Himalayan glaciers aren’t retreating, they’re advancing. But don’t worry, the usual suspects will be along shortly to assure us that it’s due to global warming.
5 thoughts on “The Narrative Continues To Collapse”
Comments are closed.
Himalayan glaciers aren’t retreating, they’re advancing. But don’t worry, the usual suspects will be along shortly to assure us that it’s due to global warming.
Comments are closed.
1) Remember – it’s no longer Global Warming but Global Climate Change. That way no matter what the “anomally” it can be ascribed to filthy oil.
2) It’s Bush’s fault.
Oh and the article is rich:
“The new study by scientists at the Universities of California and Potsdam has found that half of the glaciers in the Karakoram range, in the northwestern Himlaya, are in fact advancing and that global warming is not the deciding factor in whether a glacier survives or melts.”
How convenient. Notice how GW is still assumed…they just found a way to allow for the expansion of the glaciers yet still maintain GW
Actually, the article just said that glaciers aren’t linked to climate change, and that the underlying assumption linking one shrinking glacier to climate change was faulty, because others had grown over that same period. Some can expand, some can contract, and the determining factor is more related to the location of the particular glacier, its debris cover, and too many other factors to link it directly to temperature, warming, cooling, or climate change.
To be honest, my initial reaction was something along the lines of, “Actually, Rand, the paper just de-links the whole Global Warming/Climate Change argument from glaciers, saying that one cannot be inferred from the other. It doesn’t make any claims one way or another about AGW.”
That’s my same reaction to you, Gregg. The article makes no claims about AGW, it just says that glaciers are not a reliable source for extrapolating climate change data, and that they should never have been used as evidence for such.
The more time passes, and the more data are collected, the more “de-linked” AGW becomes from … pretty much everything that should be usable as evidence for it or against it.
“The more time passes, and the more data are collected, the more “de-linked” AGW becomes from … pretty much everything that should be usable as evidence for it or against it.”
Like hurricane frequency and intensity, snowfall in the mid-latitude regions, rainfall amounts, and…temperature. It’s a real “heads we win, tails you lose” situation.