Crusader -
If you can establish that a report (conducted by a top US University, led by one of the best researchers in his field and involving field work on literally thousands of glaciers) is not science without even looking at it, then I won't bother posting it.
As far as I can tell, your position on Alaska glaciers is based entirely on faith and politics. Is that correct?
Alaskan glaciers. good topic.
I could go on and on about how most of the loss of AGs happened in the 1800's but I would like to bring up a slightly different aspect.
first I want you to refresh your thoughts on the scientific method. is it OK to hide an experiment that doesnt give you the expected results? most scientists would say no, but climate science is a different kettle of fish.
the Canadian govt funded an ice core project for a glacier in Alaska. it was done. but no results were released. the funding required that a preliminary report must be filed and when someone FOIed that it showed that the glacier was only ~2000 years old. bad news for the global warming gang that insist that we have never been warm before. so it just sits on the shelf, hidden from embarrassing publicity. is this how science should be done?
When you make a claim like that, provide a link. Otherwise, it is just considered bullshit.
I would take that under advisement from a newcomer but you have already seen the link because it has been discussed before. its funny how you always seem to completely forget any evidence that does not fit your worldview.