This is major news all across Europe, and much of the US. But still some deadenders in DC and their quisling supporters are in denial, because they are afraid to deal with reality.

So, "While it is impossible to attribute any one weather event to climate change...", scientists are finding that a global increase in average temperature is definitely resulting in a global increase in average temperature. How enlightening.

I do not deny that we are in a sustained period of overall temperature increase. I do not even deny that human activity may be partly responsible for it. I simply deny that we can accurately predict the results, or do anything substantial to prevent them.

Better to stop worrying that coastal flooding will lower your personal property values, and focus on how we as a race will adapt to this (rather unremarkable, in planetary history) change in the environment.

Pat Robertson believes in global warming.

How can people NOT think that the constant heat waves aren't caused by global warming? Even people who don't buy into global warming have to agree that the planet's trending hotter.

hey, news flash, the glaciers NORTH of where I grew up NORTH of Montana in BC are either MELTED or MELTING.

The Alps are losing permafrost and glaciers like crazy.

Greenland's melting.

Half the Arctic ice cap is GONE.

You can walk on the GROUND in Antartica.

You call it "thought", I call it "incompetent stupidity".

Pop another Republican on the barbie for me, Kimberly. They taste good charcoaled.

Glaciation has receded, particularly in the Northern hemisphere, since 1850. Fine. Can't disagree with documented facts. Hell, I'll even grant that the recession has accelerated in the past 50 years. Now, since there is clearly abject horror about it, there must be all sorts of negative results. Please list them.

Hell. The Greenlanders are happy.

Oh, and Kimbery, you do an excellent parody of an empty-headed Green.

What's a sustainable carrot?

And throw an extra republican on the barbie for me, I'm on my way...

BC: So, to paraphrase: global warming isn't happening, or if it is it's part of a naturally occuring cycle that isn't caused by humans, or maybe it's partly caused by humans but if so there isn't anything we can do about it, or maybe we could but it would be too expensive, but actually we should "adapt" to it by continuing to do exactly what we're doing because -- hey look over there -- China! Anway, like I was saying, it really isn't so bad because, as I'm sure you know, Greenland is cold.

You are right about one thing, at least. Greenland is in fact pretty cold.

Wow! I couldn't have said it better! Except I did.

"global warming isn't happening" - Never said that. In fact, I said the opposite, repeatedly.

"it's part of a naturally occuring cycle" - Very likely.

"maybe it's partly caused by humans" - I thought I was very clear that human activity is probably partially responsible for the acceleration of current warming trends.

"there isn't anything we can do about it" - Nope. There's plenty we can do about it. But every indication is that anything we do is likely to make the mess bigger.

"we should "adapt" to it by continuing to do exactly what we're doing because" - you missed the rest: "Because adapting is what humans actually do well, and accelerating technology shows every sign of reducing the production of CO2."

Now, feel free to answer any of my actual questions. I've asked three.

Well, I'll do my best to answer one anyway: Melting permafrost in Siberia is believed to be releasing trapped methane, thus accelerating the pace of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere. Also, ice covering ground is heat-reflective. As it melts the surface left in its place absorbs more heat from sunlight, also acclerating the warming process. Thirdly, where is all that melting water going?

I don't understand how you reconcile saying anything we do would make things worse with saying that emerging technologies promise to reduce CO2 emissions. Wouldn't putting a lot of resources into developing said technologies constitute "doing something?" If that's what you're recommending, then we are in complete agreement.

Or maybe it's an argument against regulating emissions, springing from an economic concern that it would harm business. If you're taking the position that reasonable steps shouldn't be taken to preserve human life if those steps cut into some industries' profitability, then defend that position. And before you say that regulating emissions won't do any good, consider for a moment the effect that the ban on certain CFC emissions has had on ozone depletion. Hmm, seems like that was a good idea after all. And yet at the time many in the industries affected by it argued against it on similar grounds.

So, in spite of the fact that I suspect you're deliberately tap-dancing around a position to avoid having to take one that could be debated, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for not just being a talking-point repeating troll. To whit: what is your actual position? What should be done to address global warming? Or, to put it in your own terms, how do you recommend we adapt to the changing circumstances with regards to the climate?

Tennis stars photos here: <a href=http://tennisstars.info>Tennis Stars</a>