"Of course, a trend of 0.14 below average does not represent a static climate, but neither does an anomaly of 0.54C represent the dawn of a new, hostile geological epoch. Fools rush in to make statements about what such small numbers mean about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin."
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/12/cold-is-the-new-warm.html

Linked from http://climatedebatedaily.com/

Picture [I hope]:

But in the Comment section:
Stefan said:
"We now know that bases on the moon was more science fiction than science. Climatology is slipping in that direction and at some point the public image will become that."

Do people actually think bases on the Moon is based on "science fiction".
I would say that bases on the moon were based upon science and perhaps some artist license. But science hasn't in the past
predicted what the future will look like [artist are generally better or as good in that regard],
But more importantly has NASA failed so miserably that people aren't imagining the possibility of human living on the Moon in the future?