Sounds like renewable source of biomass to me. :)

I'm KIDDING!

...or am I?

Why not? Most every other calamity is being blamed on AGW. Sometimes I think this is all some kind of a psychology experiment. Such credulous dupes.

From Best of the Web at Opinionjournal.com

Save the Hut!
Yesterday we noted that global warmists were blaming "climate change" for a 30% increase in the number of kittens born in 2006 over the previous year. It seemed unlikely that global warming was the culprit, though, because average temperatures actually declined from 2005 to 2006.

It turns out that temperature has nothing to do with when a cat goes into heat, as the Louisiana State University School of Veterinary Medicine explains:

Cyclicity of the cat has been determined to be dependent on photoperiod. Cats are "long day breeders" and require 12 hours or more of light to maintain normal cyclicity.

Normal polyestrous behavior can be induced by controlling exposure to light.

Cyclicity stopped abruptly and folliculogenesis was inhibited in queens exposed to less than 8 hours of light.

Cyclicity in the cats resumed an average of 16 days after returning to a 14 hour photoperiod.

To put this in layman's terms, cats breed in the spring and summer because it's light out, not because it's hot out, and as far as we know, no one has yet claimed "climate change" entails a change in the length of days.

The following is from "Best of the Web":

It turns out that temperature has nothing to do with when a cat goes into heat, as the Louisiana State University School of Veterinary Medicine explains:

http://www.vetmed.lsu.edu/eiltslotus/theriogenology-5361/filne_e.htm

"Cyclicity of the cat has been determined to be dependent on photoperiod. Cats are "long day breeders" and require 12 hours or more of light to maintain normal cyclicity.

Normal polyestrous behavior can be induced by controlling exposure to light.

Cyclicity stopped abruptly and folliculogenesis was inhibited in queens exposed to less than 8 hours of light.

Cyclicity in the cats resumed an average of 16 days after returning to a 14 hour photoperiod."

To put this in layman's terms, cats breed in the spring and summer because it's light out, not because it's hot out, and as far as we know, no one has yet claimed "climate change" entails a change in the length of days.

Hmmmm...verrrry interesting.

OT (sort of):

This is terrible (although I can't imagine how this could be happening what with AGW bearing down upon us):

In Antarctica, a hut once used by British explorer Captain Robert Falcon Scott has survived almost a century of freezing conditions but is now in danger of being engulfed by increasingly heavy snows.

If too much snow is endangering the hut, maybe we should encourage global warming.

Again from Best of the Web:

In Antarctica, a hut once used by British explorer Captain Robert Falcon Scott has survived almost a century of freezing conditions but is now in danger of being engulfed by increasingly heavy snows.

If too much snow is endangering the hut, maybe we should encourage global warming.

How can this be happening what with AGW bearing down upon us?

There are too many global warming deniers out there, it seems like more and more every day, calling the anti-emissions movement a global swindle and hoax, a myth, a conspiracy of depopulationists, global government types, and self-serving politicians like Maurice Strong and Al Gore; and saying that us believers and activists are zealots of some new "Ecotheist" religion; that we are dupes, victims of pop-culture hysteria - and worse! They seek to obscure the facts and deny the consensus about the most critical issue of our time and the direst threat ever faced by our precious Mother Earth!

I would love to see a skilled writer tackle some of these books and review/debunk them. These books distract from the fact the debate has long been over and the time for action is now. We are running out of time to get the populace fully behind this. We can't just ignore these heretics and traitors.

"The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism" by Christopher C. Horner.

"Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming", by Patrick J. Michaels

"Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years", by Dennis T. Avery

"Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media", by Patrick J. Michaels

"The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming", by Patrick J. Michaels and Robert C. Balling, Jr.

"The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World", by Bjorn Lomborg

"The Chilling Stars: The New Theory of Climate Change", by Henrik Svensmark

"Global Warming and Other Eco Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death", by Ronald Baily

"Global Warming - Myth or Reality?: The Erring Ways of Climatology", by Marcel Leroux

"Is the Temperature Rising? The Uncertain Science of Global Warming", by S. George Philander

"Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn't Worry About Global Warming", by Thomas Gale Moore

"It's the Sun, Not Your SUV: Co2 Will Not Destroy the Earth", by John Zyrkowski

"Global Warming: The Truth Behind the Myth", by Michael L. Parsons

"Global Warming in a Politically Correct Climate: How Truth Became Controversial", by Mihkel M. Mathiesen

"Global Warming: Opposing Viewpoints", by Tamara L. Roleff

"Environmental Overkill: Whatever Happened to Common Sense?", by Dixie Lee Ray

"Hot Talk Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate", by S. Fred Singer

"Taken by Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming", by Christopher Essex

"Apocalypse Not: Science, Economics, and Environmentalism", by Ben Bolch

"Silencing Science", by Steven Milloy

"Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds", by Charles Mackay

"State of Fear" by Michael Chrichton

The media,and politicians, and those funded by tax dollars need a crisis. But true enviromental scientist know the differnce.
http://home.comcast.net/~rlester06/warming.html
speakers on please. The US had a below normal winter and a very bad Spring. See Temperature Abnormality
http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp1.html for more forecast.

Ron
BS, MS, Tau Beta Pi, Keramos, Sigma XI, Sigma Gamma Epsilon Fortune 100 VP, Author of Quality Control for Profit, Gaining The Competitive, Edge I, II, II,Spanish Editions and many technical papersand book chapters in various fields of science, GE Patent Holder, Professor of Management at Indiana University (retired), Web Master.

Wasn't there supposed to be mass extinctions with GW? Something like 30% in the next few decades?
Every day the AGW lies we're being told are unravelling like toilet paper from a spun roll.

�The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best is now.� Chinese proverb.

Temperatures do not control cats breeding. Hours of day light are the trigger, as with many animals. You can't blame global warming for longer days or more cats.

This is what I'm talking about with many AGW'ers.

They make lots of claims without proving anything out, heck they can't even look up how and when cats breed before they make these wild claims. I repeat, does anyone know of at least ONE expiriment that shows how and how much CO2 is contributing to GW. I'd like to also hear why temps have gone up and down before with CO2 levels staying constant at 280 ppm.

Milankovitch Cycle anyone?

I remember standing on the banks of the frozen Charles River in Boston this year on March 4, two weeks before spring officially starts. The air temperature was 4 degrees Fahrenheit and the wind chill was -15 Fahrenheit.

I must have been imagining the cold weather, because AGW people keep telling me that the winters are getting shorter.

Patrick, I remember playing tennis outside in early January in Maryland, wearing short sleeves and shorts, sweating profusely as gnats were flying around my head. The temperature was in the upper 70s with a touch of humidity.

What's your point?

Mark,

It is not unusual to have warm weather in mid-winter. That doesn't reflect on the length of winter, which is the topic of this discussion.

On the other hand, the Charles River still frozen in mid-March is very unusual and contradicts the idea that winters are getting shorter.

BTW - I am happy to talk you through these logic questions if it helps.

AHHH...

I remember the summers of old where we did not worry about arcane things such as the demise of the planet through our own self-gratification in the use of fossil fueled vehicles.

I also remember Star Wars in the theater.

And my hair.

And being able to run more than 50 feet without passing out.

Good memories one and all.

No point here, just typing.

Ron Kling: It's exactly that type of response you gave in the post above that helps to galvanize us debunkers against this nonesense!

Exactly, Patrick. The fact that this past winter didn't even begin until the middle of January lends credence to the theory that winters are getting shorter.

Mark;

Winters are getting shorter? Where and compared to what, exactly? This was nowhere near the record warmest winter and, if I am recalling correctly, 1998 was the warmest year on record so we've been cooling since then, no? That was nine years ago now.

By the way, whilst you were sweating it out on the tennis courts in January, plenty of other places were having unseasonably cool weather. We, THE DENIALIZERSISTS, understand that weather is not static and never has been. Maybe you can sweat and swat again next Jan. or maybe sledding will be in order.

Mark,

I hope you enjoyed your tennis match in Maryland despite the gnats, but it is probably a good idea not to base your perception of climate so provincially.

Most of the US was below or near normal temperatures this winter and the central regions of the country had an exceptionally cold winter.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/feb/12_02_2007_DvTempRank_pg.gif

Denver nearly broke the record for most consecutive days with snow on the ground.
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/bou/?n=consec_snowog

"I hope you enjoyed your tennis match in Maryland despite the gnats, but it is probably a good idea not to base your perception of climate so provincially."

Yes, just like you're provincially referencing the United States, which is a small fraction of our planet.

If you're going to be provincial, why not discuss Europe? Europe was phenomenally warm, breaking many records...and their temperature records go back 400 years.

Global warming deals with global temperatures. We have currently experienced much above average global temperatures for more than 120 consecutive months.

rbnyc,
My post was sarcastic. Patrick referenced some cold day in March as proof of winters not getting shorter, so I posted about a warm day in January which, using his logic, would show that winters are starting later and, thus, getting shorter.

It's time to debate solutions. The debate on the 'realness' of AGW is over. Deniers would serve society and themselves better by realizing this and contributing towards solutions.

Mark,

North America is quite a bit larger than western Europe, though most of us tend to complain a lot less and get less attention. Sad to see that a lot of Americans are starting to take on the EU mentality of continuously whining about something.

You might remember too that during the previous winter 2005-2006, much of Europe had record cold.

I see that you have reverted back to the standard AGW line of "the debate is over" and not so subtle comparisons to (holocaust) "deniers." Reminds me of "resistance is futile, you will be assimilated."

Obviously it isn't, and it doesn't help your argument to bring that topic up.

I think you referenced the United States, not North America. And why are we limiting Europe to simply Western Europe?

The debate can continue forever in the blogosphere, but, as I've said before, in the realm of policy makers, scientists, and even corporations -- where, I might add, the only place where this really matters -- the debate is over. The focus has now shifted to what to do about the problem.

I'm curious, why have the AGW proponents changed tactics in consistently, and repeatedly announcing that the debate over the "realness" of AGW, mind you A gw, not just GW, is over, and that we must all now develop a solution for AGW?

I see this same philosophy in other reports and writings not just in this forum. And, all of the resident proponents use the same methodology.

Seems that this is a coordinated attempt to legitimize theory by merely stating it as fact. Essentially, say it enough times, and in an authoritative fashion, and society will begin to accept it as fact. Odd that a group that generally has prided itself in study is reduced to using psychology to make the case. I believe the Goreacle founded this procedure with his made up for the movies, movie.

"the debate is over"

There you go again......

I'm sure that policy makers will come up with all kinds of constructive solutions to regulate climate - like raise taxes and find other ways to intrude on our lives. And I'm also sure that whatever they come up with will have close to zero effect on the climate.

AGW proponents seem to come in one of two categories:
1. Those who think they can earn a living from it.
2. Those who need to feel badly about something

Most of North America (Alaska, Canada, lower 48) was below normal temperatures this winter - but we don't count as much because Bush and Harper are inherently evil in the minds of people in either of the two categories above.

BTW - Hudson Bay icepack is now nearly 10% above normal. No stranded polar bears to feel badly about - sorry.

Paul,

Global warming IS the cause of increased snow in the Antarctic

"Global warming IS the cause of increased snow in the Antarctic"

Thor,

Suppose that was true. More snow means more reflected sunlight == negative feedback and lower temperatures.

Given that temperatures are not increasing in Antarctica, your statement probably isn't accurate anyway though.

Thor,

Care to back up your claim that global warming is the cause of increased snow in the Antarctic?

Better yet, how about explaining it to poor old ignorant Paul?

"Care to back up your claim that global warming is the cause of increased snow in the Antarctic?"

It is simple. Anything which kind of makes sense as long as you don't think about it too much, is good enough for AGW policy.

How many generations of people have convinced themselves that mankind's bad behavior is being punished through catastrophic changes in the weather? I suppose that Noah was one of the first, but the same story has been repeated thousands of times.

Patrick Henry,

I don't know what I was thinking. Of course, Thor doesn't need to back up a claim like that. If he repeats it enough, it becomes fact.

I'm apologize for my momentary relapse.

Care to back up your claim that global warming is the cause of increased snow in the Antarctic?

Warm air holds more moisture than cold air. Extreme cold often suppresses snowfall in cold locations. Modeling of Antarctic snowfall predicted increased snowfall as global warming increased, because the winds blowing across the Antarctic continent were predicted to carry more snow.

Last year, Austrialian researcher Dr. Ian Goodwin (a paleoclimatologist) published Insignificant Change in Antarctic Snowfall Since the International Geophysical Year, showing the surprising (at the time) result that Antarctic snowfall was not increasing as expected. Here's the abstract:
Antarctic snowfall exhibits substantial variability over a range of time scales, with consequent impacts on global sea level and the mass balance of the ice sheets. To assess how snowfall has affected the thickness of the ice sheets in Antarctica and to provide an extended perspective, we derived a 50-year time series of snowfall accumulation over the continent by combining model simulations and observations primarily from ice