Free Markets, Free People

Another alarmist claim bites the dust

OK, perhaps not the perfect metaphor for this but another in a long line of claims made by the UN’s IPCC report has been found to be totally false.  In fact, in the case of this particular claim, there appears to be no foundation whatsoever for the claim and in reality it appears exactly the opposite of what was claimed appears to be true.

The claim?

Himalayan glaciers were melting because of global warming climate change.  The facts?

Researchers have discovered that contrary to popular belief half of the ice flows in the Karakoram range of the mountains are actually growing rather than shrinking.

You have to love that sentence – “contrary to popular belief”?  Is that what the so-called “science” of global warming climate change has been reduced too?

Even more damning:

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 Himalaya, are in fact advancing and that global warming is not the deciding factor in whether a glacier survives or melts.

“Global warming” isn’t the deciding factor?  But, but there was “scientific  consensus” that global warming climate change was indeed causing the glaciers to melt.  And now scientists are saying that not only are the glaciers not melting – they’re instead growing – but that global warming climate change isn’t even the “deciding factor” in either case?

In fact, the study says, the real reason for advancing or retreating glaciers is much simpler than global warming climate change.  It has to do with debris fields:

Their report, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, found the key factor affecting their advance or retreat is the amount of debris – rocks and mud – strewn on their surface, not the general nature of climate change.


"Our study shows that there is no uniform response of Himalayan glaciers to climate change and highlights the importance of debris cover for understanding glacier retreat, an effect that has so far been neglected in predictions of future water availability or global sea level," the authors concluded.

Dr Bookhagen said their report had shown "there is no stereotypical Himalayan glacier" in contrast to the UN’s climate change report which, he said, "lumps all Himalayan glaciers together."

In fact, the science of global warming climate change lumps a whole bunch of things together it shouldn’t be lumping together, while it leaves off a whole mess of things it should be considering depending on the model such as clouds, sun, water vapor, etc.

By the way, a reminder of the base for the IPCC “scare-science”:

Dr Pachauri, head of the Nobel prize-winning UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has remained silent on the matter since he was forced to admit his report’s claim that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was an error and had not been sourced from a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It came from a World Wildlife Fund report.

He angered India’s environment minister and the country’s leading glaciologist when he attacked those who questioned his claim as purveyors of "voodoo science".

Of course, now we know who the real purveyor of “voodoo science” is, don’t we?



11 Responses to Another alarmist claim bites the dust

  • Yup call your sceptics deniers, and voodoo, and call for their ouster from academia. try to get their papers to not be published. Make popularised movies full of untruths.  Falsely claim an overwhelming consensus. Accuse your critics of working secretly for oil companies.  That must be what science is all about.

  • “Our study shows that there is no uniform response of Himalayan glaciers to climate change and highlights the importance of debris cover for understanding glacier retreat

    You know what this means…!?!?  We can ship our garbage to act as “debris cover” to save the glaciers!!!

  • “Contrary to popular belief”

    And how, pray, did this belief become popular?  Could it be that liberal organizations from the IPCC to government agencies to friendly corporations (e.g. GE) to MiniTru to academia to Hollywood have been pushing this garbage non-stop through every outlet they control?  Could it be because every storm, heatwave, hurricane, blizzard and tornado is cited as evidence of global warming climate change climate disruption?
    Science makes mistakes.  This is a natural part of the process of learning.  What is UNnatural is that people who are ignorant AND politically motivated leap on some bit of “science” and use it to push their own agenda.

    What’s really shameful is that, even as more and more “evidence” of global warming climate change climate disruption is shown to be utter crap, the gorebots continue to push it.  “Well, just because THOSE glaciers aren’t shrinking doesn’t prove that global warming climate change climate disruption isn’t real!  We’ve got lots of other evidence!  And there’s a CONSENSUS!  Don’t forget that!  Lots of, like, really smart people believe in global warming climate change climate disruption so it MUST be real!  Now, gimme your money.”

    • Indeed, there does not seem to be a shortage of TV and cable TV programming that continues to push the idea that humans are pushing the climate towards a disastrous end, and that only prompt and drastic action can save us.  Some months back there was a show on either Discovery Channel or NatGeo Channel on “the top 10 disasters in human history.”  Guess which one was number one?

      • It has become the knee-jerk dogma of most “science” writers.  Emphasis on “jerk”…

      • Thing is, it’s not just the pseudo-intellectual / scientific programs: I’ve seen “global warming” pop up in entertainment programs as if it’s just an accepted fact of life.  Talk about propaganda!

    • Let it never be forgotten that a “scientific consensus” is an affront to the entire scientific method.  That method DEMANDS testing and proof.

      • Yep, consensus is for politics and negotiations, it has not place in science.  A theory is wrong if the facts prove it wrong.  It does not matter how many millions of people believe in it.  Belief belongs in religion, not science.