Here in Nebraska, we have had an absolutely wonderful summer. July and August have had about 4 days over 90 degrees and none over 100 degrees. Lots of record lows.

Back in the early 70's, I was reading up on climate change and the primary thrust of the material I read was that we were going to be entering a time of much more variable weather, that the mid decades of the century were particularly consistent and benign and it was unlikely to persist. That certainly seems to be the case.

We did not melt in Oklahoma this year.

Maybe the Cambodia Confabulator should release some kind of statement :

"I was for global cooling before I realised that there was global warming, which I am against except when I'm in favor of it, for instance when I go biking. I used to be for biking in the cold, before Theresa said she was against it, which is a powerful argument, since she paid my bike. So I guess my answer is that I am against global cooling when it means things get warmer. But maybe I'll be for it when it suits me."

We stayed at at max of 109 in Phoenix. The past summer was the first in years that we didn't ever break the 110 mark.

When global warming became a big issue in the summer of 1988, I predicted that we would hear about the threat of global cooling by 2008. I'm not saying the prediction has come true, but I'm not abandoning it either.

"Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get."

And computer models show what you want.

Speaking of maladroit timing, today in the Detroit Free Press there was an article about a UN report claiming we had to increase our measures against greenhouse gases because of accelerating global warming.

In Detroit this summer, three days barely broke 90. The majority have been in the seventies.

Actually, there was a lot of fear about "Global Cooling (ANGST! ANGST!)" in the Seventies, when paleo-climate research showed just how abruptly an Ice Age could start (and Antarctic ice-core records showed that based on past patterns we were overdue for the next one). TV specials, mass hysteria, and "DO SOMETHING NOW!" calls from climate activists (including one serious proposal for mass nuclear strikes on the Arctic & Antarctic icecaps to melt the icecaps & warm up the Earth before the glaciers could grow).

The problem is, GLOBAL WARMING! (ANGST! ANGST!) has become a fundamentalist religion (whose lack of personal moral behavior has made it very attractive to Our Betters). It's True Believers now; they have no more capability of seeing any evidence that differs from their dogma as OJ has of evidence for evolution. Regardless of whatever truth (for or against) is out there.

The next Ice Age is overdue.

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favour fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

Robert Frost

Of course as we all know Global Warming causes Ice Ages. I mean it was in the movie. It makes sense doesn't it? Its really something everybody knows right?

David:

Gee, if that is true and the scientific/NGO establishment swings over to worrying about global cooling, won't they have to argue that we should fire up all the smokestacks and burn as much coal and hydrocarbons as we can to prevent New Delhi and the rainforests from freezing? Or does Kyoto thinking only work for stopping economic activity?

75 here Chicago today as we go through the dog days of summer.

The one semi-legit sounding idea I've heard as far as warming causing cooling is this: the melting of glaciers and icecaps causes a desalinization of the ocean in the North Atlantic. This desalination changes the flow of the Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe unnaturally warm for its latitude. Without the gulf stream, Europe should feel a lot more like Canada than it does.

Of course, that's only bad news for Europe, and I'm not at all clear how exactly desalination is supposed to change currents.

Al Gore needs to get out on the stump. Perhaps if he were to debate Ralph Nader, the temperature would start to rise.

Florida and the Carolinas seem to have had about average summers (no data, just experience).

Timothy, the deal is supposed to be that less salty melt water will not sink in the northern Atlantic, thus not making room for the Gulf Stream to move into the void it leaves.

In turn, that disrupts the 'conveyor belt' of currents that carry cold North Pacific water around Africa and up to the eastern coast of N. America, by which time it has warmed.

The guy who doped out the transport of water -- a Harvard prof whose name I've forgot -- is on record as saying that the alarmist view that the 'conveyor' could be disrupted is not supported by his data.

My son just got back from two weeks canoeing in the Boundary Waters, Canadian side.

I asked if it was cold, and he said not that far north.

But he added that since he last paddled Boundary Waters (US side) about 15 years ago, all the bears have disappeared.

National Geographic just put out an entire issue (well, 75 pages of it) dedicated to global warming. The "Editor's Note" anticipated lots of angry letters from readers "who do not believe global warming exists," but they shall not be deterred from their Holy Mission.

I don't read Nat'l Geo much anymore, especially since they did their puff pieces on Saudi Arabia and Saddam's daughters.

Thanks, Harry. I've been genuinely curious about that theory since I heard it, and google only offers up reviews of The Day After Tomorrow.

I have read elsewhere on this Gulf Stream subject that so long as South America retains the shape of its east coast, and the Earth continues to rotate, the Gulf Stream isn't going anywhere.