Time 2006: Global Warming Debate Over

Time magazine has published it's annual "The Year in Review" for 2006. I picked up a copy of it this morning (there is no sign of it or the articles within online). Weather did not make the cover, but the following photos were in the "Science" section:

Oklahoma Fires: "Where the fire comes sweepin' down the Plain" (Deadly January Fires in OK & TX)
Deadly Mudslide in the Phillippines: (regarding the 2/17/06 mudslide which killed more than 1,000)

But the biggest section was on Global Warming. From what little knowledge I have of the issue, I thought that naysayers were gaining some ground on believers in 2006, but Time paints the opposite picture, proclaiming:

I really have no opinion on Global Warming and its causes, and neither does AccuWeather, because none of us here are climate experts, though we do have a Global Warming, where you should send feedback on this article. But I thought the statements made in this magazine went against recent press and offered questionable scientific proof. They provided some graphs, but they all started at 1850, the end of the "Little Ice Age" (so it looks like temperature has never gone down in history). They go on to say:

- Warmer ocean waters are fueling larger tropical storms (this theory was recently rejected by the UN), therefore major floods like the one in India are becoming more common (it depends on which flood they are talking about, but I believe the big one this fall was caused by Monsoon rains, rather than tropical storms).

- Wildfires in Indonesia, the Western U.S. and Alaska are increasing because they destroy trees which fight global warming (blaming fire with fire)

- Snowpacks are melting too soon, causing more droughts like the one in Kenya (is Kenya near snowpacks?)

- Tropical storms could hit Canada in the future (newsflash: they already do, and before Canada, I'd worry about the Northeastern U.S.).

But I digress. In any case, I thought it was interesting.