Since it’s snowing outside and Global Warming nitwits are still being nitwitty, I’m going to link to an AP story that starts out astoundingly intelligent. Even insightful, I dare say.
Starts, mind you, not finishes. But considering that these articles usually start out stupid and end equally inane, I’d say this break from tradition deserves an honorable mention. Or something...
“Feeling chilly? Here's cold comfort: You could be in East Antarctica which new data says set a record for ‘soul-crushing’ cold.
“Try 135.8 degrees Fahrenheit below zero; that's 93.2 degrees below zero Celsius, which sounds only slightly toastier. Better yet, don't try it. That's so cold scientists say it hurts to breathe.
“A new look at NASA satellite data revealed that Earth set a new record for coldest temperature recorded. It happened in August 2010 when it hit -135.8 degrees. Then on July 31 of this year, it came close again: -135.3 degrees.
“The old record had been -128.6 degrees, which is -89.2 degrees Celsius.
“Ice scientist Ted Scambos at the National Snow and Ice Data Center said the new record is ‘50 degrees colder than anything that has ever been seen in Alaska or Siberia or certainly North Dakota.’
“‘It's more like you'd see on Mars on a nice summer day in the poles,’ Scambos said, from the American Geophysical Union scientific meeting in San Francisco Monday, where he announced the data. ‘I'm confident that these pockets are the coldest places on Earth.’”
Shocking that they still exist at all, huh? I mean, what with global warming happening and all. Fortunately, the story addresses this very question I have several paragraphs later…
(I don’t know what I would have ever done if it hadn’t!)
“Just because one spot on Earth has set records for cold that has little to do with global warming because it is one spot in one place, said Waleed Abdalati, an ice scientist at the University of Colorado and NASA's former chief scientist. Both Abdalati, who wasn't part of the measurement team, and Scambos said this is likely an unusual random reading in a place that hasn't been measured much before and could have been colder or hotter in the past and we wouldn't know.
“‘It does speak to the range of conditions on this Earth, some of which we haven't been able to observe,’ Abdalati said.”
So wait. I’m confused. He’s saying that scientists don’t know everything?
Considering how brilliant they’ve been about such matters as global warming while it’s snowing – again – in early December, I never would have guessed they were less than omniscient.