Anyone remember how the UN panel assured us the Himalayan glaciers would melt completely in 25 years? Now we know they are not melting at all. Do you think all the climate alarmists are slapping their foreheads and yelling “Doh! Maybe I should reevaluate my position”? Me neither.
When one examines evidence, one should be extremely careful to let ALL THE EVIDENCE speak for itself, and to not let oneself become blind to that which would dis-confirm, or compromise, what one would wish to be true beforehand.,,, ‘Global warming science’, due to multiple competing lines of evidence within its field, is a extremely ‘soft-science’ that is exceptionally prone to such preconceived biases of the one who is examining the evidence. Thus when one hears dogmatic claims one way or the other on the Global Warming issue, the one thing you can be sure about in the claim is not the dogmatic claim being made, but is the fact you are dealing with a conclusion that was reached through a ‘preferential’ reading of evidence by the one doing the research.
It is funny that the NCSE (aka, National Center for Selling Evolution) recently hitched its wagon to the ‘soft science’ of the Global Warming issue. For like Global Warming, neo-Darwinian evolution is extremely prone to researcher bias, but unfortunately for NSCE, and unlike Global Warming, far stronger evidence can be mustered against the dogmatic claims being made in support of neo-Darwinian evolution.
notes to that effect:
Michael Behe talks about the preceding paper on this podcast:
Verse and Music:
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but if one reads the rest of the article, it’s not as clear that the global warmers are completely wrong:
Indeed, Wahr’s study clearly notes that lower-altitude glaciers and ice caps are melting, to the tune of about 150 billion tons of ice annually, which the study predicts could lead to an overall rise in sea levels. He concluded that the higher altitude and therefore colder Himalayan peaks may be temporarily impervious to factors causing melting.
“One possible explanation is that previous estimates were based on measurements taken primarily from some of the lower, more accessible glaciers in Asia and were extrapolated to infer the behavior of higher glaciers. But unlike the lower glaciers, many of the high glaciers would still be too cold to lose mass even in the presence of atmospheric warming,” Wahr said.
According to GRACE data published in the study, total sea level rise from all land-based ice on Earth including Greenland and Antarctica was roughly 1.5 millimeters per year annually or about one-half inch total, from 2003 to 2010, Wahr said.
“The total amount of ice lost to Earth’s oceans from 2003 to 2010 would cover the entire United States in about 1 and one-half feet of water,” Wahr said.
Soot and dirt melt ice well before the ambient temperature is above freezing.
A recent SciAm article on deserts blames the lack of spring melting is because the dust from the deserts was blown over the snow cover causing it to melt months sooner than normal.
Yet is even their claim that lower glaciers losing area substantiated??? Remember, these are the same people who claimed that Himalaya’s glaciers would be gone in 25 years! 🙂
Thus, as stated before, the science is ‘soft’ and is extremely ripe for personal bias!
In Chile, the evidence says man is responsible for glacial ice loss there:
cocktails anyone?