New study shows Himalayan glaciers are not melting

  Even as Barack Obama seeks to move on cap and trade unilaterally, and as John Podesta claims there is nothing the Congress can do to stop him, the arguments used to defend this action are falling apart. I have documented much of this here at America’s Watchtower and you can search the site to read what I have previously written if you are so  inclined, but the latest example of the crumbling global warming argument comes from a new study which found the Himalayan glaciers are not melting after all.

  Here is more:

Of the 2018 glaciers mapped and monitored for the survey, nearly 87 per cent were found to be stable while only 12 per cent were found to be in retreat. These real-world observations are in marked contrast to the predictions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its 2007 report that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear “by 2035.”

  But it turns out the IPCC data used for this dire outlook was faulty and not from a reliable source:

The IPCC was subsequently forced to disown  the claim after it emerged that it came not from a peer-reviewed study but from an interview given by an Indian glaciologist to an obscure Indian environmental magazine called Down To Earth. In a game of Chinese whispers, this erroneous claim was then repeated in New Scientist, quoted in a report by environmental campaigning group WWF, and then cited as fact by the IPCC.

  So why would anybody still use this data when the source was questionable? Follow the money:

Dr Syed Hasnain, has for the past two years been working as a senior employee of The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), the Delhi-based company of which Dr Pachauri is director-general. Furthermore, the claim – now disowned by Dr Pachauri as chairman of the IPCC – has helped TERI to win a substantial share of a $500,000 grant from one of America’s leading charities, along with a share in a three million euro research study funded by the EU.

  What a coincidence! But the next obvious question is this: why would Barack Obama still move unilaterally on cap and trade when so much of the research is now in doubt? The answer is equally obvious to me; cap and trade has nothing to do with saving the environment and has everything to do with controlling the masses and he is not going to let anything get in his way in pushing his radical agenda.