Of course the "does not detract from, equal, exceed, or replace global warming" has to be added to ensure publication and prevent loss of funding.
That is one glacier. And why did you link to Wattsup rather than to the actual study?
<(Queue the watts hate and alarmists inability to click on links to the actual study)>
And when a "warmer" links to skepticalscience, asking for a link to the original study is perfectly legitimate. But the usual denialist response is to call John Cook a Nazi and to call the authors of the original study liars.
>>(Queue the watts hate and alarmists inability to click on links to the actual study)
In true Denier form, your general lie about who does and does not read original science articles is accompanied by the additional lie in the implication that you read anything other than stories by liars and idiots for liars and idiots (aka Deniers). You didn’t even read the title of the paper, huh – since it does not even imply the lies Deniers have invented about it.
The study does not say that the melting is primarily from geothermal heat. It says that there are some areas of the glacier where geothermal heat may be contributing to the melting. The suggested geothermal heat flux contribution does not detract from, equal, exceed, or replace the melting resulting from global warming – nor does the study question AGW theory or its impact on Antarctica or the melting glacier.
If Deniers have real evidence, why do they constantly lie?
No
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/12/new-paper-finds-west-antarctic-glacier-likely-melting-from-geothermal-heat-below/
(Queue the watts hate and alarmists inability to click on links to the actual study)
