Oh, no. Here come all the global warming lunatics.

(Please, please try to understand. There are billions of dollars at stake (going from you others) if you believe in global warming. THAT IS THE ROOT OF THE REASON WHY YOU HEAR ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING.

IT IS A HHHHUUUUUGGGGGGEEEEEEE WAY TO MAKE MONEY FOR THOSE THAT WISH TO PUSH IT AND MAKE THE MONEY.

Think about it because it is something very easy to understand. Your brain is being warped. Someone is taking your money. Somebody is making money from you, nothing more.

Hungry.. are you one of those folks that has to see his hair on fire before he will admit we have a problem with the world warming. Doesn't matter why or who's to blame.

Oh, no. Here come all the global warming lunatics.

(Please, please try to understand. There are billions of dollars at stake (going from you others) if you believe in global warming. THAT IS THE ROOT OF THE REASON WHY YOU HEAR ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING.

IT IS A HHHHUUUUUGGGGGGEEEEEEE WAY TO MAKE MONEY FOR THOSE THAT WISH TO PUSH IT AND MAKE THE MONEY.

Think about it because it is something very easy to understand. Your brain is being warped. Someone is taking your money. Somebody is making money from you, nothing more.

Ummm... who looks like the lunitic, here? I would suggest pulling your sources from more than just Rush Limbaugh. You may learn something. You may even learn to think and make conclusions all by yourself.

hungrymongoose

You have nothing new to say. You are like all of the other deniers who show up on these posts to accuse scientists who have put forth a theory based on fact, a theory accepted by an overwhelming majority of climate scientist, of a conspiracy based on the supposed financial gain by the conspirators. None of you deniers have ever put forth any rational argument concerning where that financial gain comes from. Perhaps you could enlighten us.

Scientists earn their reputation, and therefore their living, by being correct. Their reputation comes from being right and from being able to back their theories and opinions with observations, measurements and rational explanations. They have done that, but you continue in you ignorance. It's not their fault, it is yours.

Now contrast that with those who fund the anti-information, anti-science campaign of the global climate change deniers .... the Koch brothers and other energy company sources. Do they have a financial incentive to deny the science? You bet they do. Their billions of dollars come from fossil fuels, the combustion of which is the main cause of the climate change.

You offer no alternative explanation of the facts, no alternate theory, no expert to speak on your behalf. Instead you rant about half-baked (or completely raw) conspiracy theories that have absolutely no substance.

You accuse others of having their brain "warped" ..... ridiculous! You are a dupe, a lackey, a water-carrier for the charlatans in the energy industry who are more interested in profits than intellectual honesty. And they are making money from all of us. FILL 'ER UP!

pj and don,

You two do not deserve responses but here goes.

CLIMATEGATE started 11/09: "The opening days of the Copenhagen climate-change conference have been rife with denials and—dare we say it?—deniers. American delegate Jonathan Pershing said the emails and files leaked from East Anglia have helped make clear "the robustness of the science." Talk about brazening it out. And Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and so ex-officio guardian of the integrity of the science, said the leak proved only that his opponents would stop at nothing to avoid facing the truth of climate change. Uh-huh." (online.wsj.com)

CLIMATEGATE 2.0 started 11/11: "A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails [on 11/22/11]: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political "cause" rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data." (Forbes.com)

HungryMoose, you don't deserve a response, but here goes. GET YOUR INFORMATION FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES!!! Newly released emails???? really?

Do you know how many scientists are paid to say that GMO foods are good for you? Do you know how many scientists are paid to say that the newley created drug is just what you need? Those are the "scientists" that are making big money off of you. Tell me, just how are the Global Warming "alarmists" making money off of us? I see green energy companies going bankrupt, I see Big AGRA, Big Pharma and Big Oil making record profits.

Liberal_Libertarian

YOU ARE ALMOST RIGHT you and we are not that great

This has been the trend - more and more hottest records are being matched or beaten faster and faster due to the effect of something bigger then what man has done.

mj889, What is the "something bigger" and where did Liberal_Libertarian mention humans role in this?

Never mind that warming stuff. Rush says it is a hoax.

It is amazing how much heat Air Force One puts out when it travels from city to city.

And, it is amazing how much electricity, run by coal fired CO2 emitting plants, it takes to cool Mr. Al Gore's Tennessee home during the summer.

Then, there is all that CO2 being spewed on the Congressional floor(s).

Wait a dad gum minute.....the DOE has said that CO2 is outlawed.

Yep, another "lead-in" article for Mr. Obama for the next debate when he talks about his expanded "Go Green" initiatives IF he is re-elected.

This is how it goes people:

1) You are told about "global warming."

2) You believe it.

3) You feel all warm and fuzzy inside and really want to do something about it.

4) You realize that you personally cannot do anything because you couldn't organize 10 people to get together (for anything).

5) You just sit back with your warm and fuzzy feelings and let the "authorities" decide what should be done.

6) These same "authorities" then start to charge you a carbon tax and other taxes and fees (or whatever you want to call it ---- it is money coming out of your pocket) because of your personal contribution to global warming (by cars first, then they will charge for cigarettes, homes, and all the way up to daily human exhalation and excrement ---- once the lie is completely believed in.)

7) You lose that warm and fuzzy feeling but still pay for a lie called global warming. (A lie confirmed by leading scientists on this issue.)

A lie confirmed by leading scientists...

And which leading scientists might those be, you gullible fool?

What are your sources? Or are you just a bigmouthed blowhard in denial? 

When you reply, make sure you cover at least 10 points about what I believe. You get a bonus for mentioning Kool-aid, and a double bonus for using the word "sheeple".

I could post a list of all the scientists who oppose global warming. (Then the real fool would be exposed even further.) But then you would point out another baseless argument that you would want me to "clear up" for you.

Global warming is a lie.

I could post a list of all the scientists who oppose global warming...

Then do it, bigmouth! Or admit you can't. Stop making excuses.

hungrymongoose

More than 97% of climate scientists support the global climate change theory. Of the 3% that have not come out in support, most are just undecided. They do not oppose the theory. You could post a list of "scientists" who are on the non-science side of this issue. We have seen those lists. The lists are very short and the scientists have no credibility, like the occasional biologists who attempt to counter the theory of evolution with their Bible-based interpretations of life on Earth.

You still have not given any rationale for your conspiracy theory that scientists are supporting the theory for financial gain. Where would that money come from? The bulk of the money to be made by any scientist on this issue would be to prostitute themselves to one of the faux science institutes funded by the energy industry in their counter-information effort. [Incidentally, one of the lead scientist for the Koch brothers recently came out publicly in support of the global climate change theory ...... changed his mind. How embarrassing for your side!]

Virtually every national and international organization of scientists has endorsed the theory of global climate change. The notable exception is the American Association of Petroleum Engineers. I wonder why. [I also wonder why you would believe it is in the financial interests of all of those other organizations to support the theory. Who would pay them and why would they prostitute their professional status by lying?]

There is no arguing with ideological idiots. Climate change happens, does not matter if you believe it, it will still kill you and your children. If you truly think man is too small to impact the environment, try living in an industrial waste site. Only scientists paid by the Koch brothers dispute this, because they are paid to lie.

These people can not be convinced; they can only be out-voted. So ignore the trolls, and get people to the polls. Vote out the party of stupid, the people that insist the earth is flat, that evolution and science do not exist.

OK, I'm a retired earth scientist, and I don't deny that the climate has been warmer over the past few years. However:

1. It is simply due to a normal climatic cycle that has occured for millions of years.

2. There is no hard, irrefutable evidenc that insignificant man has had anything to do with causing it.

Hungrymongoose just wants to think that we are all crunchy granola liberals that follow our leaders blindly, that is what Rush tells him. Pretty hilarious, if you think about it.

OK, I'm a retired earth scientist, and I don't deny that the climate has been warmer over the past few years. However:

1. It is simply due to a normal climatic cycle that has occured for millions of years.

2. There is no hard, irrefutable evidenc that insignificant man has had anything to do with causing it.

Ok, like I believe you dude, NOT!

"Last week, 5,000 files of private email correspondence among several of the world's top climate scientists were anonymously leaked onto the Internet. Like the first "climategate" leak of 2009, the latest release shows top scientists in the field fudging data, conspiring to bully and silence opponents, and displaying far less certainty about the reliability of anthropogenic global warming theory in private than they ever admit in public.

The scientists include men like Michael Mann of Penn State University and Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia, both of whose reports inform what President Obama has called "the gold standard" of international climate science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The new release of emails was timed to coincide with the second anniversary of the original climategate leak and with the upcoming United Nations climate summit in Durban, South Africa. And it has already stirred strong emotions. To Rep. Ed Markey (D., Mass.), for example, the leaker or leakers responsible are attempting to "sabotage the international climate talks" and should be identified and brought "to justice."

One might sympathize with Mr. Markey's outrage if, say, the emails were maliciously rewritten or invented. But at least one scientist involved—Mr. Mann—has confirmed that the emails are genuine, as were the first batch released two years ago. So any malfeasance revealed therein ought to be blamed on the scientists who wrote them, rather than on the whistleblower who exposed them.

Consider an email written by Mr. Mann in August 2007. "I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thus far unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests. Perhaps the same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy." Doug Keenan is a skeptic and gadfly of the climate-change establishment. Steve McIntyre is the tenacious Canadian ex-mining engineer whose dogged research helped expose flaws in Mr. Mann's "hockey stick" graph of global temperatures.

One can understand Mr. Mann's irritation. His hockey stick, which purported to demonstrate the link between man-made carbon emissions and catastrophic global warming, was the central pillar of the IPCC's 2001 Third Assessment Report, and it brought him near-legendary status in his community. Naturally he wanted to put Mr. McIntyre in his place.

The sensible way to do so is to prove Mr. McIntyre wrong using facts and evidence and improved data. Instead the email reveals Mr. Mann casting about for a way to smear him. If the case for man-made global warming is really as strong as the so-called consensus claims it is, why do the climategate emails show scientists attempting to stamp out dissenting points of view? Why must they manipulate data, such as Mr. Jones's infamous effort (revealed in the first batch of climategate emails) to "hide the decline," deliberately concealing an inconvenient divergence, post-1960, between real-world, observed temperature data and scientists' preferred proxies derived from analyzing tree rings?

This is the real significance of the climategate emails. They show that major scientists who inform the IPCC can't be trusted to stick to the science and avoid political activism. This, in turn, has very worrying implications for the major international policy decisions adopted on the basis of their research." (11/28/11 online.wsj.com)

Cut and paste much, mongoose? Cutting and pasting is for 5 year olds. Maybe you should try reading and studying instead.

Climategate 2.0

A new batch of leaked emails again shows some leading
scientists trying to smear opponents.

Oh what fun it is to behave like a kindergartner!

It seems quite incredible that anyone denies global warming. The data is just a quick google search away for anyone who is interested, you can draw your own conclusions.

The conspiracy theories do not check out. There are thousands of scientists across the world that agree on this, including the academies of sciences of every developed country (France, Germany, Great Britain, Japan, Russia, China, etc), NASA, USGS, NOAA and many others.

If you consider the diversity of this group, the politics between the countries involved and the fact that you have the fossil fuel industry on the opposing side of the issue, commanding trillions of dollars of wealth, it is simply impossible for anyone to pull this off.

Again, the data is there for everyone to see. When you have a sharp change over 100 or so year, that previously took thousands of years to occur, it's a very clear indicator that something out of the ordinary is going on.

climate.nasa.gov is a good place to start if you are a logical person who wants to base their views on facts, not sound bites.

Well anyway hungry, you are WAYY off topic. The fact remains the results are real as reported and Sept. ties the warmest Sept. in 2006. Which above the avg. Sept temps of the 20th century. So what ehhh ? Oh and I wish the reporters would stop using the fahrenheit scale. This isn't the 1960's. And if US scientists are screwing things up by not using centigrade like the rest of the world, take note.

"Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.

Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva." (online.wsj.com)

Again, quit cutting and pasting! start studying and learning. We are NOT in kindergarten, mongoose. You are cutting and pasting OPINION pieces, not facts. Do you know what the difference? I know it takes work, but perhaps you should read what you are cutting and pasting (including who wrote it and who sponsored the study), and then maybe form an opinion? I don't think that is too much to ask, do you?

If something is claimed to exist, is it not the responsibility of the one(s) claiming it exists to prove it?

The claim of "lack of global warming for well over 10 years now" simply isn't true when appropriate adjustments are made for other known variables such as El Nino. Remember, 1998 was a strong El Nino year, much warmer than other years during the 1990s. Now we're that warm or warmer almost every month during so-called "neutral" ocean conditions since La Nina ended last March. The long-term trend is completely consistent with predictions based on rising atmospheric greenhouse gas levels.

Thim high falootin scientists don't know SQUAT. Just a bunch of eggheds sittin in a room tellin each other how smart they is. I'll bet none of them can tell for sertin what's happening in my back yard right now, but I shure know what's going on in my back yard. Same thing that was happening yesterday and the day before that. Ain't nothing changing.

Critics Slam Fox News for Distorting Global Warming Debate

By John P. Mello Jr.
TechNewsWorld
12/16/10 8:52 AM PT

Excerpts:

A leaked email has revealed a Fox News editor telling his staffers to refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed or cooled in any given period without immediately pointing out that such theories are based upon questionable data. Critics say such a directive mischaracterizes the issue of global warming as an even-sided scientific debate when in fact the concept is accepted by a vast majority of researchers.

For critics of Fox's coverage of climate change, the email was evidence of the news outlet's bias in covering the issue. Fox News has consistently delivered false and misleading information to its viewers about the climate crisis

His memo on climate change, by contrast, underscores what Fox has become: not a news organization, not even an honest opinion outlet, but a source of political propaganda," he continued. The real obligation of journalists is to help their audience understand that the scientific community is almost unanimous that the climate is changing, that human activity is a major cause and that voluminous amounts of data support that view.

Sammon's assertion in his email that there is some question that the planet is warming was challenged by experts interviewed by TechNewsWorld. "I don't know of any scientist who would say that the planet is not warming," declared John Abraham, an associate professor of engineering at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minn.

Abraham, who authored in May a widely disseminated rebuttal of the arguments by skeptics of global warming, added: "Everyone knows the planet is warming. There's very, very clear evidence of that."

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it

The article says:

36th consecutive September and 331st consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average

How much more proof do you want? The earth IS warming. The only argument is about who or what is causing it.

I'm a geologist myself, and I tend to believe a scientific consensus. 97-3 is a pretty good consensus saying it's man-induced CO2 increase in the atmosphere.

Spider, if you're an earth scientist and don't realize that change this rapid is not likely to be natural, you should take another class or two.

hungrymongoose

I could post a list of all the scientists who oppose global warming.

If you do, try to include some who actually have some expertise in climate science. Oh, wait. You can't because there aren't any experts who deny global warming.

hungrymongoose

You should give us a list with some more actual climate scientists. This is what I could come up with about the signatures in your posting:

Claude Allegre - a french politician ( geo-chemist- not climate scientist)

J. Scott Armstrong - a marketing expert - ( not that kind of forecaster , sorry)

Jan Breslow - a physiologist ( physiologists are not experts in climate science any more than Al Gore is)

Roger Cohen - a physical scientist working for Exxon!

Edward David - an electrical engineer who advised the Nixon administration

William Happer- a physicist with with less climate science education than Al Roker.

William Kininmonth- a meteorologist, the only person with any sort of credentials yet.

Richard Lindzen - a rare atmospheric scientist with stated skepticism on global warming.

James McGrath - a chemist who gets his understanding of global warming from Glen Beck ( just like you!)

Rodney Nichols - former president and CEO of of the New York Academy of Sciences whos area of expertise is a mystery.

Burt Rutan - a propulsion expert and businessman, got his expertise in climate science where?

Harrison H. Schmitt- astronaut politician. :-/

Nir Shaviv - kid physics professor

Henk Tennekes - Controversial meteorologist and enthusiastic bible reader.

Antonio Zichichi - Reputed "excellent organizer, mediocre physicist" according to Hans Bethe (winner of the Nobel Prize for his study on stellar nucleosynthesis)

this is from hadley: "We have seen a global temperature increase of more than 0.7 deg C (since pre-industrial times)"

Once again, not true when adjustments are made for the ENSO (El Nino-La Nina) cycle. If you look at NOAA data, 1997 was almost the same global temperature as 2011, but that's because 2011 was a La Nina year, the warmest such year on record.

"...several hundred million year old planent." [misspelling as originally typed] Yeah, another well-educated poster. Several thousand million years, yes! Several hundred million years, no! Not to worry about those orders of magnitude. Jeez....

If you can't spell planet, you might be a redneck teabilly.

Jian44...the earth is far older than "several hundred million years".

We are not concerned with climate trends over millions of years, we are concerned with trends over 50 - 100 years out.

Temperature records are not the only sign though. When you have ice sheets a couple of miles deep that took hundreds of thousands of year to accumulate disappear in a few decades, that is a clear sign something extremely out of the ordinary is happening.

Oceans are plentiful, fresh water not so much, poluted water increasing, aquifers being drained....Oh My! Our population keeps growing and our resources are shrinking. That's ok though, right?

Yes, I'm sure this is all a liberal conspiracy. Thanks, nutjob.

That is what is being said. The Ice in north is shrinking and the south pole ice has been growing. Although the northern ice is shrinking much more than the southern ice is growing. This does not include all of the worlds glaciers that are getting smaller each year. All of the surface ice is continually shrinking along with bilions of peoples fresh water supply that comes with it when it is supposed to melt during the summer. Instead glaciers are not growing during the winter and getting smaller and smaller every summer. Suggestion: Invest in bottled water companies!

I explained above how that is due to the ENSO cycle. With another El Nino probably on the way, the 1998 temperature record will likely soon be exceeded by a clear margin. (According to NOAA data, it was already exceeded by a small margin in 2005 and 2010.)

"Global warming stopped 16 years ago" ?

Critics say the Daily Mail simply "cherrypicked" the data.

To back up its blockbuster headline, says a statement from the Met Office in response to the story, the Daily Mail chose a starting point that came in the middle of "an exceptionally strong El Nino," which came after a "double-dip La Nina." The unusual conditions in the Pacific Ocean led to a spike in temperatures. "Choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading" — start the comparison in August instead of January 1997, and you get a sharper temperature rise.

The important thing to note, the Met Office says, is the long-term trend, and "the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade," and over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have climbed by about 0.8ºC.

Sources: Daily Mail, Express, Mark Lynas (via Twitter), Met Office, PowerLine

(running around with arms flailing) Auntie E, Auntie Em we humans are destroying the world!!! There's been warm ups and there has been ice ages and global warming lunatics perceive themselves as arrogant know it all's that in reality are nothing more than eco-extremists. What if these loons were around back when the ice age of 15,000 years ago receded? I suppose the humans were to blame for that warming? Global warming alarmists who blame the human for this latest warm up are nothing more than arrogant asses.

Hey, Mike, careful with the arms flailing. The wind currents you create may cause a hurricane in the Pacific. And you really should use a better deodorant. Oh, maybe that the exhausf from one of Al's private jets I smell.

Damn, Mike, shame on you. I just read where a hurricane really is going to hit Baja California. Now see what you have done?

The butterfly effect (chaos theory) is just as provable as these global warming morons theory that were all doomed to burn at the stake because of an animal thats only been on earth for a relatively very, very short time. LOL

OK Hickory, I'll bite...all 5 true. None are good predictors of the future. History never does predict the future as things happen that have not happened before, else many would be wealthy from investing in stocks and betting on sports. What man has done to this planet in the last century is unprecedented, hard to say based on the past what could happen, but it will likely be as unprecedented...It amazes me that we haven't killed off more species...how many billions of birth control medicine doses have been pissed right back into the ecosystem in the last 30 years world wide, it is amazing that fish still have babies. How many billions of pounds of heavy metals have we mined from deep underground only to end up back in surface landfills in the form of 2 year old obsolete electronics that eventually seep into the water that all plants and animals live on? The planet will be fine, eventually, it has a way of healing itself with plate tectonics once the offenders have killed themselves off. In another billion years there will be a fresh pristine planet with different species evolving to see if the next experiment turns out better than ours is headed for.