START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

Kashmir's Main Glacier "Melting at Alarming Speed"


Environment  (tags: climate-change, conservation, CO2emissions, climate, ClimateChange, destruction, ecosystems, environment, protection, water, world, humans, globalwarming )

Cal
- 1835 days ago - enn.com
Indian Kashmir's biggest glacier, which feeds the region's main river, is melting faster than other Himalayas glaciers, threatening the water supply of tens of thousands of people, a new report warned



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Gorilly Girl (339)
Monday October 12, 2009, 4:04 pm
Okay it aint meltin cuz its cold....Helllooooooo

Big Gorilly Hugs
 

Judy Cross (83)
Monday October 12, 2009, 4:19 pm
If a gas in the atmosphere were causing one glacier to "melt"....why aren't the rest of them "melting"?

Because it has more to do with how much snow falls in the winters, and that is uneven because of shifts in weather patterns.

Elementary my dear !
 

. (0)
Monday October 12, 2009, 4:19 pm
Once again the warmers place the blame at the wrong door step. Soot and ash are the culprits here because CO2 was not a problem when this started 100 years ago, but soot and ash have been the entire time and has only gotten worse as the population of India has increased. India is trying to deal with over population by allowing 1 million children to die each year. India has the highest death rate of children of any country in the entire world. Not something to be proud of.
 

Gorilly Girl (339)
Monday October 12, 2009, 4:23 pm
Judy I went to college thank you///

No Ralph not something at all to be proud of you are so correct...

Big Gorilly Hugs
 

Daniel Barker (35)
Monday October 12, 2009, 5:12 pm
Ralph, exhaust is an issue. Remember Earth Day, and smog? The fear-mongers said 'everyone in gas mask by 2000' - and they were right. Based on forecasts from back then - 1970, exhaust would increase until it would be a major health factor.

we took care of exhaust by the catalytic converter - the air is now cleaner than 1970, even with many times the drivers and miles driven.

Does anybody see the truth? Population is out of control! "India is trying to deal with over population by allowing 1 million children to die each year." Where is the public outcry? Do you care?

I have made the commitment to family planning. I have no children, and plan on one child and adoption.

 

Alejandra Vega (139)
Monday October 12, 2009, 8:02 pm
The same is happening in Bolivia... TY, Cal
 

Dale Husband (124)
Tuesday October 13, 2009, 4:58 pm
"If a gas in the atmosphere were causing one glacier to "melt"....why aren't the rest of them "melting"?"

Unfounded question. The article does not say that the rest of the glaciers are not melting. Indeed, it says:
{{{Experts say rising temperatures are rapidly shrinking Himalayan glaciers, underscoring the effects of climate change that has caused temperatures in the mountainous region to rise by about 1.1 degrees Celsius in the past 100 years.}}}

GLACIERS, meaning more than one. Perhaps all of them, perhaps a few of them, but certainly more than one.

"Because it has more to do with how much snow falls in the winters, and that is uneven because of shifts in weather patterns."

Assumption on your part, Judy. It could also be because of climate change, but you'd rather not allow for that. It contradicts the faith of Exxonism.
 

Judy Cross (83)
Tuesday October 13, 2009, 5:08 pm
Glaciers in western Himalayas thickening and expanding
Arctic ice cover above it’s 30-year average
23 Nov 08 - A study published by the American Meteorological Society
found that glaciers are only shrinking in the eastern Himalayas. Further
west, in the Hindu Kush and the Karakoram, glaciers are "thickening
and expanding".

"Recently one newspaper published large pictures to illustrate the alarming retreat in the past 40 years of the Rongbuk glacier below Everest. Indian meteorologists, it was reported, were warning that, thanks to global warming, all the Himalayan glaciers could have disappeared by 2035.

"Yet two days earlier a report by the UN Environment Program had claimed that the cause of the melting glaciers was not global warming but the local warming effect of a vast "atmospheric brown cloud" hanging over that region, made up of soot particles from Asia's dramatically increased burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

"Furthermore a British study published two years ago by the American Meteorological Society found that glaciers are only shrinking in the eastern Himalayas. Further west, in the Hindu Kush and the Karakoram, glaciers are "thickening and expanding".

"Meanwhile, all last week, ITV News was running a series of wearisomely familiar scare stories on the disappearing Arctic ice and those "doomed" polar bears - without telling its viewers that satellite images now show ice cover above its 30-year average, or that polar bear numbers are at record level. But then "polar bears not drowning after all - as snow falls over large parts of Britain" doesn't really make a story."

See entire article, originally published under the title “Stubborn glaciers fail to retreat, awkward polar bears continue to multiply “
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/23/do2310b.xml
.
 

Dale Husband (124)
Tuesday October 13, 2009, 5:25 pm
Oh yeah, an op-ed article in the corporate dominated media rather than from a peer reviewed science journal or even a popular science magazine. Ho hum.

I don't trust Christopher Booker any more than you trust Al Gore. Besides, that was nearly a YEAR AGO!

{{{Yet two days earlier a report by the UN Environment Program had claimed that the cause of the melting glaciers was not global warming but the local warming effect of a vast "atmospheric brown cloud" hanging over that region, made up of soot particles from Asia's dramatically increased burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.}}}

And now I am howling with laughter! This is a case of shooting yourself in the foot to save your face.
 

Mark G. (36)
Tuesday October 13, 2009, 5:48 pm
Judy as usual has done her research. While I may not always agree with her conclusions, there is no doubt that glaciers are both melting and growing in the Himalaya. The growth (or retreat) of glaciers is much more complicated than can be easily explained by a slight increase (or decrease) in temperature. Jet stream direction, summer temps (which have been abnormally low in the western Hims), humidity trends, etc, etc. are a few of the many variables in this complicated process.
To peg global warming with glacier melt in a certain region is the equivalent of saying the record early snowfalls in the western US and Europe this year as definitive proof of global cooling.
Much much too simplisitic
 

Dale Husband (124)
Tuesday October 13, 2009, 6:51 pm
"there is no doubt that glaciers are both melting and growing in the Himalaya."

No one disputes that. However, when you find a glacier melting at a higher rate than what one would normally expect, it is helpful to look for the cause. It is NOT helpful to rule out a possible cause because you are opposed to the very idea of it, and insist that other causes must be true. That's what Judy does. To her, man can NEVER be a cause of climate change. That's her dogma. And Christopher Booker's as well, appearantly.
 

Judy Cross (83)
Tuesday October 13, 2009, 8:16 pm
What a twister you are.

This is not about me...

This is about evidence...and there isn't any that holds up under scrutiny, that humans can change climate.

If there is, let's see it Dale.

All you have is old propaganda pieces and your golden fingered lies.
 

Dale Husband (124)
Tuesday October 13, 2009, 9:41 pm
Evidence? What evidence would you accept, Judy? Why should I waste my time explaining in detail the evidence when all you will do is dismiss it and them copy and paste MORE propaganda that contradicts me, or at least appears to? Oh, well.....

First, there is the known heat retaining properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. This results from the gases being transparent to visible light but opaque to infrared radiation (a.k.a. heat). If you think that is a falsehood, do your own experiments with samples of CO2 to prove it does not retain heat. The scientists who established the greenhouse effect and later connected it to the concept of global warming were Joseph Fourier in 1824, John Tyndall in 1858, and Svante Arrhenius in 1896. Now, if you think you can debunk all the work those three did so long ago, knock yourself out Judy. YES, THOSE THREE SCAMMERS STARTED THE CONSPIRACY FOR GLOBAL WARMING IN THE 19TH CENTURY! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!11111111!!!!!

Second, there is the confirmation of the greenhouse effect going to extremes on a planetary scale, with the Soviet Venera probes sent to the planet Venus in the 1960s. If you think all that data the probes sent us was faked, prove it! THE GODLESS RUSSIANS! THEY ARE PART OF THE SCAM TOO! AL GORE IS PART OF A COMMUNIST PLOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Then there is the recorded increase in CO2 levels since the 1950s. Can you prove that such an increase never happened, Judy?

Then there is the solar output over that same period.

Then there are the temperature measurments around the globe over the same period. They fit the increasing CO2 levels better than they fit the solar output levels.

Or maybe you think that burning fossil fuels somehow does not produce CO2. OK, take samples of coal, oil, gasoline, and natural gas and burn them and see how much, if any, CO2 they produce.

Or maybe you think that the Industrial Revolution of the 19th Century and/or the population growth of the past few centuries never happened and that we humans were somehow created thousands of years ago (or maybe even less than a century ago) at our present level of six billion and with all our fossil fuel burning industrial, transportative, and energy generative processes all intact and running. My G_d, even the Young Earth Creationists, wedded to Biblical dogmas, are not that insane! BTW, charts depicting the world's population growth resemble.......A HOCKEY STICK!!!! YES, THE POPULATION GROWTH CLAIMS ARE ALL A GENOCIDAL PLOT TO EXTERMINATE MANKIND!!!!!! HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111!!!!

The Industrial Revolution, the growth of the world's population, AND the known properties of CO2 AND the known effects of burning fossil fuels in turn support the hockey stick graphs of global temperatures you so revile as fraudulant, just because Stephen McIntyre says so and dozens of his allies in the media repeat his claims all over the place. What, is he some prophet or even a demigod whose sacred word may not be questioned lest ye be charged with blasphemy?

So, yes, there is clear and overwhelming evidence for the man-made global warming hypothesis, Judy Cross, and every time you barge into these Care2 news stories to cope and paste yet more denialist propaganda, you give people like me opportunities to debunk your claims with the facts. The only thing you have going for you is forceful rhetoric. Nothing more!

No, this shouldn't be about you, but you make it all about you when you claim you are smarter and more honest than almost everyone else and that almost everyone else who dares to disagree with you and refute your claims must be either stupid or lying. Not just about climate change, but about almost any other issue. That sort of projection is DISEASED!

YOU are the FRAUD, Judy! YOU are the IDIOT! You reject straighforward explanations for things that would be obvious to almost anyone else and then have the audacity to claim I am "making things up". You cannot make up reality! Science reveals it and we report it. And we don't need a dogmatic charlatan like you insulting us constantly! Even your very name, Judy Cross, reeks of religious fanaticism rather than any hint of objective truth. (Not that being religious is itself bad, just that religion needs to keep its proper place.) Thus I was suspicious of you from the very beginning, when you barged into that Addressing Global Warming group three years ago, and remain suspicious of you even now! You play the political propaganda game extremely well, so maybe you should run for office in Canada, but you CANNOT do science at all. You simply do not think like a scientist. Not at all, not even for a moment.
 

greenplanet e. (157)
Tuesday October 13, 2009, 9:48 pm
Mountain glaciers are melting at alarming rates all over the world:


http://www.zeeburgnieuws.nl/nieuws/mb_mountain_glaciers_melting.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070216-glaciers-melting.html

http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90783/91322/6739834.html

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1A1-D8VE6KB01.html

http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/08/asia/brown.htm


Water: the new oil. I hope we won't have water wars to contend with in the future. Humankind should be cutting pollution while there is still time to save the glaciers and rivers.
 

Alejandra Vega (139)
Tuesday October 13, 2009, 9:53 pm
I got short of stars, Dale...
"...You cannot currently send a star to Dale because you have done so within the last week..."
 

. (0)
Tuesday October 13, 2009, 10:18 pm
Thannnxxx... Cal... it is a shame that we are loosing these layers of ice at the top... perhaps there to should efforts to conain all the water at the same time so that it is now lost... We will have to just sit out and wait the storm to see what the final outcome is going to be...
 

Judy Cross (83)
Tuesday October 13, 2009, 11:04 pm
Poor pitiful Dale...so hard to produce proof of something that isn't true.

All you have on your side is ooooodles of money...$300 million to pay people to maintain the fiction that there is a shred of evidence that CO2 does anything to the climate..

Where is it Dale?

Where's your proof?

Seen this yet?

Whatever happened to global warming? How freezing temperatures are starting to shatter climate change theory
* Comments (0)
* Add to My Stories


Snowfall: Two mongrels enjoy today's fresh snow in Austria - the earliest snow since records began

Snowfall: Two mongrels enjoy today's fresh snow in Austria - the earliest snow since records began

In the freezing foothills of Montana, a distinctly bitter blast of revolution hangs in the air.

And while the residents of the icy city of Missoula can stave off the -10C chill with thermals and fires, there may be no easy remedy for the wintry snap's repercussions.

The temperature has shattered a 36-year record. Further into the heartlands of America, the city of Billings registered -12C on Sunday, breaking the 1959 barrier of -5C.

Closer to home, Austria is today seeing its earliest snowfall in history with 30 to 40 centimetres already predicted in the mountains.

Such dramatic falls in temperatures provide superficial evidence for those who doubt that the world is threatened by climate change.

But most pertinent of all, of course, are the growing volume of statistics.

According to the National Climatic Data Centre, Earth's hottest recorded year was 1998.

If you put the same question to NASA, scientists will say it was 1934, followed by 1998. The next three runner-ups are 1921, 2006 and 1931.

Which all blows a rather large hole in the argument that the earth is hurtling towards an inescapable heat death prompted by man's abuse of the environment.

Indeed, some experts believe we should forget global warming and turn our attention to an entirely differently phenomenon - global cooling.
read the rest
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1220052/Austria-sees-earliest-snow-history-America-sees-lowest-temperatures-50-years-So-did-global-warming-go.html?ITO=1490


 

Chris Otahal (509)
Tuesday October 13, 2009, 11:08 pm
This is about evidence...and there isn't any that holds up under scrutiny, that humans can change climate.
If there is, let's see it Dale.

You have been shown the evidence MANY MANY MANY times Judy - you simply ignore it and say it does not exist LMAO!!! you really think all you have to do is repeat the denialist dogma over and over again and that majically makes it true - truely HALARIOUS...

Now, back on topic...

Are glaciers growing or shrinking?

The skeptic argument...Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame." (source: James Taylor)

What the science says...While there are isolated cases of growing glaciers, the overwhelming trend in glaciers worldwide is retreat. In fact, the melt rate has accelerated since the mid-90's.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm

Now Judy, be a good denialist and ignore this information AGAIN (since this is not the first time yo have seen it)...

 

Chris Otahal (509)
Tuesday October 13, 2009, 11:20 pm
Oh yes, as to your last post, you still do not understand the difference between WEATHER (short-term local events) and CLIMATE (long-term regional/global events) do you ... this SIMPLE concept has been expalined to you MANY times before, but you cna't even get this simple concept can you?????

Also, as you are well aware, 1998 was a year witha VERY STRONG EL NINIO event - which ais a cause of the warm WEATHER that ONE YEAR...and you conviently cherry pick certain years while IGNORING the OBVIOUS WARMING TREND since at least the 1880's:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

 

Dale Husband (124)
Tuesday October 13, 2009, 11:35 pm
And Judy totally loses it again.

Remember what I said earlier to Judy:
{{{Why should I waste my time explaining in detail the evidence when all you will do is dismiss it and them copy and paste MORE propaganda that contradicts me, or at least appears to? Oh, well.....}}}

Then I said, among many other things: {{{The Industrial Revolution, the growth of the world's population, AND the known properties of CO2 AND the known effects of burning fossil fuels in turn support the hockey stick graphs of global temperatures you so revile as fraudulant, just because Stephen McIntyre says so and dozens of his allies in the media repeat his claims all over the place. What, is he some prophet or even a demigod whose sacred word may not be questioned lest ye be charged with blasphemy?}}}

I guess she didn't see that, for then she goes: {{{Poor pitiful Dale...so hard to produce proof of something that isn't true. All you have on your side is ooooodles of money...$300 million to pay people to maintain the fiction that there is a shred of evidence that CO2 does anything to the climate..Where is it Dale? Where's your proof?}}}

I love it when I am proven right! LOL!
 

Chris Otahal (509)
Tuesday October 13, 2009, 11:46 pm
Judy, obviously you still can't follow links to the linerature cited (and infact deny they even exist when EVERYONE else can see clearly that they do exist LMAO) ... but fortunately everyone else can :) The site I present is well documented and one can fact check by following the linked materials ... I know this site is not one of your DENIALIST BLOGS (which are not peer reviewed) so you will not accept it as valid, but then I don't post for your benefit Judy (I gave up long ago on trying to reason with you) but for the benefit of others ...

So Judy, what are YOUR credentials again???? Oh ya, you have NONE :) You really need to stop with this "credential" boloney line that you constantly repeat again and again...

As you point out:

The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result - Albert Einstine
 

Judy Cross (83)
Wednesday October 14, 2009, 12:03 am
I don't need credentials because I post things from people who have them

Not like some people I have encountered who present some Aussie in the Ether as an authority who has no credentials as an authority.

Here's a real authority
We Are Not In Climate Crisis

by Dr. Bill Gray
Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University

Ask ten people on the street if mankind’s activities are causing global warming, and at least eight will say yes. This is because nearly 20 years of gross exaggeration on the part of scientists, environmentalists, politicians, and media; most of whom wish to profit in some way from the public’s lack of knowledge on the topic-have distorted the subject of human-induced global warming out of all sensible proportion. Many have been lead to believe that Al Gore’s movie and book An Inconvenient Truth provides incontrovertible evidence that human-induced global warming is a real threat. Yet, contrary to what is heard from warming advocates, there is considerable evidence that the global warming we have experienced over the last 30 years and over the last 100 years is largely natural. It is impossible to objectively determine the small amount of human-induced warming in comparison to the large natural changes which are occurring.

Many thousands of scientists from the US and around the globe do not accept the human-induced global warming hypothesis as it has been presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports over the last 15 years. The media has, in general, uncritically accepted the results of the IPCC and over-hyped the human aspects of the warming threat. This makes for better press than saying that the climate changes we have experienced are mostly natural. The contrary views of the many warming skeptics have been largely ignored and their motives denigrated. The alleged “scientific consensus” on this topic is bogus. As more research on the human impact on global temperature change comes forth, more flaws are being found in the hypothesis.

It must be pointed out that most climate research is supported by the federal government. All federally sponsored researchers need positive peer-reviews on their published papers and grant proposals. This can be difficult for many of the “closet” warming skeptics who receive federal grant support. Many are reluctant to give full expression of their views, primarily because of worries over continuing grant support. It is difficult to receive federal grant support if one’s views differ from the majority of their peers who receive support to find evidence of the warming threat. The normal scientific process of objectively studying both sides of the question has not yet occurred. Such open discussion has been largely discouraged by warming advocates.

Implementation of the proposed international treaties restricting future greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 20 to 80 percent of current emissions would lead to a large slowdown in the world’s economic development and, at the same time, have no significant impact on the globe’s future temperature.

Many of the Global Climate Model (GCMs) simulations by large US and foreign government laboratories and universities, on which so much of these warming scenarios are based, have some very basic flaws. These global models are not able to correctly model the globe’s small-scale precipitation processes. They have incorrectly parameterized the rain processes in their models to give an unrealistically enhanced warming influence to CO2. This is the so-called positive water-vapor feedback. The observations I have been analyzing for many years show that the globe’s net upper-level water vapor does not increase but slightly decreases with warming. These GCMs also do not yet accurately model the globe’s deep ocean circulation which appears to be the primary driving mechanism for most of the global temperature increases that have occurred over the last 30 and last 100 years. GCMs should not be relied upon to give global temperature information 50 to 100 years into the future. GCM modelers do not dare make public short-period global temperature forecasts for next season, next year, or a few years hence. This is because they know they do not have shorter range climate forecasting skill. They would lose credibility if they issued shorter-range yearly forecasts that could be objectively verified. Climate modelers live mostly in a “virtual world” of their own making. This virtual world is isolated from the real world of weather and climate. Few of the GCM modelers have any substantial weather or short-range climate forecasting experience. It is impossible to make skillful initial-value numerical predictions beyond a few weeks. Although numerical weather prediction has shown steady and impressive improvement since its inception in 1955, these forecast improvements have been primarily made through advancements in the measurement (i.e. satellite) of the wind and pressure fields and the advection/extrapolation of these fields forward in time 10-15 days. For skillful numerical prediction beyond a few weeks, it is necessary to forecast changes in the globe’s complicated energy and moisture fields. This entails forecasting processes such as amounts of cloudiness, condensation heating, evaporation cooling, cloud-free radiation, air-sea moisture- temperature flux, etc. It is impossible to accurately code all these complicated energy moisture processes, and integrate these processes forward for hundreds of thousands of time-steps and expect to obtain anything close to meaningful results. Realistic climate forecasting by numerical processes is not possible now, and, because of the complex nature of the earth’s climate system, they may never be possible.

Global temperatures have always fluctuated and will continue to do so regardless of how much anthropogenic greenhouse gases are put into the atmosphere.

The globe has many serious environmental problems. Most of these problems are regional or local in nature, not global. Forced global reductions in human-produced greenhouse gases will not offer much benefit for the globe’s serious regional and local environmental problems. We should, of course, make all reasonable reductions in greenhouse gases to the extent that we do not pay too high an economic price. We need a prosperous economy to have sufficient resources to further adapt and expand energy production.

Even if CO2 is causing very small global temperature increases there is hardly anything we can do about it. China, India, and Third World countries will not limit their growing greenhouse gas emissions. Many experts believe that there may be net positive benefits to humankind through a small amount of global warming. It is known that vegetation and crops tend to benefit from higher amounts of atmospheric CO2, particularly vegetation which is under temperature or moisture stress.

I believe that in the next few years the globe is going to enter a modest cooling period similar to what was experienced in the 30 years between the mid-1940s and the mid-1970s. This will be primarily a result of changes in the globe’s deep-ocean circulation. I am convinced that in 15-20 years we will look back on this period of global warming hysteria as we now look back on other popular and trendy scientific ideas that have not stood the test of time.


 

Dale Husband (124)
Wednesday October 14, 2009, 12:18 am
Where's the date on that piece by Dr Gray? No web address either! Since Earth WAS already cooling in 2008, you can't call what Dr Gray wrote a prediction if it was written either this year or last year.
 

Kenneth L. (314)
Wednesday October 14, 2009, 5:10 am
Dr. Gray states: "It is impossible to objectively determine the small amount of human-induced warming in comparison to the large natural changes which are occurring."

How is it possible for Dr. Gray to determine this conclusion?

Other scientists evidently have determined there IS human induced warming.

Is he saying every scientist who has determined they (and probably they also would disagree on the term 'small amount') is simply wrong, bought, lying for some unknown reason, low IQ enough to be 'misled' by con men....but he's not and that HE'S objective of course, just none of the 'warmist' scientists are.

Well.

 

Chris Otahal (509)
Wednesday October 14, 2009, 6:52 am

"I don't need credentials because I post things from people who have them ..."

That is EXACTLY what is done at Skeptical Science LMAO!!!!! It is a good summary BACKED BY PEER REVIEWED ARTICLES (see those blue linked articles ya know the names followed with the year) - you are simply applying Judy doubble standards yet AGAIN - and simply LIEING when you say otherwise - truely pethetic indeed!!!!! Notice your last "article" by Gray has NOT ONE REFERENCE and we are supposed to take this guys wor as gosphal because of his (self proclaimed) expertise LMAO!!!!!

"Global temperatures have always fluctuated and will continue to do so regardless of how much anthropogenic greenhouse gases are put into the atmosphere. ..."

Yes, but there has been an UP WARD TREND since the 1980's and this trend is at least in part attributed to HUMAN CAUSES - and the models are just fine thank you very much...Dr. Gray (who is a well known denialist - a simple search on him will show that) is wrong in asserting that we are too small of an influence - his is the MINORITY VIEW. And yes, there is likely to be a SHORT TERM slowing of warming (maybe even a SLIGHT COOLING) due to WEATHER EVENTS, but what he does not say is that AFTER THIS SHORT PERIOD OF SLOWED WARMING the trend is predicted to CONTINUE TO RISE (funny how he and Judy leave THAT part out)...

Models are unreliable???

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

Are we now experiencing global cooling?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm

and as I said - he is expressing a MINIORITY view - and YOU seem to be using your non-existent credentials to assert ALL thes other scientists are scamsters and part of some world goverance conspericy - which is laughable indeed:

There is no consensus???

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Funny how you can simply IGNORE the MAJORITY of the information and support against your dogam and say empatically "there is NO counter EVEDENCE whatsoever" against your dogmatic claims - a true blind denialist (but at least I can rest assured that such blind BELIEF will not hold up as people learn the FACTS of the matter)...








 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 

 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.