oh..about those glaciers melting? yeah... thats not actually going to happen

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmI3YzllNGQ5NTZmOWU5MGIzNDRkYzg3ZDAzMTFjZGM=

A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it. Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report. It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi. Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research…

…Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, has previously dismissed criticism of the Himalayas claim as "voodoo science".

Funny the Glaciers here are retreating or at least some of them .

Pavolo wrote:Funny the Glaciers here are retreating or at least some of them .

Guess what.....they have been retreating since the last ice age.

What I need to understand is who says glaciers retreating are a bad thing??
I was in Banff in 1951, and a mountie was showing us where a check in hut was built at the end of the ice berg , and now the ice was way over there .
60 years and I dont think the Mounties were arresting anyone for causing the ice to melt.
Is there anyone on this forum who thinks the rich countries should spend 2 trillion dollars to try and send 2 trillion dollars to other countries, "Presidents for life", types so they can come back to live in our country as rich Presidents for life in exile?

Or better yet, is sending trillions of dollars to 3rd world countries going to stop the glaciers from melting?

Has anyone seen the stupdity to the criticisms that Canada is the highest per capital emitter of green house gases? Maybe it has something to do with keeping warm in the winter? Maybe it has something to do with the size of the country?

" Maybe it has something to do with keeping warm in the winter? Maybe it has something to do with the size of the country?"

yup and yup.

I think that it is coming out, and sinking in to people, that the UN study was a shame and the true agenda was simply to get rich countries (developed/polluters) to give money to third world countries under the guise of offseting the pollution that is being caused. What nonsense.

By their own logic, it would make sense to keep these countries poor and un-polluting eh.

It seems it's always about the fcuken money. *sigh*

Never said it was a bad thing just that it is happening faster then ever recorded in the past or recent history . There must be some reason , and my guess man is behind it .

I have a little secret for people who talk abou faster then ever in recorded history... guess what.. thats the way it is supposed to work.
As more and more ice melts, it gets easier and easier to melt because there is less there keeping in cold. Its a natural cycle. It has been happening quicker and quicker at steadily increasing pace since the last major ice age.

Pavolo wrote:Never said it was a bad thing just that it is happening faster then ever recorded in the past or recent history . There must be some reason , and my guess man is behind it .

What??? No link????

The issue in question isn't if the glaciers are melting, but the specific reference to 2035.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703626604575011413983416060.html
Not really the same thing as saying the glaciers aren't melting.

meh... I can read it how I want to