The Latest Global-Warming Baloney: Glaciergate

Those busy denying the impact of the Climategate e-mails have a new piece of damaging evidence to downplay: the much publicized claim that the Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2030 turns out to be another global-warming fraud. The New York Times reports today that the 2007 assertion, made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the group that shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore that year), is based on bogus data:

But it now appears that the estimate about Himalayan glacial melt was based on a decade-old interview of one climate scientist in a science magazine, The New Scientist, and that hard scientific evidence to support that figure is lacking. The scientist, Dr. Syed Hasnain, a glacier specialist with the government of the Indian state of Sikkim and currently a fellow at the TERI research institute in Delhi, said in an e-mail message that he was “misquoted” about the 2035 estimate in The New Scientist article.

This new story comes on the heels of the Climategate e-mails, which revealed the fraud behind the global-warming movement’s efforts to suppress opposing voices. As with the data behind the exaggerated claims of increases in world temperatures, this revelation doesn’t mean that there isn’t some evidence that glaciers may be retreating. But there is a big difference between insisting that these glaciers will disappear and a more modest argument that there is evidence that they may be getting a bit smaller. The former reinforces the international hysteria that could lead to developed countries putting costly restrictions on economic activity — exactly what the Left had hoped would happen at the recent failed Copenhagen conference — while the latter would be something that would merely merit further study.

0
Shares
Google+ Print

The Latest Global-Warming Baloney: Glaciergate

Must-Reads from Magazine

A New Wave of Terror

The ISIS threat explodes around the globe.

A familiar introspection set in after the horrific terrorist attack on a concert in Manchester, England. True to form, celebrities and provocateurs flew to their corners. Immigration was the topic; both sides argued that it should either be curtailed or that the UK must stay its pluralistic course. Given the nature of the attack, however, an extroverted response seems more justified. The attack in Manchester was a remarkably sophisticated one and likely benefited from foreign assistance. Moreover, it has been accompanied by a wave of global terrorism.

16
Shares
Google+ Print

The Tragic Familiarity of the Manchester Attack

Making a tough job even tougher.

The Manchester bombing, which killed 22 people, appears to have followed a familiar pattern. It’s one that is instantly recognizable from the profiles of other Western terrorists.

4
Shares
Google+ Print

Are Unknown Soldiers Identifiable?

Do we forget soldiers who might still be recovered?

For too many Americans, Memorial Day is a day off from school or work, or the beginning of the summer barbecue season. Of course, it should be much, much more than that. It should be a day to remember, honor, and offer gratitude to those who sacrificed their lives so that the United States, Europe, Australia, and large swaths of Asia might be free.