Study: Climate change 'undeniable' - CNN.com
But the report nonetheless remained the target of scorn for skeptics.
Myron Ebell, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute in the US, said the new report would not change people's minds. "It's clear that the scientific case for global warming alarmism is weak. The scientific case for [many of the claims] is unsound and we are finding out all the time how unsound it is."
Pat Michaels, a prominent climate skeptic, ex-professor of environmental sciences and fellow of the Cato Institute in the US, said the NOAA study and other evidence suggested that the computerized climate models had overestimated the sensitivity of the earth's temperature to carbon dioxide. This would mean that the earth could warm a little under the influence of greenhouse gases, but not by as much as the IPCC and others have predicted.
"I think it is the lack of frankness about this that emerged with Climategate, and that seems to continue [that make people doubt the findings]," he said.
Steve Goddard, a blogger, said the conclusion that the first half of 2010 showed a record high temperature was "based on incorrect, fabricated data" because the researchers involved did not have access to much information on Arctic temperatures.
David Herro, the financier, who follows climate science as a hobby, said NOAA also "lacks credibility".