So, I’m making my rounds, and I come across this article….Long-term studies detect effects of disappearing snow and ice
Already my bs alarm bells are going off, but headlines can often be misleading. So, I commence to read. It starts,
Ecosystems are changing worldwide as a result of shrinking sea ice, snow, and glaciers, especially in high-latitude regions where water is frozen for at least a month each year-the cryosphere.
Scientists have already recorded how some larger animals, such as penguins and polar bears, are responding to loss of their habitat, …….
I look to check the date again, and sure enough, this wasn’t written in 2007…. but it’s written today! Can a person live under a rock and still write about climate change?
Shrinking sea ice……..
Hmm…… maybe they just forgot that part….. let’s look at the next claim, snow….. here is the last 20 years of North Hemisphere Snow cover by month.
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/index.php
Glaciers are another very dubious claim. We learn from this post “Yes. Yes, They Really Are That Dumb!” that the Himalayans via new techniques weren’t really losing mass, and the old techniques were inaccurate because ….. well, I’ll them explain it….
Until now, estimates of meltwater loss for all the world’s 200,000 glaciers were based on extrapolations of data from a few hundred monitored on the ground. Those glaciers at lower altitudes are much easier for scientists to get to and so were more frequently included, but they were also more prone to melting.
And then, of course we see the alarm about the polar bears demise isn’t just highly dubious but the bear population is likely to be significantly increasing. And, more recently, we see the claim about penguinsis also questionable.
Given this information, would there be a compelling reason to read any more of that drivel? If the author would have bothered to attach his/her name, we could mark them as someone to be ignore, sadly, it is just noted as “Staff Writers”. But, it looks like we can altogether ignore 
suyts space 
The scientists are killing more “real” penguins with their own bare hands than the virtual ones they estimate are dying from global warming:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/12/tagging-penguins-survival-rates
So what is it with environmentalists that they’ll cry crocodile tears for penguins and other birds when they think global warming has something to do with it but they shrug off the death of tens of thousands of birds in their wind generators and tagging programs as if it inconsequential. Hypocrites!
No doubt, I thought about adding that penguin killing angle, but they seem to have adapted to the penguincide at the hands of the lunatics……. killing birds for the greater good (energy deprivations) is way better than some imaginary futuristic bird die off.
I’m sure the envirowackos are counting the penguincide and dead birds and bats at the foot of their 300′ slicers and dicers as deaths attributable to global warming. The scientists wouldn’t be molesting the penguins and the wind generators wouldn’t be there if it weren’t for global warming. That’s how these people think.
Lol, well, yes, you evil deniers forced them to do this!!!! Who knew making animals visually different from other animals dependent upon visual acuity would cause them to be ostracized? And why can’t those darned birds see those blades? It’s not their fault!!!!
I thought you were reading the Onion, but realized the Onion is credible compared to what was written.
5 points in a paragraph and 1/2 and none of them were correct. ….. but they print this crap anyway!!!
Pingback: Torturing The Aussie Alarmists With Suyts Space | suyts space