warming isn't true either.. sigh.
      • elTito, on 02/27/2008, -4/+14But there ARE reports debunking global warming theory. Many of them, in fact, by big league and well respected scientists.

        Why you (and a ***** load of other people) don't know about them I will leave to you for interpretation. You might start by asking the MSM where they've been on covering the flip side of the debate.
        • bitcloud, on 02/27/2008, -10/+9*sigh*

          yes... you're right.. it's true... you're much cleverer that the globes top environmental and climate scientists... species aren't dropping at an ever increasing rate... cancer rates aren't skyrocketing in heavy polluting areas... waterways aren't being saturated with more C02 and toxins than they can handle... crustaceans shells aren't becoming increasingly softer... the great barrier reef isn't dying off, the ice caps aren't shrinking... water levels aren't rising... heat maps, pollution maps and cancer maps don't all look *EXACTLY* the same...

          just keep sucking down that kool aid there elTito...
          • elTito, on 02/27/2008, -2/+5Woo man the moonbats are out in force on this one.

            Notice I didn't really take a position...just suggested that there is contradictory data.

            But sure...ok man. I'M the kool aid drinker.
          • elTito, on 02/27/2008, -3/+3Woo man the moonbats are out in force tonight!

            Notice I didn't take a position either way...merely suggested that there was contradictory evidence reported by other "top" scientists. To which I got this *****, hysterical response.

            But sure...ok man. I'M the kool aid drinker.
          • elTito, on 02/27/2008, -2/+2I don't know why the ***** my comments aren't posting. 3rd time's a charm maybe?

            Notice I didn't take a position one way or the other - I merely pointed out that there is a large amount of contradictory evidence on record from "top" scientists that suggests the global warming nut-cases are wrong. To which you responded with ***** hysterics.

            But ok...sure man. I'M the kool aid drinker.
          • elTito, on 02/27/2008, -1/+2Well that ***** figures.
          • ufee, on 02/27/2008, -3/+1"just keep sucking down that kool aid there elTito..."

            Prejudice bastard.
          • Doofy, on 02/27/2008, -1/+5"yes... you're right.. it's true... you're much cleverer that the globes top environmental and climate scientists... " -- Unlike you, we listen to "top" climate scientists who question the whole man-made global warming theory.
            "...species aren't dropping at an ever increasing rate..." --They're not. Try a "decreasing" rate.
            "...cancer rates aren't skyrocketing in heavy polluting areas..." There are high cancer rates in a few "heavily polluted" places but overall life expectancy is the highest in human history.
            "waterways aren't being saturated with more C02 and toxins than they can handle" CO2 is NOT a toxin, and water pollution has been decreasing since the 1970s.
            "crustaceans shells aren't becoming increasingly softer" --Some are, some aren't
            "the great barrier reef isn't dying off" --It isn't.
            "the ice caps aren't shrinking" --North pole has been shrinking mostly due to wind and ocean currents pushing the ice towards Greenland, South pole sea ice has been GROWING to record levels.
            "... water levels aren't rising."..13.8 inches in the last 100 years. It rose 300 feet since the last ice age but the most it can continue to rise if all ice melts is 160 more feet. It's done that before. Several times.
            "heat maps, pollution maps and cancer maps don't all look *EXACTLY* the same..."
            While there may be a pollution/cancer correlation, there is no heat/cancer or heat/pollution connection. Remember, CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It's plant food. More CO2 makes plants (and human food) grow like crazy.


          • bitcloud, on 02/27/2008, -2/+3doofy... I can't be bothered debating with you because you don't seem in the least bit interested in understanding the situation.

            C02 is plant food when there is uptake.. for reasons unknown the plants are not able to uptake the C02. The oceans are C02 saturated. This is likely because exhaust is NOT exclusively C02... water is plant food too, but not when you pour a percentage of toxins into it. This is remedial level... it's not difficult to understand...

            You don't live on the great barrier reef, you don't know the environmental scientists working on the great barrier reef. I can tell you personally that it is taking a beating from many different man made pollutants... from agricultural runoff through to C02 saturation and tumultuous temperature variations. You're free to take a look any time you choose to.. you might have to stop being an armchair scientist and get out and have a look yourself...



            overall life expectancy has NOTHING to do with the topic...
            Species ARE dropping... You read digg? check the front page again, there is a story RIGHT NOW about the "sixth great extinction"..
            You might think species are "siberian tigers" and "whales", but there are more species than have even been discovered and we're ravaging the ecology. ABSOLUTELY RAVAGING it.. I cannot stress that enough.. you are so phenomenally wrong on the topic of extinction that I can't emphasise this enough.

            Regarding your "C02 is plant food" theory, this is simple to test.
            1) get yourself an airtight greenhouse
            2) get yourself an unlimited supply of gasoline
            3) fill the greenhouse with seedlings
            4) get a comfy chair in the greenhouse
            5) Run the car

            How long do you think you're going to last? oh what's that? the plants aren't uptaking the chemical cocktail the car emits? what's that? your body is choking on the chemicals? but... but it's plant food.. PLANT FOOD!

            it's simple.. if it was plant food we would have more plants.. not less... there isn't the uptake you're dreaming of... I wish there was but there isn't.

            Make an effort to keep up with the science because you're clearly pretty smart... just not educated...
    • rhabd0mancer, on 02/27/2008, -12/+22I thought 2007 was hot and dry. Didn't Atlanta run out of water or something?

      From NASA:

      GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
      Global Temperature Trends: 2007 Summation

      The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle.
      • p0s3r, on 02/27/2008, -9/+16Apparently someone else doesn't know the difference between weather and climate.
        1 year doesn't make a trend.
        A hot summer doesn't mean there isn't global cooling.
        Climate Change is global cooling and that doesn't mean the globe isn't getting colder.
        • bitcloud, on 02/27/2008, -4/+4So how can you understand the difference between weather and climate so well here and yet fail so dramatically to understand it when it comes to a 12 month drop in an overall dramatic climatic temperature rise?
        • bobbi21, on 08/22/2008, -0/+1...... uh.. I think the whole understanding the difference between weather and climate is that a 12 month drop mean NOTHING in an overall dramatic climatic temperature rise....

          I.. don't know what to say besides copy and pasting what they've said above... They answered your question and explained it exactly... All these words on el nino and 1 year doesn't make a trend.. I just have to shake my head.
    • WPFever, on 02/27/2008, -20/+21Thank you. My damn anthropology teacher spends everyday drilling into our heads that global warming is the end of the world. Glad to see something that could shut him up for a while.
      • elTito, on 02/27/2008, -6/+7Heh...I wish I were in your class. I would just love to see the wheels turning when he's asked about this. Sorta like when you challenge Bible-thumpers who've never questioned their faith. Good times.
      • bitcloud, on 02/27/2008, -6/+7you mean poor, selective statistical data?

        that'll sure shut him up.../sarcasm
        maybe you should look up the word "climate" and you wouldn't embarrass yourself by presenting a 12 month comparison as evidence of "climate"
        • NoStoppingUs, on 02/27/2008, -0/+5isn't that what the global warming nutjobs do?

          "OMG OMG. WE HAD ONE MORE BIG HURRICANE THIS YEAR THAN LAST YEAR! GLOBAL WAAAAARRRRMMMMINNNGGG!!!!"

          gotta love hypocrisy.
        • bitcloud, on 02/27/2008, -2/+3nostoppingus:
          I'm not sure.. i've never heard of that, but yes a tumultuous weather system (stark rises and drops in temperature/extreme weather as a result) would be supported by an overall climate change...

          It's actually really simple when you make an effort to understand the difference between climate and weather...
        • bobbi21, on 08/22/2008, -0/+1I've never heard that. I've heard a 100 year history of increasing hurricanes. I've heard a 100 year history of increasing temperature. Only time I've heard ppl connect a singular random activity to global warming is in a joking matter..
    • allenobendorf, on 02/27/2008, -25/+48At a conference of the world's 2000 top climatologists in Paris, 2000 of them agreed the globe is warming and 1997 agreed that is is because of humans.
      Forgive me if I believe them instead of you.
      • kuwan, on 02/27/2008, -15/+13Ah yes, because "top climatologists" are smarter than the actual data gathered from four of the major global temperature tracking outlets. Who were they again? Oh that's right, __top__ climatologists.
        • bitcloud, on 02/27/2008, -8/+7ah... you notice that it's a straight line from jan07 to jan08?
          This is comparative data selected from a small section of a much larger period of warming:
          http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02 ...

          Look up the word "climate" and come back when you understand the term.
        • bobbi21, on 08/22/2008, -0/+1I dont get how you are getting digged down for showing the data..
      • Kallius, on 02/27/2008, -5/+13Of course, most people used to believe the world was flat. Popular belief != truth.
        • 1randomguy08, on 02/27/2008, -4/+5"Popular belief != truth." Religion is a perfect example.
      • Railer, on 02/27/2008, -12/+9Can you give me a list of the names of these mysterious climatologists? They all agreed, they must have signed something? Do you even have a link where your Fact came from that states 2000 climatologists?

        Or are you just a sheep repeating unsubstantiated lies?
        • gordeaoux, on 02/27/2008, -4/+1Hmm mysterious climatologists? You mean the shadowy, ninja figures that won the Nobel Peace Prize?

          I've missed you and you're obtuseness, Railer.
        • Railer, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4the entire IPCC and Gore won the Peace Prize, they're were no validations as to their credentials. But gordeaoux here thinks the Goreacle is a climatologist, so it all makes sense to him.
          See I believe gordeaoux here is about the default level of inteligence of most of the envrio's out there, that's ok gordeaoux I'm sure you try not to think about things too hard, you might drop your bong.
          • yellownumber5, on 02/28/2008, -3/+0where did you get the number 2000 from? Who said that there were 2000 climatologists?
          • yellownumber5, on 02/28/2008, -2/+1Whoah.....dug down in
          • yellownumber5, on 02/28/2008, -3/+0let's see how quickly i get dug down again. last time was less than 4 min. How intolerant is that? What's wrong with asking questions? I just wanted more info to go off and search with....is there something to hide?
          • Railer, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3yellownumber5 you are being dugg down because you asked I assume me where I got "2000" from READ THE GOD DAMN POST

            allenobendorf - "At a conference of the world's 2000 top climatologists in Paris, 2000 of them agreed the globe is warming and 1997 agreed that is is because of humans."
        • yellownumber5, on 02/28/2008, -2/+0Boy, Are you an angry soul!
          You should calm down before you blow an O-ring, killer. That's gotta be hell on you're blood pressure. WHY DON'T YOU TRY BEING POLITE?
          • Railer, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2Because I've met too many people who have no idea what they are talking about, or read the posts before hand and then ask inane questions. Like where I get my figures from, when they are directly above the statement.
    • Abatrour, on 02/27/2008, -15/+8What happens when you put ice cubes in a warm glass of water? The ice cubes melt.. making the water colder.. which cools the air (and in earth's case, the environment)

      I have a feeling its going to get much colder now that there is all this fresh COLD water in the oceans from the global warming.
      • TehdBerg, on 02/27/2008, -2/+4This doesn't work with science. The melting of the ice cubes isn't what cools the water.
        • redfox2600, on 02/27/2008, -2/+2When something melts you're breaking bonds. Any bond breaking events will absorb energy.
        • Abatrour, on 02/27/2008, -0/+3ICE cubes don't make things cold?..... I'm pretty damn sure ice makes things cold. How do freezers work then? Super Jesus powers?
      • EtherGnat, on 02/27/2008, -2/+5Yes, the water and ice will come to an equilibrium temperature. The overall temperature of the glass does not change. Furthermore if you had conditions that kept the ice frozen but it's now melting that would be a sign of warming, not cooling.
        • bitcloud, on 02/27/2008, -0/+3exactly.... which is why atmospheric weather data (this graph) is only part of the picture...
        • Abatrour, on 02/27/2008, -1/+2You just said it will.. "Yes, the water and ice will come to an equilibrium temperature."

          Meaning the warm water will get cooler, and the ice cubes will melt into cold water which gets warmer from the warm water.
          Meaning that the temperature will most likely drop causing condensation on the glass showing that the temperature has changed.
          • EtherGnat, on 02/27/2008, -1/+1Yes, the original water is cooler. The water that was in the ice is warmer by an offsetting amount (assuming a closed system). Condensation is a result of temperature differences between the glass and the ambient air, not related to a temperature change.
      • Unzorn, on 02/27/2008, -1/+2Wasn't that pretty much the plot device in "The Day after Tomarrow"?
        • FritzKatz, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1 "The Day after Tomarrow" == Worst movie ever.
    • Berkana, on 02/27/2008, -16/+28A one year drop, even a sharp one year drop, does not refute the observation of a long term trend. If the earth keeps cooling year over year and the glaciers start growing again, then you might have a case, but it is patently ridiculous to deny a warming trend observed over many decades on account of one chilly year.
      • unpolloloco, on 02/27/2008, -7/+14it, however, is also ridiculous to make conclusions about climate change based on a couple of decades of data when millions of years' worth of data is available in glacial cores........
      • wavenger, on 02/27/2008, -0/+8I think you're right, but I think what a lot of people find vexing about climate change advocates is that their theories seem non-falsifiable to an outsider. Indeed, climate has so many variables that I wouldn't even know where to begin trying to prove a hypothesis myself, but it still sounds as if they're saying, "If it gets warmer, I'm correct, and if it gets colder, I'm also correct."
      • bitcloud, on 02/27/2008, -2/+8Interesting to note the longer term data sets available on the page:
        http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02 ...
        the original post couldn't be more misleading if it tried (selective dataset, weather not climate data, and atmospheric only data)
      • ShadowMerchant, on 02/27/2008, -3/+5"it is patently ridiculous to deny a warming trend observed over many decades on account of one chilly year."

        Then surely you will agree that it is also patently ridiculous for media half-wits and power-crazed left-wing politicians to conjure the specter of global warming from every tornado, hurricane, and heat wave.
      • bobbi21, on 08/22/2008, -0/+1Yeah. I think we can all agree on that.

        Too bad with glacial cores we don't have any idea what else was happening at the time the cores are talking about. Obviously climate varies and obviously back then it didn't matter as much since coasts could flood and no one would care. But now we have humans who care if a couple thousand kilometers of coasts are flooded or if temperate forests become deserts. and we have humans able to effect global CO2 levels and such. Humans are a whole new variable that we can't predict well with just glacial cores.
    • manfrin, on 02/27/2008, -13/+24Maybe because you're a dumbass and instantly associate what we are doing to our environment with only heating. We had the 2nd hottest year on record last year, which has caused an intense and ongoing disruption of Earths natural cycle, as such you will begin to see more and more anomolies such as this one, where we are getting incredible cooling. We're beginning to cycle more and more in to a more extreme weather system.
      Congrats on being an idiot who only looks at the name of things to make up your mind. "Global warming? HAH, it's cold here!" Do a little research.
    • rhedwolf, on 02/27/2008, -10/+23Hot weather is getting hotter and cold weather is getting colder.

      That's the sort of thing that happens when a system leaves equilibrium.

      It could be due to any number of factors, but the fact that it's happening within the same century that carbon dioxide emissions have skyrocketed gives me the impression that things are only going to get worse from here on out...
      • SlyMm, on 02/27/2008, -2/+4Its ***** happened lord knows how many times over the last 2 billion+ years btw.
        • radix2, on 02/27/2008, -2/+2not in such a short time period. That is the problem. Poke a stick at the climate and things can be accelerated out of equilibrium. What has been measured is the quickest change in 640,000 years. Data before then is not readily available.
        • FritzKatz, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1SlyMm's right and radix2 is wrong -- climate change has occured off and on for over 4 billion years on this earth. Sometimes the change happened within the time-frame of only a few years -- causing the dinosaurs to be wiped out. Sometimes the earth is a hot steaming jungle, othertimes it's snowball-earth. But, make no mistake, mankind has only been around for the last 100K years or so-- all the climate change in the past was not our fault.
        • bobbi21, on 08/22/2008, -0/+1Actually, radix2 is right. The current climate change is a lot faster than anything recorded in the past. Like he said, we can't be sure of a lot of the time before then because we can't measure the data that accurately.

          And yes, climate changes a lot and humans are the only people who can change it but that doesn't mean we can't. If we use your argument then we shouldn't worry about destroying the rainforest or killing of species. By your argument we can go bulldoze the entire rainforest and shoot every endangered animal out there and argue "ecosystems have shifted in the past and animals always go extinct, all ecosystem destruction and extinctions in the past aren't our fault" (while strangling a baby seal).
    • ADVIZR, on 02/27/2008, -13/+17Why are people digging Doofy's ignorant comment?
      • airiox, on 02/27/2008, -6/+5Because he is correct.
      • bitcloud, on 02/27/2008, -2/+2because people struggle with change... It's easier to defend poor judgement than make a change...

        they struggle with the idea that we may have to actually do something - turn off america's next top model and actually do something...
        It's defensive justification... The same reason people who like to kill claim it's for allah/god/jesus/national socialism
    • goomba323, on 02/27/2008, -14/+22Wow....and here I thought Digg had a little bit more sense than to believe Fox News when they ripped Al Gore apart and called Global Warming a farce. Are you SERIOUSLY trying to DENY Global Warming? I thought Digg was a community full of informed individuals, but I guess not. Almost ALL credible scientist agree that Global Warming is a reality (now whether it is man made or not is perhaps questionable), but to sit there and see a chart that shows an increase in Global Cooling just goes to show how uninformed most of you people sound.

      "China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on."

      This, if anything, should be alarming and proof that we are experiencing weather anomalies which would (if anything) SUPPORT the theory of Climate Change....

      geeeeeeeeeeeeeeez, I can't believe how many people actually believe Fox News.
      • Railer, on 02/27/2008, -8/+5Too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry, everything is "climate change"

        See the problem is a theory that is proved by everything, actually proves nothing.

        You might as well be telling me my Dog made it warmer, My Dog made it colder, my dog runs all weather on the planet.
        • goomba323, on 02/27/2008, -1/+1I see your point and in a way I actually agree. I just was startled at how many people were yelling "TOLD YOU GLOBAL WARMING WAS A RUMOR!!"

          Now does Global Warming exist? yes. yes yes. Are we causing it? Some say yes, some say no. But almost ALL scientist agree that Global Warming exist.
        • bitcloud, on 02/27/2008, -2/+2No railer.. again, contrary to what this article is TRYING to say, everything is NOT climate change..

          Everything is weather.
          The broader averages are the climate (30 years or so)

          Read it again. This argument - this whole thread exists because most people on here defending this article don't understand what "climate" means...
        • Railer, on 02/27/2008, -0/+2bitcloud, no you seem to not "understand" what climate means, climate changes all the time and quite quickly on occasion the current long term trend (10-15 years) is cooling. We switched from a long el nino cycle which lasted since the 80's to now a long term la nina cycle that will also combine with a weak Solar Cycle (24) which should make the climate substantially cooler. It will NEVER be as cool as it was 30 years ago because we are still coming out of a small ice age with we have been coming out of for the last 250 years. But the rate of cooling in the next decade will continue to drop to about .1 C per decade which is NORMAL. And guess what no CO2 needed.
        • bobbi21, on 08/22/2008, -0/+1http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02 ...

          data actually still shows warming in general. The climate SHOULD be getting cooler because of these other effects you're right but they aren't as drastic as they should be. There are other factors than CO2 that effect climate, I don't think anyone is denying that. But saying 1 is true but not the other just because 1 is currently changing is rediculous
      • elTito, on 02/27/2008, -5/+7You're not actually silly enough to deride Fox News as incredible out of one side of your mouth and then claim Al Gore is credible out of the other, are you?

        Really?
        • goomba323, on 02/27/2008, -5/+2I never said Al Gore was credible, but I think he's a helluva lot more credible than those "scientist" that are trying to debunk Global Warming. Most scientist agree that Global Warming is credible, and hell, Al Gore won a ***** Nobel Prize for his work....they don't give those to just anybody, he obviously has SOME credibility (at least DOUBLE that of Fox News!)...

          ...I understand Al Gore is a mockable character because, well, he is. South Park, Saturday Night Live, his 2000 Campaign, his "i know more than you" arrogant persona, but he did do one thing that is commendable and that is bring Global Warming into the main stream, even if it was a bit exaggerated. I just don't understand how people can say things like "Global Warming, more Liberal propaganda"...it's SOOO much more than that, it shouldn't be belittled into a partisan argument, it's a HUMANITY agenda, not a political one.
          • p0s3r, on 02/27/2008, -0/+8Yassar Arafat, a ***** terrorist that stole billions of dollars of Pallie aid, also got a Nobel Peace Prize. Just like Al Gore got his Peace Prize. That award no longer has relevance.
          • elTito, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1I think that in some of the hard science fields the award has relevance, but not in the humanitarian areas. Arafat, Carter, Gore - three people who should never have been considered.
    • eviscero, on 02/27/2008, -5/+12*****! I need to go spend all my savings on Carbon Credits so I can save the manatee...er wait...or to stop global warming...er crap...I mean stop global cooling...or global alarming...or hell, whatever this decades bullshat excuse to take money from people will be...I'm behind it; cause I'm thinking of the children...yea.
      • SlyMm, on 02/27/2008, -0/+3the ozone hole!
      • libtec12, on 02/27/2008, -2/+1nice, but try not to get caught up in the political/ social agenda of it, and do yourself a favor. go take a hike in the wilderness, appreciate nature..and no one will have to convince you of any reason to buy "carbon credits" you'll want to change your life for the betterment of all other life, and if not your truly too caught up in all the ***** you are being sarcastic about.
    • bitcloud, on 02/27/2008, -3/+4Look, I don't know how to explain this to you, but talk about lying with statistics 101:
      http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02 ...
    • Alex2, on 02/27/2008, -0/+2You could google 'la nina' http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitori ... This year's ocean currents and wind directions has put more clouds over the northern hemisphere land mass this year.
      • Doofy, on 02/27/2008, -0/+3So what explains the frigid Southern Hemisphere winter only 6 months ago?

        BTW, many scientists argue that less sunspots = more clouds everywhere.
      • FritzKatz, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1We're at the low-point of the 11-year sunspot cycle. Just wait 6 and 1/2 years and the sunspots will be at a high again -- then the temps will warm again and the Global-Alarmists will be able to start hissing again.
    • dacrazydude, on 02/27/2008, -1/+4Unfortunately, even though I don't believe in human-caused global warming....you guys are jumping the gun. If the trend of increasing global temperature is in fact, the effect of "global warming", it would cause massive oscillations in global weather and climate(climate depending on the scale) but would still show an upward trend in temperature.In theory, such a massive change in global climate reinforces current global warming predictions.
      On the other hand, If the global temperature sensors read a downward climate change for 3 years or more, I would consider global warming as a whole to be dismissed.
      • radix2, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1I hesitantly voted you up because your are correct that trends over years are more important than snapshots of abnormal weather. Hesitant because it is climate change and not just warming, plus I'm not so sure that three years of relative normalcy would put us in the clear...
    • sjm20k, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1yeah that scam sure sold a lot of... nothing. how can you fault people for drawing the logical conclusions based on the data that was available?
    • quomen, on 02/27/2008, -4/+2Holy *****, I remember just a year ago I was a greedy douchebag because I have a big SUV and now Doofy's comment is getting dugg up. Flip flop much?
      • bitcloud, on 02/27/2008, -3/+4noone said you were no longer a greedy douchebag...
    • BigBallistix, on 02/27/2008, -3/+7It's highly attributable to the cycle of the sun:
      http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/nasa ...
      • radix2, on 02/27/2008, -2/+2rubbish. This is accounted for in the predictive models which are highly conservative. The Sun's cycle has some impact of course, but do you think that this has not been accounted for?
    • pintomp3, on 02/27/2008, -0/+2something's fishy.
      http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080116/
      • bitcloud, on 02/27/2008, -1/+3it's called "lying with statistics"

        The posted article is a classic case of using a snapshot data range (a yearly weather data range) and attempting to demonstrate climate - the data the article is based on doesn't even show anything within the normal range of what is considered "climate"
    • airiox, on 02/27/2008, -0/+3Duh! Didn't you know that our carbon credits are working! Oh wait, that trend didn't take off until 6 months ago. DOH!
    • kruptd, on 02/27/2008, -0/+2First it was global cooling, then the ozone, now global warming

      I remember how everyone was riding the ozone bandwagon for a year or so then collectively decided "***** it"
      • radix2, on 02/27/2008, -2/+3no. We "outlawed" CFCs and the ozone hole has been reducing ever since.
  • Doofy, on 02/27/2008, -27/+43"The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it's the single fastest temperature change every recorded, either up or down."
    • norman619, on 02/27/2008, -22/+26I can't wait to hear the human caused global warming fear mongers response/spin.
      • WiseWeasel, on 02/27/2008, -8/+13Surely, whatever it is will require a plethora of new taxes on dangerous contributors to global cooling, and a drastic increase in federal authority over states, and yielding of national authority to the UN... Subsidized Hummers anyone?
      • thebellmaster1x, on 02/27/2008, -8/+10Sorry, here I was thinking that you could only tell things by trends. Oh, one data point drops? Well, must mean that everything's on the way down, right?
      • bitcloud, on 02/27/2008, -5/+7I can't wait to hear that you've educated yourself in climate change...
        You're the ADD mob who carried the "global warming" tagline wherever you went... climate change is far more complicated than "warming"...

        to give you an example, imagine you put some piece of ice in an icecream tub and heated it... what happens.. does the air get warmer or colder? are we looking at average temperatures for the globe or for the climate?

        I won't even bother going into the myriad other environmental disasters due to the BILLIONS of tonnes of inorganic toxic compounds being seeded into the atmosphere of which climate change is one *symptom* (note that climate change is evidence of the problem, not the problem itself)

        my advice is to either get your education in environmental science or learn some humility
    • orlandorays, on 02/27/2008, -12/+12They'll just try to revert to the global cooling paranoia of the 60s and 70s. That's why Earth Day was founded, you know, to raise awareness for global -cooling-.
    • SuperWinner, on 02/27/2008, -16/+10Wheres yer Al Gore now? yaa...
    • Schmich, on 02/27/2008, -4/+7I still don't the replies here. In my opinion saying that it's the largest temperature change does mean something quite significant. One guy, rhedwolf, put it very well in a reply to another comment above:
      "Hot weather is getting hotter and cold weather is getting colder.
      That's the sort of thing that happens when a system leaves equilibrium."
      Just because the mainstream calls it global warming doesn't mean it's going to only go warmer. You're going to have imbalance. In any case I don't get how people can possibly think actions do not come with consequences.
      • gabeh73, on 02/27/2008, -0/+2...it's been cooling since 1998...it warmed from 1970 to 1998..it COOLED from 1938 to 1970....if the CO2 concentration was the cause of global wamring the earth wouldn't have cooled dramatically between 1938 and 1970 and it would n't have been cooling for the last ten years either.
    • thailand1972, on 02/27/2008, -2/+5I don't get that statement (same drop as all the accumulative rise over the last 100 years). It contradicts the actual chart. If you look at the chart in the article, it only goes back 20 years and it clearly shows the rises in the last 20 years have been greater than the drop in the last year.
      • EuphopiaB, on 02/27/2008, -0/+4That is because of the ambiguity in how the sentence was worded "...up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years." For the graph they averaged the measurements from the four sources. The author was stating that if the most extreme change from one of the sources were the actual, then we would go back that far.
    • dacrazydude, on 02/27/2008, -1/+2Unfortunately, even though I don't believe in human-caused global warming....you guys are jumping the gun. If the trend of increasing global temperature is in fact, the effect of "global warming", it would cause massive oscillations in global weather and climate(climate depending on the scale) but would still show an upward trend in temperature. In theory, such a massive change in global climate reinforces current global warming predictions.
      On the other hand, If the global temperature sensors read a downward climate change for 3 years or more, I would consider global warming as a whole to be dismissed.
    • biotch, on 02/27/2008, -3/+4Actually if you understood anything about the data (and the writer doesnt either), youd see that the graph is about ANOMALY data. Meaning if it is above 0, then temperature is rising at a faster rate than the rate from previous years. So no, it doesnt erase warming. It ADDS to warming.
  • Railer, on 02/27/2008, -32/+36Right now we are one good volcanic eruption away from wiping out global warming completely. We've have a decade of flat growth and now considerable cooling. I can only hope this fad burns itself out before any more idiotic laws are passed to take away peoples freedoms.
    • goomba323, on 02/27/2008, -9/+9And what laws will be passed to take away your freedoms exactly?? Are you a head oil tycoon or owner of a large car company??
      • unpolloloco, on 02/27/2008, -6/+9taxes on gas, taxes on cars, ethanol subsidies (=higher food prices, more government spending)
        taking away economic freedoms at least
        • goomba323, on 02/27/2008, -2/+2Think about it, if you put Solar Panels on your house...if the government started to mandate it to save energy and reduce pollution, it would SAVE you money. If the government makes the car companies have their cars more fuel efficient (say, hypothetically, 100 mpg), you would SAVE money. If the government made you use incandescent light bulbs it would SAVE you money. If the government weened us off gas and we used ethanol efficiently (Brazil i think has something like 30% ethanol gas) it would SAVE you money.

          Going green isn't as scary as it sounds. There would still be economic freedom, there would just be regulations to ensure that we don't POLLUTE our planet..
          • unpolloloco, on 02/27/2008, -0/+2It would save money in the long term, but the payout is on the order of a decade or so. The problem there is that it is a heavy initial expense - enough that it would bankrupt even many middle-class people. It then becomes a tax on the poor. If income taxes were increased on the other hand, the rich would bear the burden, which would result more unemployment, making it effectively a tax on the poor again.
            For the incandescent/fluorescent debate, better education would serve the public better than forcing people to buy fluorescent, giving people freedom to choose, but the information to choose better.
            The ethanol thing is what I have the biggest issue with, however. Corn-based ethanol is worse for the environment than is gas. Cellulosic ethanol is a promising technology (as are plug-in cars). However, with the subsidies on corn-based, celulosic does not have as much of an incentive.
      • avihappy, on 02/27/2008, -5/+8Carbon Tax?
        • goomba323, on 02/27/2008, -2/+2Do you even know what a Carbon Tax is? You won't be paying a Carbon Tax. Corporations would be paying a Carbon Tax, and all that does is give incentive to become less of a polluter (which they should be doing anyway). Are you that afraid of alternate energy? Are you also in support of the war in Iraq because you fear terrorist? Going green isn't as scary as it sounds, if anything it'll be good for the economy as it will create millions of jobs all the while cleaning up our air. Even if it doesn't stop Global Warming, don't you agree that we should reduce pollution? Or are you also in favor of nuclear power plants dumping their waste into lakes? Economic freedom right?
          • p0s3r, on 02/27/2008, -1/+3Who the ***** do you think corporations pass that new cost on to? Us.
        • aptimass, on 02/27/2008, -0/+2Perhaps you don't know who owns those big oil companies, and the car companies....it's the pension funds of millions of Americans who own the vast majority of them. And all taxes paid by corporations are passed straight through to the consumer.
      • ShadowMerchant, on 02/27/2008, -4/+3You're a douchebag. This whole thing is a grab for money and power by left wing busybodies who have been repudiated at the ballot box again and again. It's a FRAUD and a LIE based on manipulation of statistical noise. ***** global warming and ***** all Digg hippies who believe in it.
        • goomba323, on 02/27/2008, -2/+2Yeah because all those scientist have such a liberal-socialist agenda. And don't get me started on the CIA and their left-leaning conspiracies. *****, even the Bush Administration admits it, and there is no way you are as retarded as Bush. Are you being sarcastic or are you just an idiot?
      • libtec12, on 02/27/2008, -2/+1well unfortunately your much to consumed with present societal ideas to see the truth, you miss the obvious idea that quantity over quality (which is the American way) certainly doesn't cut it on a planet of finite natural resources. so why don't we think of it this way..millions live on two dollars a day, are starving, don't have fresh water..when the planet has plenty of all resources to provide for 6 billion..more than 6..no, 6 might be its carrying capacity, (experts say 3 is optimal) all these resources are available, and yet not given. and your bitching about a rise in food cost, in gas. do you realized the incredible price our planet has payed for your ***** 2.99$ steak. that 140 species are wiped out daily for your chicken"*****"nugget? think quality, think sustainability, or to be less demanding on your abilities just think at all. oh and global warming..yeah thats some truth i wont even waste my time responding if you don't believe in it you don't deserve to breathe that rapidly warming air you are breathing.
        • p0s3r, on 02/27/2008, -1/+2Rapidly warming air would be weather not climate :/
          • bitcloud, on 02/27/2008, -0/+2as would rapidly cooling air...

            (your support of this article baffles me given that you clearly understand the difference between weather and climate)
    • Railer, on 02/27/2008, -2/+9Laws to by the type of car I want. - http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/02/ban-all-cars-wi ...
      Laws to buy a incandescent light bulb. - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6378161.st ...
      Laws to ban drive through windows - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.2 ...
      Laws making it okay to snoop through my garbage and fine me for throwing ***** away -http://www.city.grandforks.bc.ca/services/garbage/ ...
      How I heat my house -http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming ...
      My use of an air conditioner - http://www.aa1car.com/library/r134a_ban.htm


      Do you want more???
      • gwynne007, on 02/27/2008, -6/+2No offence, but apart from the banning of drive through windows (what is that all about?) and going through rubbish (that is an invasion of privacy) what is wrong with the other 4? As long as there are alternatives (cars, light bulbs, heating, cooling) that are almost as effective what is wrong with helping things out.
        • Railer, on 02/27/2008, -1/+3A little thing called freedom, I don't mind alternatives but making something illegal for no logical reason is a dictatorship.
      • libtec12, on 02/27/2008, -1/+2wow those are some mighty fine laws you found there sir. lets actually think beyond the current system we are in (if possible) and realize that laws are in place because people are so fed up with the failed culture we have built up around ourselves that they commit crimes. social crimes, rape murder robbery..*****, ***** and more *****. go study aboriginal peoples and tell me if they have laws to keep their people in line socially. even more profound..oh my, lets study the current topic, environmental laws..against pollution, emitting poisons..like dioxin, fuel efficiency..now lets go back to our friends the aborigines..who by the way live off the land, and have done so for hundreds of thousands of years..do you think they have laws on the environment. hmm you guessed it NOPE because ***** their lively hood is supported by the land. now you might not believe in their customs or the way they live but if you think for a minute that your life isn't sustained by this planet, by the same land as theirs, the same air and water..well then what do you think..i would love to hear it
      • goomba323, on 02/27/2008, -0/+2You can't have freedom if you don't have humanity. Just saying....
      • gordeaoux, on 02/27/2008, -2/+0You make it sound as though global warming is the first time laws have been made restricting purchasing and uses of popular items. Aerosol cans, gasoline additives, car exhaust, industrial pollution, paint, consumer electronics, the list goes on and on. Almost everything you can buy in a store has some law regulating what materials it's made of, how they are handled and some for how they are disposed.
        If we recognize carbon emission as pollution (granted, a slower pollutant than say nuclear waste), then the rational response is to create restrictions on their use and penalties for their misuse.
        • Railer, on 02/28/2008, -1/+2Yes once again gordo, your sheep like apathy is less than surpising. I'm sure you would be one of the first busy bodies snooping through my garbage and making sure my atitude isn't enviro enough, getting me a fine or jail time.

          Second CO2 is NOT a pollutant, we use it, plants use it, it's COMPLETELY needed. You know what you are doing by making CO2 a pollutant right? The second a baby takes it's first breath it's causing pollution, guess what you just reinvented, orginal sin. Nothing like guilting children into listening to your indoctrinations, and selling carbon credits like the indulgences of early christianity.

          But environmentalism isn't a religion, nah
    • dacrazydude, on 02/27/2008, -5/+3...Yeah and the acid rain will be great on our crops. Not to mention, a super-volcano (which is what I'm presuming you are talking about) would devastate an area the size of the U.S. not to mention create drastic temperature changes in such a short amount of time, it would be hard for humans to adapt to.
      You're suggesting we ignore a possible scientifically backed catastrophe and cross our fingers for a different one?
      • Railer, on 02/27/2008, -2/+6NO not a super volcano, just a decent sized one like St Helens, or Pinatubo they caused considerable cooling for several years.
        • radix2, on 02/27/2008, -1/+3Do you really think this sort of thing is not accounted for in the extremely conservative models' outcomes put forward? The climate scientists are all over every little factor that you with your feeble talking points think are killer arguments. And they have been for decades.
        • gordeaoux, on 02/27/2008, -2/+0do you have data on that?
        • Railer, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2Well gordeaoux you've topped yourself time time, I know your name on digg is synonymous with ignorance, and mind numbing stupidity, but I thought you might have even the slightest concept how climate works.

          There's a quote for you "Volcanoes can provide great tests for climate models, and indeed, predictions of the impacts of Pinatubo (before they happened) proved very accurate (about a 0.5 C cooling after about 18 months) " - Gavin Schmit
          - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006 ...

          "Volcanic eruptions are thought to be responsible for the global cooling that has been observed for a few years after a major eruption. The amount and global extent of the cooling depend on the force of the eruption and, possibly, its latitude. When large masses of gases from the eruption reach the stratosphere, they can produce a large, widespread cooling effect. " - NASA
          - http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact ...

          Seriously read ANY book on climate and how it works, until then just stick with the mac and pot stories, and STFU about climate.
      • dacrazydude, on 02/27/2008, -1/+1In that case, it wouldn't be sizable enough to reverse the warming conditions for a relevant amount of time. It'll cool off the planet for a couple years while the CO2 continues to accumulate. Besides since the sulphur will be taken out of the atmosphere more quickly than carbon dioxide and since carbon dioxide and methane will still be produced, it'll probably end up more detrimental. This will be because the climate will now have to deal with the rapid loss of sulfur( which reflected a portion of the solar energy after the eruption) and the accumulation of carbon during the period after the explosion. The only way this would be an answer to global warming , would be if we continually add sulfur into the atmosphere.
        However, the continual additions of sulfur to the atmosphere will create acid rain as well as change the PH of the soil to dangerous levels. Honestly, this approach is probably more dangerous than global warming itself.
        • Railer, on 02/28/2008, -1/+1You think I can make volcano's erupt now? You're insane right?
        • dacrazydude, on 02/28/2008, -1/+0No, but adding sulphur and other chemicals(which would do exactly what a volcano would do for global climate conditions) that reflect solar radiation is currently being considered as a last resort measure if global warming approaches dangerous levels. I'm simply saying a single volcano of any sort would not be enough to end the threat of global warming as you thought.
        • Railer, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1Ok it would end the "threat" of AGW because, 1. it would drive world temperatures down another .5C and dropping levels so low they would fall out of ALL 18 IPCC climate models proving once and for all the models are crap. 2. It would also drop the rate of climate change for .14C per decade, to .1 or .11 C per decade, meaning a NORMAL RATE of temperature increases, destroying the alarmists within the decade.

          As for sulphur and other chemicals in the atmosphere short of exploding several nuclear weapons we cannot do this, and I never said we should. I'm not sure where the hell you got that from? If a NATURAL large volcano were to blow this would happen, it's called a hypothetical situation, big words I know go ask your mom and dad what they mean.

          • dacrazydude, on 02/28/2008, -0/+0...Nuclear weapons? How does that have anything to do with this?

            I'm also curious as to where you're getting your climate change numbers? Depending on the size of the explosion, an initial change of .5C is easily possible and have be seen from numerous historical eruptions , I agree. Your numbers for the rate of climate change, on the other hand are ridiculous. When sulfur dioxide enters the atmosphere through an eruption, it's quickly converted into sulphuric acid aerosols. These aerosols then leave the atmosphere through rainfall and gravity. I have never heard any scientist give more than 1-2 year of global cooling as a result of these aerosols because of how quickly these anti-warming aerosols leave the atmosphere. I liked to know whose model or data you are referencing?

            As for the personal attacks, you're an effing moron.
          • Railer, on 02/28/2008, -0/+11. the only way we could put an equivalant amount of dust into the atmosphere, as a large volcano would be to use nuclear weapons, we could not do in an equalivalant amount of time.
            2. I stated "several" years specifically because you could not tie me down to any specific time period. But, Volcanic aerosols can stay in the atmosphere for 4 or 5 years even though the majority are out in 18 months. -
            http://www.mlo.noaa.gov/programs/gmdlidar/mlo/img/ ...

            As for personal attacks making suppositions about Acid Rain and how human beings should put sulfer into the atmosphere and my time period for aeorsols level during a volcanic eruption, all of these I did NOT state but somehow you read them in, this 1. implys the inability to read and 2. a childlike imagination. So I feel justified in assuming you would not understand highschool level words.

            "The only way this would be an answer to global warming , would be if we continually add sulfur into the atmosphere.
            However, the continual additions of sulfur to the atmosphere will create acid rain as well as change the PH of the soil to dangerous levels. Honestly, this approach is probably more dangerous than global warming itself. " - I never suggested anything like this.

            "I have never heard any scientist give more than 1-2 year of global cooling as a result of these aerosols because of how quickly these anti-warming aerosols leave the atmosphere. I liked to know whose model or data you are referencing?" - where did I state otherwise?


      • radix2, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1[deleted - moved to correct thread]
    • biotch, on 02/27/2008, -2/+4That graph is for anomaly data
      Man this really underscores why we need better education in America.
      To put it simply, if the number is positive, then temperature is rising at a faster rate than it was rising before. In other words, 2007 saw an increase in the rate of temperature rise.
      • Railer, on 02/27/2008, -0/+3no the anomaly data is taken from a zero average from 1961 to 1990. So if the Current anomaly is .037 C above that average we have effectively returned to the temperatures of the 1970's and 1980's. SO your statement "To put it simply, if the number is positive, then temperature is rising at a faster rate than it was rising before. In other words, 2007 saw an increase in the rate of temperature rise." is incorrect, but your statement "we need better education in America." is correct, you would proof of that.


        Why are the temperatures expressed as anomalies from 1961-90?

        Stations on land are at different elevations, and different countries estimate average monthly temperatures using different methods and formulae. To avoid biases that could result from these problems, monthly average temperatures are reduced to anomalies from the period with best coverage (1961-90). For stations to be used, an estimate of the base period average must be calculated. Because many stations do not have complete records for the 1961-90 period several methods have been developed to estimate 1961-90 averages from neighbouring records or using other sources of data. Over the oceans, where observations are generally made from mobile platforms, it is impossible to assemble long series of actual temperatures for fixed points. However it is possible to interpolate historical data to create spatially complete reference climatologies (averages for 1961-90) so that individual observations can be compared with a local normal for the given day of the year.

        http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/#faq
        • gordeaoux, on 02/27/2008, -1/+0Regardless of the baseline for the anomaly data, a positive anomaly will still mean a warming earth. biotch was incorrect in saying the rate would be faster, but 2007 did get warmer than previous years.
        • Railer, on 02/27/2008, -0/+2Yes it's getting warmer, we are coming out of a small iceage it's been getting warmer for 200+ years, this is is not man made, that we have warmed .037C above the 1970's and 80's dose NOT frighten me. The RATE is of warming is a factor of acceleration. it IS warming but the RATE of warming is not going up it is GOING DOWN. The is wrong and so are you. As for "2007 did get warmer than previous years" this is suckers bet, we will ALWAYS get warmer temperatures in any decade because we are coming out of an iceage and in warm decades you will get a lot of them, but if the overall trend of warming is not accelerating from the last 100+ years we have nothing to worry about. and currently it looks like 1.2 to 1.3 will be the expected warming over the next 100 years.
          • gordeaoux, on 02/27/2008, -1/+0I suppose it's a good thing that you're not frightened. Being scared won't help anyone. Whether you pissed yourself won't change the climate, unfortunately.
            Here's Dr. James Hansen: "As we predicted last year, 2007 was warmer than 2006, continuing the strong warming trend of the past 30 years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases."
            There's nothing indicating a tapering off of the long term warming trend in the data. The warming also does not have to be accelerating for the consequences to kick in.
            http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080116/
          • Railer, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1Oh yes shame NO ONE ELSE got Hansen's "special" climate readings. UAH RSS and you know those funny things called satellites.
          • Railer, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1There has been a "warming trend" for 300 years! Ya I'm not that concerned, exactly how much CO2 was being put out in the 1700's?
            http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/Loeh ...
    • kruptd, on 02/27/2008, -2/+3First it was global cooling, then the ozone, then global warming

      I remember the big ozone scare. Everyone was taking a ride on that bandwagon then about a year later they collectively decided "***** it"
      • gordeaoux, on 02/27/2008, -1/+0I don't normally call people idiots, but you're an idiot. There was - and still is - a problem with the ozone. CFC's were largely banned throughout the world and the ozone began repairing itself. It's not as good as it used to be, but its better.
  • p0s3r, on 02/27/2008, -37/+38Oh ***** this is so awesome. So if we cap CO2 emissions like the Krazies want, we'll actually exacerbate the cooling phenomenon. So Global Warmmongers, please explain how Kyoto v2.0 is going to do anything to help us?
    • norman619, on 02/27/2008, -15/+9Nope. Haven't you been paying attention? CO2 levels do not drive temperature/climate change. The current cooling is proof plus the data has shown this for a long time. The human caused global warming folks just like to ignore this fact. Your climate is just as wrong as their claim. We have no more control over the global climate than we do over the solar cycles.
      • allenobendorf, on 02/27/2008, -7/+7Are you retarded?
        • eviscero, on 02/27/2008, -2/+4Notice the ad hom attack by the intellectual.
          • bitcloud, on 02/27/2008, -1/+1it's not an attack... it's just there seems to be a prevalence of retarded people on digg today.. it helps to know who the retards, 15 year olds and oil shills are so we can actually discuss the data instead of pretending that a weather snapshot is a climate snapshot...
      • mtg1287, on 02/27/2008, -3/+6Thank god someone said it.
      • mtg1287, on 02/27/2008, -4/+4Thank God the scientists were wrong about the ozone hole too...oh wait, they weren't. When are people going to believe experts? If you want to believe scientific experts are wrong about global warming why don't you go smoke cigarettes because the same experts you believe think cigarettes are fine.
  • largepork, on 02/27/2008, -28/+62The good news: Al Gore doesn't have to feel guilty about flying around in private jets anymore.
  • tst1212, on 02/27/2008, -22/+55I'd better go out and drive around in my SUV to warm things up!
    • Schmich, on 02/27/2008, -2/+3Sure! After all gas is free nowadays, right?
  • aki009, on 02/27/2008, -31/+28Oh my. What are all those scientists going to do now? And all those lobbyists? And all those communist-socialist-liberal-progressives with a twist? And what about albore? The world _is_ coming to an end (for them).
    • lendrick, on 02/27/2008, -6/+8You have absolutely no idea how much we liberals would *love* to be wrong about global warming. I'd love to look back 50 years from now and be like, "Haha, global warming! Boy do I feel silly about that one!" Know why? Because the alternative is famine, flooding, economic meltdown, and all sorts of other bad stuff.

      Anyway, it could be that global warming and cooling just caused by solar activity. It could be that this year is an anomaly. It could be that we're ***** up our atmosphere in ways we can't comprehend and we don't know *what* will happen in the end.

      The point is, I'd love to be wrong.
      • ShadowMerchant, on 02/27/2008, -1/+3" Because the alternative is famine, flooding, economic meltdown, and all sorts of other bad stuff."

        Actually, any warming would open vast tracts of land in Canada and Russia to farming, land that is now too cold for crop production. Flooding, sure, but on the order of a centimeter or two a year, easily handled by the application of civil engineering principles a la the Netherlands. Economic meltdown? Only if the left-wing statist filth are allowed to continue using global warming as a Trojan horse to attack free market capitalism.
        • goomba323, on 02/27/2008, -2/+2Yeah, I can't stand all those scientist with their liberal-socialist agendas. And that CIA, oh man, they really are left-wing filth. Moron.
        • libtec12, on 02/27/2008, -3/+0shadowmerchant, have you ever stopped to think that quite possibly agriculture, civil engineering, free market capitalism are all failures. don't you realize that while we have gained a few comforts (and of course this is an understatement) since the dawn of the agricultural revolution, we are required to give up more and more time (oh by the way totalitarian agriculture is the most labor intensive type of life our human society has created or carried out in its 3 million years on this planet) to actually stay alive, thus truly eliminating the need to stay alive because we are no longer in touch with out planet which from we evolved on for millions of years, we don't look to nature for the meaning of life, or the correct way to live. no we just decide to turn to religion, yes lets base our whole existence, billions of great minds and original people, lets group them all into a couple religions based on a couple mens lives and then fight each other about it. that seems like a good way to live, and while were at it we will attempt to play god of the planet and control it and subdue it, oh and in the end fail and poison ourselves to death and wipe ourselves out. and say oh ***** if we had just sold another suv, or torn down more trees to make a farm we would have been ok. study population vs. food production and tell me the one result of making more food. oh and go read some Edward Abbey or something instead of watching fox news or whatever you prescribe your weak brain to
          • ShadowMerchant, on 02/28/2008, -0/+0You first. You are quite free to set a good example and go live naked in a cave. Gather roots and berries, and enjoy all your new-found leisure time. I'll take the agriculture and the capitalism and the flushing toilets, thanks very much.
      • gabeh73, on 02/27/2008, -0/+2Judging by Dr. Reed Noss's statements and the Wildlands Project that fits into the UN Agenda 21 treaty (signed by George Bush)...it seems like a lot of folks want mass famines. How else do you depopulate 95% of the 6 billion people in the world? I understand that many of you are genuinely concerend about the environemnt. May I suggest you wory about mercury pollution(from coal plants), Sulfer dioxide, fluoride and nitrogen oxide. These chemicals really do cause acid rain, retardation, killing all sorts of animals...best of all there are lots of technologies available to reduce the output of these deadly chemicals. When you focus on boogie man chemicals like CO2 which enhance plant growth...you are not being very helpful to the real environmental movement...if you really wish to kill 95% of the population then just be honest about it...increasing energy prices is the surest way to cause food shortages and kill one or two billion people...if that is what you supposed "liberals" want then just be honest about it. Then ya'll can get down to publicly deciding the method of genocide or maybe those of us against genocide will be able to put up a fight.
        • jasontromm, on 02/27/2008, -0/+2Yup, and you better be concerned about all those CF light bulbs and the mercury in them. You can't even put them in a landfill when they burn out.
    • EtherGnat, on 02/27/2008, -5/+4"What are all those scientists going to do now?"

      Why do people think scientists can't get any work except global warming? I work for an environmental organization, and the scientists where I work routinely get job offers from the corporate sector for many times what they currently make working for the University. My boss is currently considering taking a sabbatical to take a CEO position.

      These are people who are passionate about what they do, not people looking to make a buck or who can't find work anywhere else.
      • darienphoenix, on 02/27/2008, -2/+2Crap. I meant to digg you up, and wish I could 10 times, but accidently buried. :(
  • joe122370, on 02/27/2008, -15/+10break out the parkas people
  • BigManOnCampus, on 02/27/2008, -29/+47Don't forget, don't ever forget all the great lines that Global Warming has given us to this point.

    1) The arctic will be free of ice year-round in 5 years. (Said in 2007)
    2) We are at a tipping point, where further adding of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause run-away global warming (Said sooo many times)
    3) The sun couldn't possibly be the reason the climate is changing. (I still scratch my head when people say this)
    4) 95% confidence that Man is causing global warming (IPCC said this over and over)
    5) Bush was silencing scientists --James Hansen, who got caught with his hand in the data manipulation jar by a Canadian
    And many more, please please please remember them. Only if they are remembered will people be ashamed of their mistakes.
    • elebrio, on 02/27/2008, -11/+20Today we're seeing that climate change is about more than a few unseasonably mild winters or hot summers. It's about the chain of natural catastrophes and devastating weather patterns that global warming is beginning to set off around the world.. the frequency and intensity of which are breaking records thousands of years old.
      Barack Obama
      • orlandorays, on 02/27/2008, -8/+11Thousands of years? The oldest solid numbers are 400 years old in Europe. Epic fail.
        • p0s3r, on 02/27/2008, -6/+9You're right. Barack is full of *****. Thats who elebrio was quoting.
        • bitcloud, on 02/27/2008, -4/+2Are you kidding me? you're kidding yourself no less...

          Geologists have accurate measurements for as long as they have geological samples... Maybe you don't understand the science, but don't try to convince yourself that others have the same comprehension difficulties...
        • bizkitboi, on 02/27/2008, -1/+2wait wait wait, so those scientists at both poles who drill to get ice tube samples of thousands of years of atmospheric data are all lies?
      • CeleronNutcase, on 02/27/2008, -5/+1Dugg for giving a spot to Barack Obama instead of Ron Paul :P
    • BigManOnCampus, on 02/27/2008, -11/+14"There are many who still do not believe that global warming is a problem at all. And it's no wonder: because they are the targets of a massive and well-organized campaign of disinformation lavishly funded by polluters who are determined to prevent any action to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming out of a fear that their profits might be affected if they had to stop dumping so much pollution into the atmosphere."
      Al Gore

      "What changed in the United States with Hurricane Katrina was a feeling that we have entered a period of consequences."
      Al Gore
    • BigManOnCampus, on 02/27/2008, -10/+15The facts are there that we have created, man has, a self-inflicted wound through global warming. ~ Arnold Schwarzenegger

      The issue of climate change is one that we ignore at our own peril. There may still be disputes about exactly how much we're contributing to the warming of the earth's atmosphere and how much is naturally occurring, but what we can be scientifically certain of is that our continued use of fossil fuels is pushing us to a point of no return. And unless we free ourselves from a dependence on these fossil fuels and chart a new course on energy in this country, we are condemning future generations to global catastrophe. ~ Barack Obama

      America has not led but fled on the issue of global warming. ~ Senator John Kerry

      Two thousand scientists, in a hundred countries, engaged in the most elaborate, well organized scientific collaboration in the history of humankind, have produced long-since a consensus that we will face a string of terrible catastrophes unless we act to prepare ourselves and deal with the underlying causes of global warming. ~Al Gore

      Climate change is no longer a doomsday prophecy, it's a reality. -Astrid Heiberg

      We are about half a century away from being ecologically and economically bankrupt because of global warming -Andrew Simms, quoted in “Demand for 'Kyoto tax' on the US,” BBC News, 6 Dec 03

      Absent the rapid mobilization of climate advocates at every level -- and the pooling of all their energy, creativity, and resources into a coordinated, no-holds-barred campaign -- we will soon be crossing the threshold into climate hell. Ross Gelbspan, “The Big Name Game,” Grist Magazine, 31 Jul 2002

      So today, we dumped another 70 million tons of global-warming pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet, as if it were an open sewer. And tomorrow, we will dump a slightly larger amount, with the cumulative concentrations now trapping more and more heat from the sun. As a result, the earth has a fever. And the fever is rising. The experts have told us it is not a passing affliction that will heal by itself. We asked for a second opinion. And a third. And a fourth. And the consistent conclusion, restated with increasing alarm, is that something basic is wrong. We are what is wrong, and we must make it right. ~Al Gore, Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech, Oslo, Norway, 10 Dec 2007
      • Railer, on 02/27/2008, -4/+10I only hope someone keeps a list of all these quotes for the future, and on something less fluid then the internet.
      • orlandorays, on 02/27/2008, -3/+7On the Astrid Heiberg quote: We might still see a climate change doomsday prophecy come true. Ever hear of the Snowball Earth scenario?
      • CeleronNutcase, on 02/27/2008, -1/+3"The sun is going to explode in 6 years!" ~astrophysicist Dr. Piers van der Meer, 4 Mar 2003
        • radix2, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1who? quote please because that could be a fun fisking...
    • thebellmaster1x, on 02/27/2008, -9/+9Thanks, pal, but I don't count Al Gore as a scientist, nor have I even seen An Inconvenient Truth. Your quotes mean nothing to me.
    • mtg1287, on 02/27/2008, -5/+9I study Environmental Engineering and everything we as humans do affects the environment...be it for better or worse. To say the nothing gets affected by pumping large amounts of pollutants in the air is to deny common sense
      • bitcloud, on 02/27/2008, -3/+1shh.. i don't think the digg audience appreciates *real* science..
    • gordeaoux, on 02/27/2008, -5/+1"1) The arctic will be free of ice year-round in 5 years. (Said in 2007)"
      Is it 2012 already? I knew that 5 year dream of banging Natalie Portman was too good to be true.

      "2) We are at a tipping point, where further adding of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause run-away global warming (Said sooo many times)"
      Global warming is a long term trend, in 5 years if the planet is cooler you'll have an argument.

      "3) The sun couldn't possibly be the reason the climate is changing. (I still scratch my head when people say this)"
      The sun alone cannot account for the current warming trend. No one is saying it doesnt affect climate, just that it isn't the current primary cause of change.

      "4) 95% confidence that Man is causing global warming (IPCC said this over and over)"
      And how does this 1 report indicate that that isn't true?

      "5) Bush was silencing scientists --James Hansen, who got caught with his hand in the data manipulation jar by a Canadian"
      James Hansen is listed as a source on this article. Apparently his data is acceptable if you like the results.
  • elebrio, on 02/27/2008, -33/+43Liberals will disavow this for one reason: Science is only science if it fits their ideology.
    • jon30041, on 02/27/2008, -2/+5Actually, I'm totally cool with this news. The main weapon of anti-pollution types is gone, since it was a global problem. However, the dumping of harmful chemicals and the pouring of gases to destroy the ozone layer are still terrible things that contribute to the decay of our biosphere.

      Was global warming wrong? No. But the factors that caused it were proven to be different than hypothesized. We can't change the temp changes in the sun, but we can try to keep our environment clean. Besides, we'll be running out of all those useful fossil fuels pretty soon, so we should be working on alternative stuff anyways, reduce dependence on foreign oil and all that stuff.

      Yeah, global warming was wrong, but should we continue to desecrate our beautiful planet?
      • BigManOnCampus, on 02/27/2008, -5/+6Noone *ever* said "Global warming is wrong so we should therefore keep dumping pollution into the air."
        There's a huge difference between being responsible stewards of the planet, and imposing socialist agendas on whole economies to "prevent global catastrophe".
        • radix2, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1socialist agendas? Jesus ***** christ. So people being concerned about our childrens' future based on the research and considered opinion of scientists who have spent a lifetime gaining an understanding of the inter-relationships of different factors, and have put up their hand to say "Err guys - I think we may have a problem here" are socialist? ***** crazy.
      • matador3, on 02/27/2008, -1/+3I Dugg you up, this global warming BS is a distraction from real pollution issues with immediate effects.
    • bitcloud, on 02/27/2008, -5/+6ah no actually scientists will disavow this because it's a 6 month *atmospheric* weather (not climate) reading.

      climate change is complex and these type of results were predicted. Maybe not by the popsci parrots who liked terms like "global warming", but by actual scientists... They're also not "global" results as they are called, but results from land based atmospheric readings...
      • radix2, on 02/27/2008, -1/+2dugg up because you are so correct. Trends over centuries count. Not just a snapshot measurement like this. I wish more people understood this crucial point.
      • ChevyIIMan, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1You realize that well over half of the Published Scientist in the world state that GLOBAL WARMING is a load of *****
    • gordeaoux, on 02/27/2008, -2/+2Like I said above, James Hansen is listed as a source for this article. The same James Hansen from NASA that anti-global warming folks have tried to discredit 10 ways from sunday. I guess Scientists are only scientists when it fits their ideology.
    • sjm20k, on 02/27/2008, -2/+5stop making this a political issue - this is a humanitarian issue. the science pointed heavily towards CO2 emissions being directly linked to the warming of the globe. the truth lies neither on the left or right, it stands on its own.
  • Taciturn, on 02/27/2008, -28/+65Okay. This isn't a chart of global temperature - the fact that nothing goes above 0.8 degrees C should have tipped you off to this fact.

    The chart shows temperature *anomaly*. The anomaly is found by taking observed data and subtracting the mean (presumably, the mean over some larger time period).

    For this chart to represent global cooling, the anomaly would have to be negative. Not "close to zero," not "less than it was before." ANY positive value means "warmer than average."

    This story equals fail.
    • BigManOnCampus, on 02/27/2008, -16/+21You fail at understanding data. This is a year-on-year anomaly, meaning that for the area collected (presumably the northern hemisphere) the last 12 months were cooler than many prior years, and in fact any prior year that would register positive on this normalized scale. What it clearly shows is that large, quick changes to temperature happen, and they happen completely without the influence of greenhouse gasses. It completely destroys the notion that CO2 is a major driving factor of climate change. It is rock-solid data saying "Hey, you scientists, you need to look at other factors when trying to explain climate."
      • bitcloud, on 02/27/2008, -3/+5No ***** you need other factors... Why is it that the popsci audience struggles to understand that solar activity is the cause of the energy hitting the earth and the pollution is the cause of that energy getting through the atmosphere (either in or out)

        everytime there's an article about solar activity all the oil shills jump up and down as though scientists don't understand solar activity... Does your roof insulation work? Are smoking rooms hotter than non-smoking rooms? Are cities hotter during high traffic/pollution times? is the temperature in your car different than outside? If you heat up a icecream tub half filled with ice does the air inside get hotter or colder?

        There are many factors involved in climate research. Don't pretend that dumping several trillion annual tonnes of toxic chemicals and C02 into the atmosphere isn't one of them...
      • gordeaoux, on 02/27/2008, -2/+1Anomaly means "derivation from average" so regardless of whether it's year-on-year or individual years, any positive value means warming. Now it may not be getting as warm as fast as before, but the world is still heating up. The article is also misleading, the temperature change last year was not enough to erase the warming of the last year, from the article's own source, Dr. James Hansen:

        http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02 ...
    • orlandorays, on 02/27/2008, -2/+5In easier terms, it's how far away from the arbitrarily-selected "normal".
    • thatsmyaibo, on 02/27/2008, -12/+3Enough of your mumbo jumbo. In laymen, it snowed in Los Angeles last year and I have NEVER experienced that before. Colorado got record snow fall. Mars' ice caps shrunk at the same rate as Earth's (according to NASA) and it is a farther distance from the Sun.

      Melting glaciers means nothing. The world was at one point covered in ice which has receded over the years. If you put a 5lbs block of ice on a hot sidewalk next to a 10lbs block of ice, the formor will melt at a quicker rate. Glaciers have been melting for centuries and the smaller they are, the quicker they melt.

      Global warming = business
      Al Gore = CEO
  • zelig, on 02/27/2008, -34/+39Global Warming: Proof That You Can Fool Most Of The People All Of The Time
    • PoopOnPaul, on 02/27/2008, -9/+9zelig: proof that it's annoying when people capitalize every word
      • davharrington, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1I believe they changed the wording because of this, you will hear them use the term "Climate Change" from now on, I guess 90% of today's greenhouse gasses (WATER VAPOR) never existed during the past 6 Ice ages.

        I wonder if there was a leader during the last ice age that ASSHATS blamed for the climate change?
    • inboxnews, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1Baaa
  • radiantarchon, on 02/27/2008, -32/+17i knew the liberal media was lying. wait. thats a commonly known fact.
  • crazywarthog, on 02/27/2008, -27/+22Global warming = climate change = scare the masses = tax the masses = politicians laugh all the way to the bank = scam
    • eir574, on 02/27/2008, -2/+5Without making a statement for or against the possibility that global warming is real, you do realize that just because you can imagine a slippery slope connecting one state to another, that doesn't mean that such a path will necessarily be followed, right?
  • styleomatic, on 02/27/2008, -17/+7Global Cooling? DAMN it all! ........ I was just gearing up for my global CREAMATION!!!
  • wreckosaurus, on 02/27/2008, -18/+49http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Te ...
    Year to year temperatures fluctuate up and down, what's important is the average temperature trend, which is in the upward direction.
    • diggablog, on 02/27/2008, -17/+13Maybe you didn't read the article or look at the graph because they both say that the entire "warming" for the last 100 years has been wiped out in 1 year — seems pretty significant to me.
    • orlandorays, on 02/27/2008, -7/+3According to that chart, the next dot should be around -0.3. That'll dampen the overall trend.
      • wreckosaurus, on 02/27/2008, -2/+3No, the next dot will be the same about the same as the low point in 2000.
        • EuphopiaB, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1No, the delta is about -0.6. What is 0.4 - 0.6? This temperature change goes below the middle of that graph, going back to about 1950.
    • mntbikeracer1, on 02/27/2008, -10/+1Dude look at that graph. If you really think you can fit a trend line to a graph with that much variation than you fall right into the fear monger's hands.
      • thebellmaster1x, on 02/27/2008, -1/+5Of course, because calculus doesn't count as science...?
      • JigoroKano, on 02/27/2008, -1/+6There are statistical measures of a model accounting for variability in data. Your eyes do not count among them.
        • eir574, on 02/27/2008, -1/+2I may have to use that line someday. I'm amazed by how many scientists make mistakes like placing total confidence in linear regression. I'm starting to think that everyone should take (and preferably remember major concepts from) a basic statistics course. I'll implement that when I gain some sort of control over other people's lives. :)
      • kaelyiesta, on 02/27/2008, -0/+2just to add to jigoroKanos point, you can expand a graph visually an arbitrary amount one one or the other axis, making what you see completely irrelevant.
      • wreckosaurus, on 02/27/2008, -1/+1OK, I'll let the UK Meteorological Office know that some guy on the internets doesn't think it looks right. I'm sure they've never heard of statistics before.
  • BigBlueCarbon, on 02/27/2008, -18/+8read this in dr evil's voice:
    i gotta a great idea: let us call it "climate change."
  • diggablog, on 02/27/2008, -17/+9Unfortunately, this whole mess is going to cause a huge loss of confidence in real science and real scientists.
    • bitcloud, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1It's cause a loss of confidence in dailytech's ability to read, understand and present statistics...
  • MarkDykeman, on 02/27/2008, -21/+46One winter isn't a trend.
    • p0s3r, on 02/27/2008, -15/+8A 12-month winter is.
      • bitcloud, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1thats a straight line in the graph there bud... if you think they've plotted the temperatures along the course of the year, you're understanding this less than i've been giving you credit for...
    • Doofy, on 02/27/2008, -13/+11It's not "one winter" in one place, it's a full year ALL OVER THE WORLD.
      You may not have heard (because God forbid the media should mention it) about the worst winter on record in the southern hemisphere this last june/july/august.
      Record cold and snow in South America, Southern Africa, and Australia, and the largest Antarctic sea ice extent ever recorded.
      All this being immediately followed by the current record winter in the northern hemisphere.
      Snow in the middle east. Most snow cover in the U.S. since 1966. Worst winter in 100 years in Asia.
      This is a cold winter OVER THE ENTIRE PLANET, not just one specific area.
      All that CO2 isn't doing jack ***** to keep the earth from freezing when the sun decides to take a little sunspot nap.

      • Protoss, on 02/27/2008, -4/+1Winter in August? Do people wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people down there?
        • Wartz, on 02/27/2008, -1/+1PLEASE tell me you are joking!
          • p0s3r, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1Nope. Just another product of our glorious public education. But the public educators were successful. They produced another American that's dumb as tick and willing to lap up whatever propaganda the Progressives spew.
          • Protoss, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1It's a Simpsons reference....
          • Wartz, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1whoops, guess I should have realized that. >_
      • gordeaoux, on 02/27/2008, -0/+0Record snow fall you say? There's no way that there's more precipitation because there's more moisture in the atmosphere because of warmer temperatures.
    • BigManOnCampus, on 02/27/2008, -9/+7True enough.

      However, since we have records of sunspots that say, "When sunspots go away, the earth cools", and we currently have a dearth of sunspots, and, lo-and-behold, the earth is cooler. All this while conversely we have no evidence that indicates that CO2 is a direct force on Earth's climate, and better yet we have increasing CO2 while the earth is cooling....and one has to conclude that atmospheric gasses do very little to affect worldwide climate when taken in context to fluctuations in the very thing that provides earth with energy.

      Conclusion: Yes, this is not indicative of a trend. Except if by trend you mean another blow to those who spout environmental fear in the name of science.
  • uminchu, on 02/27/2008, -21/+13Can we string up Al Gore and take away all his glory?
    • orlandorays, on 02/27/2008, -7/+6Turn his Oscar for Best Documentary into a Razzie for Worst Excuse for Non-Fiction.
  • elebrio, on 02/27/2008, -20/+11Watch the debate shift from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change". Either way of course "science" will blame fossil fuels.
    • djepik, on 02/27/2008, -1/+2Interesting prediction...
    • Ford_Prefect2nd, on 02/27/2008, -1/+2Actually, scientists have said for years that the greenhouse effect will lead to more extreme temperatures. Many predict not just hotter summers, but more extremes, sudden colder years, warm winters, very cold winters etc. They do not need to switch, the media just leaves out the more complicated parts of their theories.
  • wreckosaurus, on 02/27/2008, -9/+53I like how the graph they use goes back to 1988 and they say this year has wiped away 100 years of warming. Compare, and see what 100 years looks like.
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02 ...
    http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/7390_large_hadc ...
    • orlandorays, on 02/27/2008, -14/+6It's still the biggest single-year change, up or down, since recordkeeping began. Temperatures are now within the range where they were talking about global cooling back in the 70s. Gonna jump on that bandwagon?
      • wreckosaurus, on 02/27/2008, -5/+9Actually most scientists in the 70's were still predicting global warming caused by greenhouse gasses, despite the cooling of the earth. It was only a small number of scientists and the media that made any fuss over