It seems qancka hasn't read your post Horus, and reacts with a tantrum, like what he falsely accuses Roger of throwing in the first. A fine article and a merciful recommendation, especially considering the treatment he has received from Rachunder Pauchari and the IPCC, and the inherent corruption.

Qanka,

About glaciers and fraud: correct me if I'm wrong, but I learnt that adiabatic temperature falls about one degree F for every three hundred feet increase in altitude.

Himalayan glaciers reach down to what ? 10,000 feet ? and are formed as high as 18-20,000 feet ? I'm sure I'm wrong on the details but you get the drift: that as temperatures rise generally one degree F, including in the Himalayan region, glaciers there would retreat 300 feet in altitude. At that rate, a temperature rise of around 25 to 30 degrees F would be necessary to melt all the glaciers in the Himalayas. The IPCC claimed that those glaciers would all be gone by 2035, 25 years from now (requiring a warming rate of one degree per year. Even if my figures are a bit shonky, glacial extinction is clearly 300-500 years away if the world does nothing about AGW - that's if the IPCC's warming claims are accurate.

But what do I know ? Not much, but enough not to put my money on the IPCC.

Mouth
They're not all going to melt away anytime soon - but you knew that.
Look over there ... another IPCC spelling mistake (joke)

Spelling mistake ? Misplacement of the odd digit ? My point is, who - out of the thousands of climate scientists allied to the IPCC - checked the calculations ? If all the Himalayan glaciers were to melt in the next thirty-odd years, don't you think that some scientists would have double-checked the data ? 25 years - the implications of which would be truly horrendous for Asian economies - or 350 years or whatever, and nobody checked ?

If somebody claimed, say, that sea-levels would rise, not half a metre in the next fifty years, but ten metres, or if somebody claimed that surface temperatures were to rise not one degree in the next fifty years but fifteen degrees, wouldn't you expect someone to check, perhaps an undergraduate oceanography or meteorology student ? I guess they would have more expertise than Mr Pachauri, so why wouldn't they be put to work checking such horrendous predictions ?

This has all been a valuable lesson (Popper-wise) in teaching us that we should always check our data, even - especially - if they seem favourable to our own hypotheses.

You sound like Mr Faulty, Loudmouth.
I understood your point.
You apparently not mine.
Yes, we know ... and we are.

Let me be more clear ... Fawlty.