New sat data shows Himalayan glaciers hardly melting at all

@Anonymous C. -- Who?

Is the first cab off the rank's passenger an El Reg editor perhaps?

For every action....

You're right, flames beget flames and half the people are spending times arguing instead of doing anything practical, the other half think arguing is practical to stop us doing pointless things.

*in reality* all this arguing is a distractor, and pointless.

Fossil fuels will run out, "sometime", the only argument is when, and that could be 10 years, 100 years or 1000 years - even the most ardent climate denier will recognise that the earth is not laying down fossil fuels as fast as we are consuming and discovering.

So, given that this resource will run out, we need to work out what we're going to do when it's either run out or too rare and expensive to harvest, these solutions will coincidentially also address the climate change concerns.

"Researchers visiting the region on the ground"..............

....................couldn't see the wood for the trees.

There's also the question of the 21 billion tons lost per year worldwide (excl Greenland and Antarctica). This still seems like a huge amount to someone like me who is ignorant of such things. Can we get that into perspective with how many tons are in the glaciers currently?

For example if all these glaciers hold 1000 billion tons, 21 billion tons lost per year is A LOT, and still worrying even though it's less than previously estimated. If all these glaciers hold 100,000 billion tons, then 21 billion tons a year is pffft

Gosh - you mean it's.......a glacier ?

Never mind the headline...

Who is the rather comely lass in the cutoffs?

Aboslutely.

They need to put this discussion on ice.

@Blusox69 -- Correct, but Climate Science is unlike all others! Yuh have to make allowances.

Technical professions, chemistry, physics, civil engineering etc., are unfortunate in that they're underpinned by just science.

However, lucky Climate Science calls on both science and religion for answers. This makes for much more interesting outcomes, its politics are more interesting and it's better funded not to mention that it makes for much more lively dinner party discussions.

'Tis a no-brainer really: what's more likely to keep your dinner party guests awake, scenarios surrounding J. G. Ballard's 'The Drowned World' which would involve amazing scenes of say London sinking under melted polar ice or an erudite discussion on the effect partial differential calculus plays in the derivation of Schrodinger's wave equation?

>;-)

Yes, "foolishness"

It turns out the 2035 figure that has been bandied around by the eco alarmists was a complete ballsup all along.

" The UN panel on climate change warning

that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth

of current levels by 2035 is wildly inaccurate,

an academic says.

J Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario

Trent University, says he believes the UN

authors got the date from an earlier report

wrong by more than 300 years.

He is astonished they "misread 2350 as

2035".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8387737.stm

I do not "deny" climate change exists.

Nor do I receive any funding from the fossil fuel industry. (Quite the opposite in fact.)

I do, however, have little time for the endless Chicken Littles trotted out by the media constantly telling us that the skies are falling.

Yes, the Earth's climate is changing. This is NOT news, and never was. It's been changing pretty much since the Earth formed. It has even been through long periods where the atmosphere was utterly poisonous to today's life-forms. It has seen major glaciations. It has seen major interglacial periods. As this article—among many others—has pointed out, "the science" is most certainly not fully understood. It's getting there, but it is not there yet. That three-letter word right there appears to be something you people don't seem to understand.

The media have been repeating this cheap psychological trick of terrorising its customers for longer than I've been alive—from the "Population Bomb" theories of the 1960s (weren't we all supposed to be wearing gas masks by the early '80s?); the Cold War fear mongers from the '50s through to the '90s; the Energy Crisis of the 1970s; the anti-nuclear brigades who have neatly snookered us today with their ignorance; the incessant demands for our "fookin' money!" from overpaid, under-talented celebrities who appear to believe it's not even remotely hypocritical for the filthy rich to demand money from one set of poor people on behalf of other poor people or they'll DIE, and it'll be ALL OUR FAULT!

The point is, it's always "our" fault. Never THEIR fault. It's NEVER the idiotic short-termist policies of (wealthy) politicians who pull all the social engineering strings, but OUR fault. Even Robert fucking Mugabe is "our" fault, though Christ alone knows how.

Enough! I'm suffering from chronic Fear Fatigue. If you have a problem with that, I'll show you the note from my mum.

Biases aside, this is the perfect example of why everyone should get the information from multiple news sources.

That and taking any journalistic-rehash of a scientific paper with copious volumes of sodium chloride.