Kodiak said:
"...the article you link appears to jump the gun on scientific conclusions. Rather than say that the scientists have found an anomaly and are trying to figure out how (or IF) it fits into their theories (including GW), the article takes the raw data and jumps to the immediate conclusion that this is one of the final nails in the GW coffin."
Ah, ha. My mistake was probably in putting in the phrase "raw data", so you assumed that the second "conclusion" was a reference to some scientific conclusion. The above was meant to say that there was no scientific conclusion made and, yet, the article made the (indirect, but still very blatant) conclusion that this information is (or should be) the death of GW and the scientists are simply hemming and hawing about it.
The article has a definite anti-GW tilt and the other articles I posted showed that this same information can be viewed a different way. It didn't sound like the scientists said "well, this doesn't agree with GW, so I guess we'll go look elsewhere", but rather merely "this is an anamoly and we still have to figure out why". Therefore, just like pro-GWers can prematurely state the "see, the world is overheating" chicken-little call, the anti-GWers (like this article) can prematurely state the "this anamoly wipes out GW".
Nice... 