I don't troll AOL's news, but I do notice where links to my blog come from. The high number of referrals from this AOL article (reprinted from the New York Times) led me to reading, and reading revealed an interesting tone coming from the global warming alarmists: their hubris wanes.
Carl Mears, a global warming believer, said, "Temperatures are very likely to recover after the La Niña event is over."
That's a far cry from these gems from Al Gore, the self-appointed Savior of the Universe:
If we did not take action to solve this crisis, it could indeed threaten the future of human civilization. That sounds shrill. It sounds hard to accept. I believe it's deadly accurate.
The scientists are virtually screaming from the rooftops now. The debate is over! There's no longer any debate in the scientific community about this.
Carl Mears tone, at least in print, comes off as anything but "screaming." He's also not exactly certain. "Very likely" is hardly the rhetoric equivalent of "the debate is over." Indeed, the debate goes on even in Carl Mears's own mind.
AOL further discredits Gore's final-sounding pronouncement about the debate.
Some scientists who strongly disagree with each other on the extent of warming coming in this century, and on what to do about it, agreed that it was important not to be tempted to overinterpret [sic] short-term swings in climate, either hot or cold.
Fair enough. Gore would, no doubt, call Andrew Revkin, the story's author, a corporate shill out to destroy human civilization in pursuit of profits.
The answer, of course, is we shall see. One winter does not make an Ice Age, but neither does one decade. The "long term" trends that global warming alarmists refer to, are not long term by any earth science measure, but by the measure of a single human life. For instance, the "record summer melt" of Arctic sea ice is a record for the period 1979 to present. My research indicates that the Arctic is older than 29 years.