David Bellamy's glacier growing myth finally put to rest
This story has history. In 2005, a former UK environmentalist named David Bellamy had a letter published in New Scientist magazine claiming that:
Indeed, if you take all the evidence that is rarely mentioned by the Kyotoists into consideration, 555 of all the 625 glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich, Switzerland, have been growing since 1980."
Guardian columnist George Monbiot tracked down the origins of Bellamy's claim after the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich told Monbiot that "This is complete bullshit."
Monbiot traced Bellamy's fantasy of growing glaciers back to a site maintained by climate misinformation specialist Fred S. Singer and his pollution-industry-friendly organization Science and Environmental Policy Project. The SEPP commentary stated:
So what of this 1989 paper in Science? Tim Lambert reports that:
" …the source was a paper published in Arctic and Alpine Research, not Science. And it was published in 1988, not 1989. And it wasn't written by The World Glacier Monitoring Service but by Fred Wood of the OTA. And it didn't say that 55% of 625 glaciers were advancing, but that 55% of 446 glaciers were advancing. And it wasn't since 1980 it was from 1979 to 1980. So the only thing that SEPP/Singer got right about the article was the 55% number. And that was the bit that Bellamy turned into 555. So as well as Bellamy's statement being wrong overall (the vast majority of observed mountain glaciers are actually retreating), every single part of it was wrong."
"Complete bullshit" seems to be a bit of an understatement at this point considering how far this totally incorrect claim traveled around the internet. Even today, some version of the glacier myth seems to be in circulation - making this an outrageous success for the disinformation specialists and another explanation of why people are still confused about the reality of climate change.
For more on the who's who of the climate denial industry, check out our comprehensive climate deniers research database.
Stepping in it
This to me is yet another fable about confirmation bias, as well as more lost time for the green shift.
And they say I can't spell
That would be "Green Shaft"
BTW: What in hell does glaciers melting have to do with AGW?
Natural GW causes the same thing. IE Driven by PDO shift and Solar variance.
It means and proves absolutely nothing.
Why is it even brought up?
Cue the inactivist mantra
Yeah of course, Bellamy's talking point is definitive proof that AGW isn't real...
...until it gets debunked, then the inactivists tell us it suddenly means nothing!
But I'm sure this sort of `logic' is perfectly OK, because there's always the invincible mantra: The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... Om... Om... Om...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce
Frank
I would never accuse the Alarmists of being just as bad.
Far Far worse is more accurate.
Look over the spinning of all the records that show cooling. The alarmists have tried to blame each and every one on some sort of instrument failure or "unforseen" effect of AGW.
Bottom line is, for AGW Alarmists everything is caused by Global Warming no matter what it is.
Check it out: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
The fractal self-similarity of inactivist arguments?
Look, here's more proof that AGW is a scam! Except until the "proof" is itself debunked! Then it's the alarmists' fault for getting obsessed over it anyway!
The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... Om... Om... Om...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce