Reference: Study confirms rising sea levels, Bangkok Post, July 27, 2009
After sustained criticism from skeptical scientists the global warmists have revised their forecast for the rise in sea levels by the year 2100 from several meters to 38 cm give or take 20 cm (Study confirms rising sea levels, Bangkok Post, July 27, 2009). In releasing the rather innocuous new figure the warmists had to try extra hard to maintain the scare level saying that the lower figure does not mean we are safe and that things could turn out to be much worse and we should maintain our fear level and stay scared. Their motivation is that a loss in the fear level could put at risk their economically suicidal mitigation programs that they expect to sell in Copenhagen during a time of economic stagnation.
Cha-am Jamal
Thailand
Jamal, my old ostrich,
ReplyDeleteThe "rather innocuous new figure" of a 7-82 cm rise in sea levels, represents a temperature rise of as much as 6.4 degrees, which would be rather 'nocuous'/noxious for the planet.
And the forecast is certainly not new, a similar forecst was made by the IPCC in 2007.
Both these figures are in the article you refer to.
But that's not why I'm writing. I'm keen to know which breed of ostrich you are.
Do you: (A)deny climate change completely and see it as a huge conspiracy made up by nutty scientists and politicians in order to 'scare' us back to the stone age.
Or (B)accept climate change, but deny that it has anything to do with man's activities and therefore maintain there is nothing we can do about it.
Position (B) is one which can be debated, position (A) however is blatantly untenable.
The problem with you denying folk is you seem to mix the two up and end up just denying everything. I've heard you refer to position (B) on occassion and it is the only intelligent position for a denier to take. So why does so much of your writing seem to point towards (A)?
In your desperation to make people believe position (A) you regularly cherry pick scientific data and facts (whether it be an advancing glacier, or a brief period of cooling in one particular ecosystem) and, cheerfully ignoring all the other evidence, make wildly innacurate statements as if they were scientific fact. This, Jamal, is psuedo-science and you're getting pretty good at it.
Great readingg your blog
ReplyDelete