Yes, the warming is uneven in both time and place, and there still will be cold spells, everyone knows that. But the world as a whole is getting warmer and the warming rate is accelerating.
Leaving out the part where she says it is not strange to see an area of colder climate - within the larger trend toward warmer - was intentional and deceptive.
what is he being deceptive about? i'm not defending the op, but i'm inquiring why you are getting all worked up. the title of this thread is "Himalayan glaciers expanding as phenomena puzzles global warming scientists" and it does puzzle them. in the op, he is not denouncing the credibility of climate change, just posting an excerpt from an article that makes it clear that there are aspects of global warming/climate change that scientists do not fully understand right now.
your vehement reaction makes your point seem more like an agenda.
what is he being deceptive about? i'm not defending the op, but i'm inquiring why you are getting all worked up. the title of this thread is "Himalayan glaciers expanding as phenomena puzzles global warming scientists" and it does puzzle them. in the op, he is not denouncing the credibility of climate change, just posting an excerpt from an article that makes it clear that there are aspects of global warming/climate change that scientists do not fully understand right now.
your vehement reaction makes your point seem more like an agenda.
Leaving out the part where she says it is not strange to see an area of colder climate - within the larger trend toward warmer
If you can't see how leaving this part out is deceptive, I can't help you. "Not strange" is a little different than the idea that they are "puzzled" about it.
The OP was posting this to make it seem that the scientists are confused.............but they're not. It's a matter of curiosity but not anything that makes them think twice about over-all global warming.
It's a matter of curiosity but not anything that makes them think twice about over-all global warming.
here's what i wrote: "he is not denouncing the credibility of climate change, just posting an excerpt from an article that makes it clear that there are aspects of global warming/climate change that scientists do not fully understand right now."
you're extrapolating, i did not say they are thinking twice about "over-all global warming." to be effective at arguing, you need to address what is said, not just make up an argument that you want to respond to.
here's what i wrote: "he is not denouncing the credibility of climate change, just posting an excerpt from an article that makes it clear that there are aspects of global warming/climate change that scientists do not fully understand right now."
you're extrapolating, i did not say they are thinking twice about "over-all global warming." to be effective at arguing, you need to address what is said, not just make up an argument that you want to respond to.
I all I said after he posted it was that he left out an important part of the article, probably for a reason.
Well I used to argue with the gw fanatics about the ice in antarctica here on ET... was that you FC under a different handle?
They were going nuts telling us the ice was melting so fast its was over. ... I kept pointing to the fact that their conjectures were based on poor guesses.
s South Pole Ice Melting? Gravity Field Satellites Observe Antarctic Ice Mass Fluctuations Due to El Niño
ScienceDaily (Oct. 29, 2010) — The change in the
