Exposing More Than They Wanted to

There are facts and there is fantasy.

There are the way things are and the way you want things to be.

There is actual science and those who want to speculate about science.

There is reporting and there are reporters with an agenda.

I am constantly amazed at the "news" we get these days.

Consider this article from the US Edition of The Guardian with this foreboding headline that I came across this week but was actually published a couple of years ago.

The article explains that the United States had a top secret facility in Greenland that was developed in the cold war (no pun intended) that would potentially house atomic ballistic missiles trained on the Soviet Union. The facility included a nuclear reactor and a good deal of radioactive waste was created.

The facility was built entirely under the ice cap and included 4,000 kilometers of tunnels under the ice. Construction began in 1959 but military planners eventually determined that what came to be known as Camp Century would not work as envisioned. By 1964 the facility was effectively abandoned and the nuclear reactor removed. However, any chemical, radioactive and biological waste was left behind on the assumption that it would be encapsulated forever under the accumulated ice and snow in the area.

The article goes on to state that the assumptions made in the 1960's are now in doubt because of "climate change" based on a report of a "six-strong team from Canadian, U.S and European universities".

From the headline you would think that Greenland's icecap has been receding rapidly. The reality is actually the opposite. Those are the actual facts. That is the actual science. The receding icecap is purely future speculation. You could never tell that by headline.

What I found most interesting in reading the article was this chart that showed the ice level above Camp Century when the project began in 1959 (8 meters), what it was when the project was abandoned (12 meters), and what it was when this article was written in 2016 (35 meters).

In other words, the ice became 3 times thicker between 1965 and 2016.

However, the entire premise of the article is that "climate change" in future years is going to melt all the ice and expose the facility and the waste causing environmental damage.

Of course. the thesis behind this is that man-made Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) caused by increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, caused by humans, is raising global temperatures. These rising temperatures are going to melt the ice caps, cause sea levels to rise and doom mankind forever.

As a result, all carbon fossil fuels have to be banned or be highly taxed and regulated. This has become the "religion" of liberals and globalists.

Since 1959, when work was first started on Camp Century, industrialization expanded over the entire world. Much of that growth was fueled by energy produced by fossil fuels.

The increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere over that period is shown in this chart as measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii.

    

The thesis of AGW would suggest that this increase in CO2 levels would result in warming of the planet and melting of the ice cap in Greenland. In fact, that is what the scientific panel suggests will occur in the future at Camp Century.

However, if that is case, why did the ice over Camp Century increase from 8 meters in 1959 to 35 meters in 2016 despite this significant increase in CO2?

If the thesis of AGW is correct why has the ice cap in Greenland not already melted? Why has it increased despite the increases in carbon emissions since the 1960's? Why is it just going to occur in the future?

Science is science.

It is not science if you state that increased CO2 levels will melt the ice caps and the actual data shows that the ice caps actually increased when looking at the retrospective data.

It is not science when you keep saying that it WILL happen. Just give us another 60 years.

There is a 60 year record showing the ice over Camp Century increasing, not decreasing, despite increases in CO2 in the atmosphere.

The only thing exposed in The Guardian article is the massive amount of bias that exists in the media and those who peddle scientific speculation as scientific fact.

How can anyone write a paper or a newspaper article that contains a chart like that contained above that actually contradicts the entire thesis of the piece?

How does anything like this even find its way to print?

The only thing exposed in this article is the bias inherent in this "reporting" and that of the "scientists" who pass off speculation as science.