It has become customary among global warming deniers to remark during winter's coldest days that global warming can't possibly be true when it is so cold outside.

So let me beat them to the punch.

Man is it f*#%ing cold outside!

How cold is it? It' so cold snowmen are massing for their final assault on humanity. (See above)

How cold it it? I saw a guy try to light a cigarette on the street today and the flame froze.

How cold it is? I saw a polar bear holding a sign that read "Will Work for tickets to Florida."

Hell, they even had freezing temperatures in Florida this week. Hell, that's like hell freezing over. How do I know? Let's just say I have sources.

It's so cold that I couldn't get into my car when I went out this morning. It had a bit of an ice problem.

Then, when I gave up, I went down to Riverfront Park here in Pottstown for a brisk walk along the Schuylkill.

Well let me tell you, what I saw nearly took my breath (and my body heat) away.

Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitress.

Well they say timing really is everything and that is apparently true for blogs as well.

Fast-forward three days. When I started this one, it was MF cold outside and of course now, it's been 60 for two days.

Hey wait, it's warmer, that must mean global warming is real!

And it's real right here in Pennsylvania. How do I know? The Union of Concerned Scientists came to Berks County and told us so.

When they came in October, they said "The Pennsylvania we know and love today might not be here in our children's lifetime," at least according to this article in The Reading Eagle (if you can believe anything they report).

According to their study, accessible by clicking here, a broad number of changes are in store for the Keystone State as a result of our carbon emission lifestyle.

Here are a few:

Yields of Concord grapes, sweet corn and some kinds of apples will decrease as temps rise and pests have an easier time in warmer climes;

Widespread ski resort closures will occur, along with a decrease in snowmobiling (no great loss there);

By 2040, our climate will be more like Virginia and North Carolina than the place that made Valley Forge famous because of its winters. By 2070, it could well feel like Georgia here.

Here's another way to look at it, by 2039, the number of days hotter than 90 degrees will double, more than 70 days a year for us along with a 10 percent increase in precipitation. Can anyone say "the Manatawny is flooding ... again"?

From 1961 to 1990, Philadelphia had about 20 days a year over 90 degrees, according to a handy chart in the report. By 2099, we will see more than 80 such days.

Not that we didn't do some of this ourselves. According to the scientists, Pennsylvania contributes 1 percent of total global emissions of CO2, and is the third highest in the U.S., behind only Texas and California.

There's another reason to worry about global warming -- it might kill you.

According to a report issued by the EPA (link not available either to the report of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune story that reported on it), climate change is "unequivocal" and blame is placed squarely on humanity's shoulders.

The report said as temperatures rise, extreme weather events; diseases borne by ticks and other organisms and an increase in asthma attacks cause by higher levels of pollen and smog will kill more people. (It was unclear whether that will be offset by fewer people freezing to death.)

And, because no environmental column would be complete without a swipe at the Bush administration's record on this issue, the Star-Tribune reported several months ago (yes I am a pack rat and save all kinds of things) that the former administration tried to "bury" the report so as not to have to regulate greenhouse gases.

In the governmental equivalent of sticking its fingers in its ears and saying loudly "I can't hear you lalalalalalalala," the former White House staff chose to deal with this issue by refusing to open e-mails about it from the EPA (this after Darth Cheney's office brazenly deleted testimony on the science made to a Congressional panel.)

Unfortunately for us all, what they don't know can hurt us.

Hello again.

Sorry for the long silence, I had a Jan. 20 date in Washington I couldn't break.

And while I was there, this new president dude was sworn in and he's already making all kinds of radical changes.

For example, it turns out President Obama didn't think much of his predecessor's policies as they relate to this global warming thing threatening the existence of life on Earth. Turns out, he's against it and intends to adopt a "pro-Earth" policy. Who knew?

So among the first things he intends to do once he'd finally mastered that pesky Oath of Office (both he and Chief Justice Roberts have pledged to take remedial Swearing In classes) was to issue executive orders increasing fuel efficiency standards on automobiles and to allow states to impose limits on carbon dioxide, something the Bush administration rejected.

As Reuters reported here, "if the EPA reverses the previous ruling, more than 12 U.S. states could proceed with plans to impose strict carbon dioxide limits. California wants to reduce the emissions by 30 percent by 2016 -- the most ambitious federal or state effort to address global warming."

Obama "is scheduled to deliver remarks on jobs, energy independence and climate change in the East Room of the White House on Monday," Reuters reported.

By March, he wants the Department of Transportation to set the new mileage guidelines, that will be in effect by 2011.

As The New York Times reported here, once states freed to enact standards do so, "automobile manufacturers will quickly have to retool to begin producing and selling cars and trucks that get higher mileage than the national standard, and on a faster phase-in schedule. The auto companies have lobbied hard against the regulations and challenged them in court."

Seems to me, those auto makers have a choice, get with the program or give back the bailout money. It's not as if they haven't seen this coming for years. Hell, if they had spent half the money re-tooling their plants that they've spent on lawyers fighting the obvious need to re-tool their plants, their plants would be re-tooled by now.

(Strange, don't you think, how the words "tool" and "auto companies" keep coming up in the same sentence?)

Not satisfied there, Obama "will also order federal departments and agencies to find new ways to save energy and be more environmentally friendly. And he will highlight the elements in his $825 billion economic stimulus plan intended to create jobs around renewable energy," the New York Times reported.

Speaking of which, let's consider how well that might work. If only there were some kind of real-life example we could turn to....hmmmm.

If only there were some sort of report showing how green technology might affect growth...

We take you now good citizens to the pages of the Los Angeles Times where we find evidence of -- wait for it -- yes! a report on a report that shows how green technology might affect growth.

In two words or less -- "very well."

The report, by a non-profit research group called Next 10, found "Green-collar jobs are growing faster than statewide employment. Clean-tech investment in the state hit a record last year, despite steep stock-market declines. California leads the nation in patent registrations for green technology. Efficiency measures pioneered (in California) over the last three decades have created 1.5 million jobs and allowed California businesses to generate many more goods and services per unit of energy consumed than other states."

"Those green jobs encompass a variety of occupations, including research scientists, wind-energy technicians and solar panel installers. Such positions are growing fast, the report showed. Green employment was up 10% between 2005 and 2007. Statewide job growth was 1% over the same period," The LA Times reported.

California has already adopted the toughest energy efficiency standards in the country. "The result is that the state's energy productivity -- energy consumed compared with economic output -- is 68% higher than that of the rest of the country, according to the report."

"Venture capital investment in clean technology in California totaled $3.3 billion in 2008, more than double the amount invested in 2007. Between 2002 and 2007, 607 green-technology patents were registered in California, the study said. That's more than any other state," the LA Times reported.

Hm. And all without cutting taxes for rich people.

But really, who can believe some wacky non-profit with a weird name out on the left coast?

OK, would you believe Wal-Mart?

"When Wal-Mart first embraced green initiatives, its fortunes were sagging," The New York Times reported in this article.

"After blanketing the country with its giant, all-in-one stores, it began cannibalizing its own sales. Older stores looked tattered and tired, and Wal-Mart’s flirtation with higher-end merchandise, like skinny jeans with fur trim, alienated low-income shoppers who preferred unadorned basics. "

So CEO H. Lee Scott Jr. did what smart business people do, he stepped back, looked at the big picture, saw the future and then, by virtue of what the Times calls Wal-Mart's "Herculean size," it led.

"By virtue of its herculean size, Wal-Mart eventually dragged much of corporate America along with it, leading mighty suppliers like General Electric and Procter & Gamble to transform their own business practices.

"Today, the roughly 200 million customers who pass through Wal-Mart’s doors each year buy fluorescent light bulbs that use up to 75 percent less electricity than incandescent bulbs, concentrated laundry detergent that uses 50 percent less water and prescription drugs that contain 50 percent less packaging," the Times reported.

"By selling only concentrated liquid laundry detergent, an effort it began last year, Wal-Mart says, its customers will save more than 400 million gallons of water, 95 million pounds of plastic resin, 125 million pounds of cardboard and 520,000 gallons of diesel fuel over three years," the paper reported.

"Wal-Mart says it now saves itself $3.5 million a year just by recycling loose plastic and selling it to processors. After changing the design of its trucks and how efficiently it loads them, its fleet had a 25 percent improvement in fuel efficiency. Amory B. Lovins, a MacArthur fellow and chairman and chief scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute, a nonprofit research organization, said Wal-Mart would save nearly $500 million a year in fuel costs by 2020. "

So, "as the saying goes, Wal-Mart has also done well by doing good. Along with the McDonald’s Corporation, it was one of only two companies in the Dow Jones industrial average whose share price rose last year.

"Profits climbed to $12.7 billion in the 2008 fiscal year, from $11.2 billion in the 2006 fiscal year, while sales jumped to $375 billion, from $312.4 billion, during the same period" and this as the recession was beginning to take hold.

Hmm, Go Green, Make Green.

You can use that if you want.

The answer to the above question, according to the World Meteorological Organization, is, well, summer.

Although July was brutal both to my anti-perspirant supply and my PECO bill, I think we can all agree that this August has been preternaturally pleasant -- and it hasn't even been calculated yet.

As this Reuters story highlights, the first half of 2008 was the coolest of the last five years.

We true believers of Global Warming are often, with some cause, labeled as alarmists. (Folks, we're just trying to get your attention.)

So it seems only fair to purvey the good news as well.

So yes, thanks to La Nina, which cyclically follows the warming trend known as El Nino, the first half of the year has been cooler than the previous five and is likely to stay that way until January.

The bad news, and you knew there had to be some, is that it will still be warmer than average. That's because the last five years are among the hottest in recorded history.

And guess what? Yep, more bad news.

In addition to this being a cool trough in an otherwise hot upswell, more extreme weather is accompanying it.

For the southwest, where impractical increases in population are being matched by equally alarming decreases in available water, that means less rain.

As this article in Scientific American outlines, a combination of man-made weather effects is drying out the parched southwest.

First, in the lower atmosphere, greenhouse gases are heating things up. Next, high up, holes in the ozone layer are cooling things off.

As any meteorologist worth his salt-spray can tell you, temperature and pressure differentials are what weather is all about.

The result of this particular dynamic is it pushes the jet streams toward the poles in both the northern and southern hemispheres.

Those jet streams are what carry Pacific Ocean moisture to the southwest deserts. Now, that rain is being pushed further north.

The cool chart that the magazine used to explain this is posted at the top of this blog.

"If we keep doing this, the climate response becomes more extreme," says atmospheric scientist Stephanie McAfee of the University of Arizona in Tucson, who led the research identifying the loss of rain.

Now that's the kind of downer that any gloom-and-doom Global Warming enthusiast would feel proud to end a blog entry with.