The South Pole experienced its warmest year on record in 2009, according to newly released data from the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station: a bone-chilling minus 54.2 degrees Fahrenheit.

This makes it the warmest year on record since 1957, when temperature records began at the South Pole. The previous record high was minus 54 F, recorded in 2002, according to Tim Markle, senior meteorologist at the South Pole Station in Antarctica.

BCSbunk wrote: and it could not be that the reporting agency misquoted or mistyped what was stated? Nawwwww never.. LMAO This is just an example of very poor editing skills at Fox news.

jmog wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/10/south-pole-warmest-year/

The South Pole experienced its warmest year on record in 2009, according to newly released data from the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station: a bone-chilling minus 54.2 degrees Fahrenheit.

This makes it the warmest year on record since 1957, when temperature records began at the South Pole. The previous record high was minus 54 F, recorded in 2002, according to Tim Markle, senior meteorologist at the South Pole Station in Antarctica.

No offense to the retard scientist who was quoted, but any 4th or 5th grader who just learned negative numbers knows that -54.2 is colder than -54.

So, the claim, technically, that 2009 at -54.2F is the warmest in recorded history and then say that the previous high was -54F in 2002 is hilarious.

BCSbunk wrote: and it could not be that the reporting agency misquoted or mistyped what was stated? Nawwwww never.. LMAO This is just an example of very poor editing skills at Fox news.

ccrunner609 wrote: only morons like this guy is going to make a career out of pointing out the difference of .2 degrees in any range to make his political points heard. the change of .2 degrees has no bearing on climate whatsoever.

BCSbunk wrote:

ccrunner609 wrote: only morons like this guy is going to make a career out of pointing out the difference of .2 degrees in any range to make his political points heard. the change of .2 degrees has no bearing on climate whatsoever.

The guy is a scientist and to them .2 degrees does make a difference and he is not making any political points he is not a politician they make political points out of what the science is saying.

And you are mistaken that .2 degrees makes no difference. When you are talking new highs and lows it does make a difference.

Al Bundy wrote: The results are inconclusive.

jhay78 wrote:

Al Bundy wrote: The results are inconclusive.

If you're an objective scientist, yes.

If you're a leftist environmentalist, you twist any and all results to fit the global warming narrative.

Al Bundy wrote:

BCSbunk wrote:

ccrunner609 wrote: only morons like this guy is going to make a career out of pointing out the difference of .2 degrees in any range to make his political points heard. the change of .2 degrees has no bearing on climate whatsoever.

The guy is a scientist and to them .2 degrees does make a difference and he is not making any political points he is not a politician they make political points out of what the science is saying.

And you are mistaken that .2 degrees makes no difference. When you are talking new highs and lows it does make a difference.

.2 will still fall within a standard margin error, showing that the difference could just be to chance. Even if they were different, looking at only 50 or 60 years of data is too small of a sample compared to the age of the earth to show any meaning. The results are inconclusive.

BCSbunk wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

BCSbunk wrote:

ccrunner609 wrote: only morons like this guy is going to make a career out of pointing out the difference of .2 degrees in any range to make his political points heard. the change of .2 degrees has no bearing on climate whatsoever.

The guy is a scientist and to them .2 degrees does make a difference and he is not making any political points he is not a politician they make political points out of what the science is saying.

And you are mistaken that .2 degrees makes no difference. When you are talking new highs and lows it does make a difference.

.2 will still fall within a standard margin error, showing that the difference could just be to chance. Even if they were different, looking at only 50 or 60 years of data is too small of a sample compared to the age of the earth to show any meaning. The results are inconclusive.

The results of what?

The result is that Antarctica in the time we have been measuring the temps is now at its warmest.

standard margin of error?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error

has to do with surveys of people and not science experiements.