report on global climate change is out from the NOAA (National Oceans and Atmospheric Administration).
Peter Stott, head of monitoring at one of the participants is referenced in the article...
Seven indicators were rising, he said. These were: air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, marine air temperature, sea level, ocean heat, humidity, and tropospheric temperature in the "active-weather" layer of the atmosphere closest to the earth's surface. Four indicators were declining: Arctic sea ice, glaciers, spring snow cover in the northern hemisphere, and stratospheric temperatures.
But that's not really what I wanted to note. What I wanted to note is that the article lists several "global warming skeptics" and lists their complaints with the study. Who do they quote in opposition to it?
One scientist ("ex-professor of environmental studies and fellow of the Cato Institute"), two economists (one who "follows climate science as a hobby") and one "Steve Goddard, a blogger..."
Really? THAT's newsworthy? That two economists and a BLOGGER question the science behind "global warming alarmism..." and this is who they cite from "the other side" of the issue??
For the record, none of the "experts" on the other side had anything to say directly about this particular study, they're just decrying "global warming alarmism" in general.
I dig my fellow bloggers as much as the next guy, but since when does being a blogger make you a credible witness or news source?