JGD posted
On 05/08/2019 15:27, Spike wrote:

But, on the other hand, no specific reason has been advanced to doubt
the provenance of the information in that particular AP article.


But even if it were accurately reported (which seems unlikely as Graham
has described) then so what? We know that there can be a considerable
lag (40-50 years, maybe more) for a given CO2 level to have its full
effect on polar ice melt, sea-level etc.

Then it is not yet countable as evidence for global warming.

Almost anything *could* happen. However, it's only when it *has*
happened that it can be taken as evidence for or against an empirical
theory.


--
Evremonde