It isn't a weird anomaly and it doesn't provide evidence that global warming isn't occurring.

This is in the same line of misconceptions that caused many people to balk when snow-falls increased in some parts of Antarctica and we've seen large snow-storms in the United States.

Heating causes increased precipitation; so while most glaciers (especially inland) are receding in all parts of the globe the mountain you are referring to, Mt. Shasta, has seen its glaciers increase in size. This, of course, is not due to any cooling in the area but an increase of precipitation due to the warming of the coastal waters nearby, which increase snow-fall.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/07/08/state/n130432D99.DTL&feed;=rss.bayarea

So, what scientists are saying is that global warming is causing the glaciers to increase in size, this is not happening despite global warming as many would suggest.

It would seem there is an abundance of information that GLOBAL WARMING is quite real, however, I tire of the blaming factor on this issue. We simply do not know, absolutely, how much of this phenomenon is part of the normal evolution of this planet or the impact of the universe in general and how much of it is man made and reversible. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter how this was created. What matters is that we do everything we can to minimize the damage already perpetrated on the athmosphere and reverse it if we can. I would take this to be a real issue. It makes a great deal of difference if we're ging to be facing another ice age or the possibility of the earth being reduced to a hot tub in which no one can swim!

Global warming is real. Few scientists deny that. What is debatable, however, is what we should do about it. Is it large enough of a problem to warrant actions like the Kyoto protocol, or should we instead focus on larger global priorities like HIV/AIDS or malaria?

The science of global warming is extensive, complicated and confusing, particularly when you try to listen to both sides of the anthropogenic argument. Both sides have points and counter points for each other and the debate over the cause and effects of global warming will likely never reach a consensus. Trying to make heads or tails of the issue is a stressful experience, and I think I'd rather punch myself in the balls for half an hour, at least that's predictable. I hit my nuts, pain is felt. Easy. Simple.

However, as others have pointed out, there are many reasons to cut back our burning of fossil fuels even with global warming aside. Do you like the convenience of a plastic spoon? Hard to eat Wendy's chili without one. Guess what, all that stuff comes from petroleum, and we don't have an infinite amount of that stuff.

Also, the fact that the city of Toronto has something called the AQI (Air Quality Index). If our whether reports include a number that indicates how safe the air outside is to breath, we are already in serious trouble.

Is this a reality check or some weird anomaly? Is Global warming real or not?

I think Global Warming is hog wash but I'm holding out hope that it is real because I just put in a new pool and I want to use it without having to heat it first.

You should frame this debate question more succinctly. Use the Moderator Panel tab to make the debate more specific.