No Everest Summits in 2015

[BuckTurgidson]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... ge%2Fstory

[Traveler]

That is incredible! 658 summits in 2013, zero in 2015. Alan Arnette is undoubtedly right in the quote from the article:

"In my opinion," Arnette told The Post this week, "the recent tragedies will not stop the desire to climb Everest or other high mountains, as most people who climb accept the risks."

[MonGoose]

That is incredible! 658 summits in 2013, zero in 2015. Alan Arnette is undoubtedly right in the quote from the article:

"In my opinion," Arnette told The Post this week, "the recent tragedies will not stop the desire to climb Everest or other high mountains, as most people who climb accept the risks."

Most people who climb Everest do not accept the risk. Instead, they pay large sums of money to Sherpas to accept the risk for them.

[Alan Arnette]

Most people who climb Everest do not accept the risk. Instead, they pay large sums of money to Sherpas to accept the risk for them.

Tell that to the families of the 169 foreigners who have died on Everest, including our base camp doctor,Eve Girawong, in 2015.

To be complete, every death is a tragedy to family, friends and teammates. 282 people (169 westerners and 113 Sherpas) have died on Everest from 1924 to August 2015.

11111961_883206245059670_773104062719465312_n.jpg (49.01 KiB) Viewed 3640 times

[Rollie Free]

Its unfortunate that they had to trot out the climate change thing.

There was an earthquake and it shut off the routes. Govts are trying to discourage climbing...

Just the facts, no need to throw in the agendas. Even if you believe that to be the case, it isn't professional to put it in a story when there is no evidence to support it.

[TK]

Its unfortunate that they had to trot out the climate change thing.

There was an earthquake and it shut off the routes. Govts are trying to discourage climbing...

Just the facts, no need to throw in the agendas. Even if you believe that to be the case, it isn't professional to put it in a story when there is no evidence to support it.

Just to be sure I'm understanding you...

In the last two years, two major avalanches on Everest killed a total of 40 people. One was clearly triggered by an earthquake that caused devastation throughout the region. The other was caused by other factors. The risks of crossing the icefall have increased in recent years. You see a political agenda in an article with scientists and climbers discussing factors that contributed to one of the worst accidents in the mountain's history? How do you look beyond these casualties and the reality that the people interviewed in the article are discussing an accident that killed many of their loved ones? What makes informed discussion of a horrible accident unprofessional? It seems that you are blinded by your own agenda.

If anything every happens to me out there, I will be happy to know that people love me enough to investigate, interpret, and discuss the accident. Hopefully, they will learn something that helps them stay safe on their own trips.

[I Man]

Its unfortunate that they had to trot out the climate change thing.

Did you know that its 2016??? Science doesn't care if you understand it, it has absolutely no affect on whether or not something is true. Thank you for the entertainment though.

[Dave B]

Its unfortunate that they had to trot out the climate change thing.

There was an earthquake and it shut off the routes. Govts are trying to discourage climbing...

Just the facts, no need to throw in the agendas. Even if you believe that to be the case, it isn't professional to put it in a story when there is no evidence to support it.

Damn, I read it twice and then still had to CTRL + F to find the mention of climate change...

BTW, there is a just a little bit evidence to support climate change impacts on himalayan glaciers. Don't confuse your unwillingness to do any research, or your categorical dismissal of empirical evidence that counters your world view, with the information not existing.

For example, a metric f*ck ton of evidence can be found at the link below:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=e ... 6&as_sdtp=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[I Man]

Don't confuse your unwillingness to do any research, or your categorical dismissal of empirical evidence that counters your world view, with the information not existing.

It always cracks me up to see folks bend over backwards to try and argue that facts aren't true, simply because it disagrees with their worldview. Its like they think they are the smartest person in the world in every subject and that is that.

[mountaingoat-G]

..Science doesn't care if you understand it, it has absolutely no affect on whether or not something is true. ....

best quote I have read in a long time...

[peter303]

When google-verifying the article above, I came across the restriction that climbers this year must have summited a 6500m peak.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/s ... d-climbers
I dont know how seriously they are enforcing this. This would rule out anything in North America, Europe or Africa.

[I Man]

When google-verifying the article above, I came across the restriction that climbers this year must have summited a 6500m peak.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/s ... d-climbers
I dont know how seriously they are enforcing this. This would rule out anything in North America, Europe or Africa.

Aconcagua is high enough, but that hardly qualifies someone for Everest. Personally, I think doing Denali would be FAR more beneficial, then Aconcagua. I give them credit for trying, but I don't see how this will make any difference at all, assuming they even enforce it.