This story makes a good point. The reference to studies indicating that Arctic melting is partly cyclical should have sources. Unfortunately this story is about people and not science, therefore perpetuating the global warming "shoving match" that it decries.

This column (not a news story) is difficult to evaluate. The author makes a valid point but he is guilty of the same criticism, and I can't tell if he is pushing an agenda or not. There is a valid point in that observers are selecting evidence which demonstrates the immediate (short term) impacts of global warming because that's what they are looking for and it's more dramatic. On the other hand, the columnist is guilty of the same critique - of cherry picking his examples. He focuses on controversial interpretations of causes of loss of Northern polar ice and predictions of increasing storm severity; he doesn't balance this out with for example the well-documented increased melting of continental glaciers and the Greenland icepack.

Psuedoscience, not backed by authoritative sources discussing climate, has just caused me to lower my evaluation of the New York Times for printing this story. This story is a good argument for improving science education, and some of the evaluations of it are good arguments for requiring more science and math for college admission and graduation.

Tierney is a climate sceptic and a skewer of statistics to suit his thesis. His use of terms like "by some measure" w/o specifying which or reaching all the way back to 2001 to prove how wrong climate predictions can are his standard rhetorical tricks. His writing is that of a right wing hit man and little to do with journalism.

This article extrapolates from a few sources and makes a lot of conclusions based on very little actual information. I have to admit that it confuses me. I am compelled to do more research to find out the real truth. I have not read "An Inconvenient Truth" but I did see the film. I started reading "Assault on Reason" and it has given me a lot of confidence in Mr. Gore's ability to bring reason to the debate. One doesn't need more sources to see the soundness in Mr. Gore's ability to think and articulate the truth as you read the latter book.

Long term weather changes occur over long periods of time whether influenced my man or not. This article does not advance the discussion. It takes sides and puts those that disagree in a negative light. That makes this article part of the problem with journalism today. It is too loud and to certain and unwilling to truly consider and understand other ideas.

The reviews here make me gravely concerned about reading comprehension in this country. We have 2 reviewers with polar opinions about the article's politics. This opinion article is about the media! He is forecasting "chicken little" news stories, concerning weather anomalies, that will blame global warming. "Slow warming doesn’t make for memorable images on television or in people’s minds, so activists, journalists and scientists have looked to hurricanes, wild fires and starving polar bears instead." I won't recommend the story because it is not interesting.