Excellent work on keeping this info out there!

must have a body to regulate filth in science

I didn’t have to wait too long for someone to tout the widespread subzero conditions as evidence of global warming.

But generally only in response to the “gee, today is cold, so the last hundred years of climate measurement doesn’t count” claims.

Darrell’s Law of Climate Change Debate notes that any change in the weather will be touted by climate change critics as refutation of all evidence of climate change; when scientists point out that severe weather can be evidence of climate change, critics will dismiss it as “I told you they’d say that.”

REPLY: Guess what Ed, I don’t care what you think. You warmists are becoming global laughingstocks.

Watts law of climate change: you are being led by idiots with no scruples:

IPCC now in Bizarroland: Pachauri releases “smutty” romance novel
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/30/ipcc-now-in-bizzaroland-pachauri-releases-smutty-romance-novel/

Go ahead Ed, spin that to the moon !

- Anthony Watts

“Role of glaciers in watershed hydrology:
“Himalayan catchment” perspective” at http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/3/443/2009/tcd-3-443-2009-print.pdf is a typical example.

Throughout the article are comments about how the AR4 fails to distinguish between typical alpine glaciers and Himalayan glaciers. One key difference is that in the Himalayas, the peak in precipitation comes during the summer monsoon, so peak glacier melting and peak precipitation more or less coincide.

The low river flow season is winter, when glacier melt is not as high. This is very different than many alpine glacier systems where there is little precipitation in summer, and the summer glacier melt significantly increase the yearly summer low flow.

The above linked article is a good review of the different sections of the himalaya and how the yearly precipitation river flows vary annually. There are really 3 different regimes, with the classic alpine being the smallest.

There’s nothing wrong with hessian shopping bags! It surely must be a good idea to keep plastics out of landfill / the oceans / dolphins’ stomachs. Just because the evidence for global warming is dodgy, lets not throw out the enviromentally-friendly baby with the carbon-dioxide-infested bathwater.

I particlarly enjoyed this bit although it needs to be taken in context:

“A recent study for the World Bank has shown that the volume of water resulting from glacial melt in Nepal makes up less than 5% of the flows of rivers leaving the country and contributing to the Ganges downstream.

“That is, about 95% or more of the river flow is the result of rain and melting seasonal snow,” said report co-author Richard Armstrong, a glaciologist from the University of Colorado at Boulder in the US.

If that is true, rivers downstream of the eastern Himalayas will hardly be affected, even if the glaciers recede or disappear.”

KLR (00:02:08) :

EXCLUSIVE: UN scientist refutes Daily Mail claim he said Himalayan glacier error was politically motivated « Climate Progress

Lal’s phone number is easy to find online, and I called him myself, even though it was after midnight in India (I hoped he was on travel), but he answered it immediately.

He said these were “the most vilest allegations” and denied that he ever made such assertions. He said “I didn’t put it [the 2035 claim] in to impress policymakers…. We reported the facts about science as we knew them and as was available in the literature.”

He told me:

Our role was to bring out the factual science. The fact is the IPCC has been very conservative.

He’ll be in hot water if the Daily Mail’s David Rose taped his interview with him. If Rose can prove Lal wrong, then it’ll be hard to believe Lal’s claim that he didn’t receive Kaser’s warning about the absurdity of the IPCC’s melted-by-2035 statement.

My guess, if Rose has got him on tape, is that Lal will then spin it by saying that impressing policymakers was only a secondary consideration — hardly worth mentioning, really.

Our role was to bring out the factual science. The fact is the IPCC has been very conservative.

” If you have a natural cause, posit it. ”

Alarmists own the CO2-AGW hypothesis, weak though it ever was. The onus is theirs to prove it. Applying scientific rigour, not politically inspired bias, their own efforts have soundly disproved the hypothesis once and for all.