Manipulating words in GW debate: BECAUSE OF/DESPITE

http://tinyurl.com/n4eqtz
Argentine glacier advances despite global warming
Isn't it strange that all "confirming" evidence, possibly reflective of Global Warming ( whether anthropic or not ), is preceded by "Because of GW, ...". At the same time, all disconfirming evidence, that might appear to debunk the anthropic GW hypothesis, is prefaced by: "Despite GW, ..."
In another life, Yoda was a professor of a hard science. More importantly, we understand SCIENTIFIC METHOD and it doesn't equate the results of "models" to actual data taken from the physical world. Models in climate "science" are no better than models in the financial world, and we have recent evidence of how good those are. At least the financial models have to pass the "backtest" criterion, meaning that they have to work with past results and data already "in the can." Predictions about the future which cannot be followed up quickly by experimental measurement are worthless. Backtesting is a necessary, if not sufficient condition. Climate models cannot even explain the various temperature variations of the past, before there was any anthropic effect possible e.g. the Little Ice Age, coming out of Ice Ages at all, etc etc.
The journalistic reportage on announced phenomena is INCREDIBLY biased. A recent example indicated a divergence from model predictions but, since it was in the right direction, it was hailed as verification. Even worse, a recent prediction of ten years of temperature DECLINE was, nevertheless, taken as evidence of Anthropic Global Warming although it wasn't a sophisticated prediction of "models" but only an extrapolation of some recent data. Stuffed, that should be!