Funny they say this after the stimulus money runs out.

The Goreacle isn't going to like this.

I don't know if the planet is warming, but I sure believe weather patterns are changing.

Of course, weather patterns always change and have since the beginning of life on earth.

However, I have a hard time believing man's existence and ever expanding influence on the planet can't have some impact.

The debate is exactly how much impact.

For me, the problem is that the people who pooh-pooh the idea that man is affecting the earth, are also mostly the same people who are blatantly pro-business at any cost.

I would rather err on the side of caution.

Besides, you can't say that environmental changes the last few decades haven't been good for everyone.

Air, water and land is assuredly cleaner today thanks to environmental laws. If we are not diligent, those laws could be reversed.

Discounting the idea that global warming is a reality, is a first step towards reversing such laws.

I certainly have no personal access to any hard data, but a generation ago, every winter I would lace up my skates, bundle up, and grab a hockey stick & a puck and head down to the local pond for a pickup game.

Every year.

In the last two decades, that pond has frozen over -- at most -- 2 or 3 times.

That, and the migratory patterns of birds moving hundreds of miles northward on the continent seems to mean something.

I will admit that for a few years I hardly had to spend any money for snow plowing. This year sucks.

The glacier near the end of the trail to the base camp for Mount Everest has receded 5 kilometers since 1953.

From the posted article's conclusion:

"It's not just temperature rises that tell us the world is warming," he said. "We also have physical changes like the fact that sea levels have risen around five inches since 1972, the Arctic icecap has declined by 40% and snow cover in the northern hemisphere has declined."

The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts has recently issued a new set of global temperature readings covering the past 30 years, with thermometer readings augmented by satellite data.

Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: "This new set of data confirms the trend towards rising global temperatures and suggest that, if anything, the world is warming even more quickly than we had thought."

But I understand that deniers will grab onto a new branch tomorrow, once this one - like a succession of others - has been relinquished.

Grumpy,

I was reading an article on glacial waxing and waning today, in short: Dr. Tim Patterson writes about Canadian glaciers that researchers from the University of Calgary and the University of Western Ontario have shown that glaciers in the Lake Louise area and at the Athabaska Icefields have receded far above their present limits in the past. We should consider the conditions that cause glaciers to advance and retreat. Obviously, climate warming will cause melt-back of the toe of a glacier (retreat). The cause for advance is primarily increased snowfall at the top of a glacier (the accretion zone). The pressure of the new glacial ice at the top of the glacier will cause the glacier to start flowing downhill more rapidly than the toe is melting; hence, the advance. Cooler temperatures without the increase in snowfall will probably not halt the retreat. It is possible to have a retreat with cool temperatures and low precipitation, and it is possible to have an advance with warm temperatures and heavy snowfall. It has been recorded in the literature that waxing and waning of glaciers all over the world is a common occurrence and that any reference to this being an abnormal thing, due to Global Warming depends on selectively gathered "evidence". This has been remarkably well illustrated in New Zealand in 2004 with the rapid advance of glaciers in the South Island with the only climatic change being very heavy precipitation.

Glaciers do the hoochie coochie!

"say scientists(sic)"

Somebody needs to learn what singular and plural are; Also what a paid Exxon shill is.

www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/
history/
From the Climate Research Units own web site you will find a partial
list of companies that fund the CRU. It includes British Petroleum.
British Petroleum has been funding the Climate Research Unit since 1974.

Boy, Zat.... Who are oil industry shills???? You are the idiot.

Happy extinction, stupid.
#10 | Posted by Zatoichi

What one believes is not going to change the weather. This jerk is too much of a coward to say what's really on his mind: taxes and regulations.

But I understand that deniers will grab onto a new branch tomorrow, once this one - like a succession of others - has been relinquished.
#7 | Posted by BetelG

Here's another one who's zealotry borders on religious. That is unless his agenda is really about taxes and regulations.

What one believes is not going to change the weather.

from you that's hilarious.

You seem to place such high value on your own beliefs yet denigrate others'?

This jerk is too much of a coward to say what's really on his mind: taxes and regulations.

What one believes is not going to change the weather. This jerk is too much of a coward to say what's really on his mind: taxes and regulations.

Yes, since their opinion differs from yours it must be that are dubious, pro-government zealots.

#14 | Posted by jpw

Please tell me how one's belief about the weather is going to make any difference?

Yes, since their opinion differs from yours it must be that are dubious, pro-government zealots.

So which is it? Pro-government zealotry or fear of the weather god?

Pro-government zealotry or fear of the weather god?

Neither.

You present a false dichotomy based on your belief that global warming is false.

There are many people out there, Ray, that are much more informed on the topic than either of us and yet still argue that a warming trend is occurring.

You present a false dichotomy based on your belief that global warming is false.

Like I said, belief either way makes no difference unless there is a hidden agenda. You're another lying coward.

>I would rather err on the side of caution.

How consistent are you on that thinking?

eg. your position on abortion.

If the people pushing Global Warming were not tied to politics, were not tied to big tax subsides, and the only thing they were selling was widgets, would the people on the left by a widget from these people? We all know the answer NOT NO but HELL NO

Only a sucker would by somthing from people who exhibit this kind of behavior.