Water is liquid, water is solid. What a neat trick?

More Global Warming hype put to rest. I was tempted to title this article "The Horse is Dead, Beat it all you want." but liked what I chose a little better. The point is valid though. Climate changes constantly, always has, but the hypothesis that global warming is induced by mankind has not held up when the scientific method is really used. I'm all for using solar, wind, thermal, vibration, atomic motion, space elevator cable cutting the magnetic field of the planet to produce electricity and so on and so forth in place of fossil fuels. All this will be wonderful for the world as a whole when the technology becomes affordable. And that may well happen in the next 50 years but right now it's not reality.

The study of the environment may well be useful in developing technologies to terraform planets. It might even help prevent problems on the one we currently live on. So no, I don't mind studying how the planet's environment works. At the moment it's much more useful than trying to figure out how the universe works. When we have a galactic civilization that can run tests between solar systems or even between galaxies I'll reconsider. The study of the local solar system is alright since we can actually accomplish sending test equipment there to report back. Might find something that can be used in the next couple of centuries at least. Right now, I find looking at the micro much more useful than looking at the macro. Nanotech is providing real benefits and advancements as I type this. Because our environment is made up of matter, it just seems logical that figuring out how matter works and what we can do with it is the first order of business after survival of our species. Survival of our species involves defending the current rock we're standing on from planetary impacts or other disasters that could really happen.

What prompted this post was a fellow employee where I work who saw an article talking about an Arctic shipping lane opening up and got all excited about it. I promptly popped up a list of sites that made the person writing the article look like a comic, a con man or an ignorant journalist. This doesn't make the man a bad person. It just means he's a bad journalist. He didn't check the facts very well before posting his article. He's not the only one with regards to this subject. This article and the one that lead me to it point out a mistake in climate data. I have since seen multiple articles still reference 1998 as the hottest year on record. Unless these articles are lying, the hottest year on record was 1934. Here is another story that raises doubt just for good measure.

If I've somehow missed something, please point out that I'm wrong and why. I'm always happy to be corrected when I have something screwed up in my head. It prevents repeating the mistaken information over and over. At the moment I don't think that's the case.