Not arguing that data can be flawed, but the notion that this is some nefarious Dr. Evil scheme to take over the world sounds paranoid. If there's a scheme here, why wouldn't it be a scheme to rid ourselves of mideast oil? Bush himself is pushing hydrogen, you know. Again, the data could be flawed, I agree. But if the downside is that my tailpipe emits drinkable water, how bad could it be? In fact, that would be the best of both worlds: No fear of global warming, no fear of the Saudis.

The London Telegraph reported on November 27 that analysis of US satellite figures shows that temperatures have fallen since 1998 to 1983 levels. More, analysis of surface temperatures shows that the 1930s had 4 of the 10 highest temperatures in the last century. Science is science and facts are facts, and demagogeury is demagogeury.

Adriana, Trees and Plants ABSORB CO2, and emit O2. I don't know why there are those fighting the idea whose evidence is all around us...It is the greatest opportunity since the beginning of the "Green Revolution" for the US to take the lead in developing the new revolutionary technologies for green energy and lead the world in science once again- a role we are good at but have given up in the recent past.

NASA has gone from part of the solution to part of the problem.

One day we will all know this.

The data they are using is terribly flawed. There are expose's about this everywhere, dating back several years.

Good god, the guys who are doing the monitoring have been installing the monitoring stations on the sides of buildings - over chimneys - air conditioning condensers - and on sheer southern rock exposures. One would almost believe they MEANT to gather data that was skewed to show increasing warmth...

Ah well, its sad.

NASA is no more immune from the influence of money that anyone else. Right now if it has "Global Warming" in the title, it gets funding. If it SUPPORTS "Global Warming" it gets INCREASED funding. If it pretends to offer some soluiton to "Global Warming" (ka-ching) it hits the jackpot!

NASA's competition in Europe, using a much smaller set of monitoring stations (you know, the ones NOT rigged to read the temperature of the research center's diesel generator) show that temperatures started dropping in 2005, and have done so for the past 3 years.

The annual review of icecap coverage for both hemispheres was just announced today: The icecaps in the Northern Hemisphere are increasing slightly, and those in the Southern Hemisphere are normal.

Amazing how that works, ice increasing when record warm temperatures are shooting like crazy all over the planet.

It's almost as if they have a slight problem with the baseline figures they are feeding into those (worthless) models...

It really doesn't matter anyway. Our only hope is to replace JUST enough of the politicians next election to save some small portion of our economy before they sell us all into carbon slavery.

PS: Here's a conflicting report on the subject indicating that the roation of currents in the arctic which probably resulted in much of the reduction in ice-pack resumed its normal, 2002 rotation just recenlty.

The organization releasing this study data was NASA.

NASA Debunks Part of Global Warming Myth, Will Media Report It? | NewsBusters

You'll notice this data was not explained or addressed in the larger press release.

There are great forces at work behind the scene at NASA and EVERYWHERE funding is tight (and when is it not!) and competition drives the political agenda, drawn to money as is a moth to flame.

Finally: Did some checking on Hansen. This is NOT an official NBC report - its Hansen's blog on their web site. The data is being misrepresented (what reputable scientist issues incomplete and un-checked raw data to political hacks like Hansen?). Hansen IS a personal friend of the Goreacle, and supported his failed run for the Presidency.

NOAA has been implicated in much of the data-tampering that is being charged. Their credibility is shot. NASA's is tattered, but I think waiting until ALL the data is compiled and an official report is presented would be wise. By the way, most of his assertions are patently false. He talks as if he has 11 months of data demonstrating something, when the backup data is FAR more fragmentary (go figure - its like trying to tell if your cake tastes good with it half-baked)!

If I were going to perpetrate a liberal wealth distribution hoax, this would be a very odd and circuitous way to go about it. Most people have trouble understanding the weather, much less long-term climate trends. And it would require the duplicity of all the world's major scientists. I seem to remember this same argument was made against pollution regulation in the 70s. Turns out there was no socialist revolution. And our skies and streams became a whole lot cleaner.

I have to agree that the past ten years have been warmer. Living in Michigan it's easy to see some of the changes. 15 years ago, it used to snow with accumulation in early November, now we're lucky if it's mid-December. Lake Michigan used to freeze over, now we barely get any shore ice. The planet is getting hotter, sea levels are rising, etc. It's empirical, not theoretical. Is it a cycle, who knows? Does it worry me? Indeed.

The myth of human-induced global warming is nothing more than a socialist wealth transfer scheme. And the more shrill the left becomes, the more the public is waking up to this fact.

I'm glad it's your good god fearing grand children who won't be able to breath or play outside. Thankfully I have none to worry about. You'd think that just in case these scientists are correct you might want to make some changes to help protect the future generations of your family but I guess your self centeredness is much much more important that anything that has to do with the future of your family............... you people are really sick.

If we could feel cold in the future?

Global Warming is bullcrap.

So, what exactly is the "ideal" global temperature? Is warming by one degree Celsius over 50-100 years catastrophic? I doubt it.

CO2 is obviously not the culprit. Warming PRECEDES increased levels of CO2 because warming causes more plants and trees to grow and longer growing seasons, and those plants and trees, in turn, emit more CO2.

There are several hundred variables involved in making the climate what it is. The most modern computer modeling takes into account only a few. Conspicuously absent are precipitation and cloud cover. One would think those two would make a difference.

When NASA and the National Weather Service can predict with accuracy a 5-day forecast for a single location, I might then be tempted to listen to their doom and gloom scenarios.

I'll "call" this ABC/Nasa/James Hansen B.S. and raise you with Reuters story quoting the Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia. They say 2007 has already cooled more than they thought, dropping it to 6th warmest year on record. The Climatic Research Unit provides global data for the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

How come this is the "2nd warmest year" and not the "1st warmest year".
Because the temps are not going up like they say. If so, we would be setting records each year. But that is not happening.
Temps have always changed and always will and man does not control it. But we are supposed to believe that simply by raising taxes, the temps will go back down.

Pollution is far more serious of a threat to the earth and not carbon emissions.

Hogwash! Everyone knows Hansen is a political operative and a friend of Al "snake-oil" Gore. In fact the Antarctic is increasing it's ice formation at record levels. All this is the sun's natural warming or cooling effect unless of course you believe the dinosaurs were frozen and warmed up by carbon emissions. Pure nonsense!

Patrick Henry - What NOAA's latest report actually says is: "October 2007 ranked as the sixth warmest October since records began in 1880 for combined global land and ocean surface temperatures. The October land surface temperature ranked third warmest on record, while the ocean surface temperature ranked ninth warmest in the 127-year record. The global surface temperature for the combined January-October year-to-date period tied with 2002 as the third warmest January-October on record, while the global land surface temperature ranked warmest on record for January-October 2007." Doesn't sound very "normal" to me.

NOAA maps show that ocean temperatures are normal or below over most of the earth. Given that the oceans make up most of the planet, and given that Dr. Hansen is a close political associate of Al Gore - one would be well advised to take this with a grain of salt. Wait for the NOAA report.

michael charlton - I can tell you why half the country is frozen over: because it is WINTER! No one ever said we wouldn't have winters any more. Come on people, we are not talking about weather. We are not even talking even year-to-year variation. We are talking about the average global climate TREND, which is quite obviously getting warmer. And yes, this article is talking about the warmest years globally - that's why they call it GLOBAL warming.

Reducing CO2 is not free. It will increase the cost of energy. This increase in cost will make everything more expensive. It will hurt the average American. It also will tend to the hurt the poor more since they have less disposable income.

Even if global warming were not happening, what would the harm be to curbing greenhouse gases? Anyone?

What scientists are saying those things? Can someone please tell me why half the country is frozen over in the middle of this global warming crisis? C'mon, people! Look at all the scientific data. There are at least a hundred different variables that could affect the Earth's temprature. Thirty years ago, people were afraid of a new ice age at a time of increasing CO2 emissions. Volcanos also emit extreemly high levels of CO2, and they erupt every few seconds. They've been doing that for millions of years. The dinosaurs allegedly had a tropical climate. I doubt that dino-SUVs caused the climate. Global warming is only one theory. It's a theory that's actully been debunked.

I don't believe anything that the media says these days, it is all a bunch of political control and power. Watch what kind of bull they will pull to increase prices on everything. It's all about the power, the oil and the money.

NASA has no credability...

I think that the difference is that data about the warm year in the 30's was in a dicussion about warmest years in the USA - this is data about world average temps

Good. My pool is waiting. Those darn tectonic plates.

This is really getting old. NASA told us LAST year that it was the warmest year in the history of Mankind only to have to retract that statement when it was proved that there have been several warmer years in the last hundred. Global Warming is a Liberal Hoax.

It's getting hotter, regardless of some bad data. We need to do something and this current administration is not allowing anything to be done. Idiots.

scientists say. Notice there is no name there. No wonder. come on ABC...a little due dilligence please.

NASA admitted that there measurements were off a few months ago and admitted that 1934(to my recollection if it is not '34 it is at least some year in the 1930's) was the warmest year on record NOT 2005 yet they STILL maintain that 2005 is the warmest? Something is fishy about this story!!