Global Warming was renamed "climate change" so that any "unusual" weather could be grouped under the banner and blamed on man as part of the general panic. And, more specifically in this case, be used as an excuse to fund a little mountain climbing every year:
The Alps’ tallest peak was measured at 4,810.90 metres on September 15 and 16 – a 2.15 metre increase in two years, surveyors from France’s Haute-Savoie region announced.
"The height as well as the volume of Mont Blanc has increased considerably, because the snow has massed on the summit over the last two years," expert Philippe Borel said at a meeting in the Alpine town Chamonix.
When skeptics refute that many shrinking glaciers, such as the ice pack on Kilamanjaro, are due to changing winds and precipitation patterns rather than warming, they get ignored. However, when ice is increasing, then of course the press blames it on winds and precipitation rather than cooling:
"We’re registering a greater frequency of winds from the west which bring rain and higher temperatures."
In the summer the precipitation translates into snow sticking in regions over 4,000 metres in altitude that increases Mont Blanc’s volume and height, Mr Giezendanner said.
Interestingly, that sounds a lot like this explanation for shrinking Arctic Ice, which most of the press did not see the need to report.
By the way, this story is an awesome illustration of the point I frequently make — that is, the hubris we have of declaring some weather pattern to be "abnormal" when in fact we only have been observing climate in any depth for a few decades. Or in this case, for about 4 years:
The volume of ice on Mont Blanc’s slopes over 4,800 metres high was first calculated at 14,600 cubic metres in 2003.
It dropped to 14,300 cubic metres two years later, but then almost doubled to 24,100 cubic metres in 2007.
So for the whole history of time, we have three data points over 4 years for ice depth on Mt. Blanc. How is there a story here at all, one way or another?
Postscript: When I was a consultant at McKinsey, I used to joke that it is better to have just one data point rather than many, because then you could draw whatever curve or trendline you wanted to through that one point.