That’s the first sentence of an article I came across on McClatchy.  You can read the whole article at this link.

It says that the high in 1998 (the warmest year in recent history) was 0.76 degrees Celsius above the 20-year average, while so far this year the high has only been 0.42 degrees Celsius above the average.  So that’s giving global warming critics some added fuel for their arguments.

I find a couple of things interesting in this article.  First, we’re talking about a mere 0.34 degree Celsius difference between the average global temperature between this year and 1998, and both years are less than a degree above the average.  Granted we’re talking the average over the entire globe, where even small differences can have a bigger impact.  But we’re still talking about minuscule changes in a very complex pattern, while climate change alarmists are advocating huge and costly changes and regulation in our lives.

The other interesting thing is that the believers in global warming can have their cake and eat it too.  No matter what the temperature averages do, they say that there are complex forces at work and are not dissuaded from their dogma.  Skeptics, however, are not allowed to use the same arguments.  They are laughed at for not using sound science.  It really confuses me.  When did we move from trying to prove a hypothesis and changing it if the evidence doesn’t support it to blindly following a belief and trying to engineer the evidence to match?  I don’t know, sounds a lot like a religion to me.