I have an article over at Spiked about the way climate change alarmism seems to hide in the most remote locations.
A study published in Nature last week has found that the effects of climate change on Himalayan glaciers have been overstated. But rather than facing up to their alarmism, those who have been guilty of exaggeration remain as unreflective as ever. Perhaps they are intent on continuing to make political and moral capital out of the possibility of climate catastrophe.
Hey, at least they didn’t “adjust” the data to fit their prejudices. That’s got to be a great leap forward for climate “science”. Perhaps that is the reason such a boring null-result got published in what used to be the most important science journal in the world. Anyway, the conclusion that the glaciers aren’t as sensitive to CAGW as once thought is vaguely amusing.
In your article you claim “even at the current rate of rising, global sea levels will be just 30 centimetres higher in a century’s time”. This isn’t quite true, as the _current_ rate of rising is actually zero, or a teeny bit negative.
I know it’s a repeat of a comment from your Website https://www.climate-resistance.org/2011/12/the-polar-bear-affair-part-1001.html#comment-31353 but it’s pertinent and laugh out loud. Count Arthur Strong says:
“Soon there won’t be any trees left in the Arctic. And then where will the polar bears nest, eh?”