Icing the hype March 14, 2009Posted by honestclimate in Global Cooling.
Tags: climate change, Global Cooling, global warming
Icing the hype
From the Andrew Bolt Blog, March 15, 2009
The ABC accepts – without question – the word of a green alarmist that the world is both heating and drowning:
BARBARA MILLER: Just two years ago the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in a worst case scenario, sea levels could rise by up to 59 centimetres by 2100. New information has now led to that figure being revised significantly upwards to a projected rise of a metre or even 1.2 metres. Dr Will Steffen the executive director of the Climate Change Institute at the Australian National University is at the summit in Copenhagen.
WILL STEFFEN: The 59 centimetres did not take into account the changes of the big polar ice sheets like Greenland and west Antarctica because they couldn’t be modelled very well at that time. We now have better information on how Greenland and west Antarctica, the polar ice sheets are behaving, and they’re leading us to believe that sea level rise will indeed be more than that 59 centimetres.
But here’s what the same conference was also told about Greenland – but which the ABC didn’t report:
The giant Greenland ice sheet may be more resistant to temperature rise than experts realised. The finding gives hope that the worst impacts of global warming, such as the devastating floods depicted in Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth, could yet be avoided.
Jonathan Bamber, an ice sheet expert at the University of Bristol, told the conference that previous studies had misjudged the so-called Greenland tipping point, at which the ice sheet is certain to melt completely… “We found that the threshold is about double what was previously published,” Bamber told the Copenhagen Climate Congress…
And what of the actual observations of this reputedly fast-warming, fast-drowning climate?
And while the ABC subcontracts its reporting of an alarmist conference to alarmist scientists and activists, it virtually ignores another conference of sceptical scientists and other experts running at the very same time.
Is there a reason that so many reporters refuse to tempter their alarmist reports with cool facts based not on predictions but on observations?
(Thanks to reader Stanley.)
When the wildest predictions at the IPCC conference are for sea level rises this century of up to 1.2 metres, will ABC science guru Robyn Williams concede at last that his own claims of sea level rises of up to 100 metres were grossly alamist and hyperbolic, with no basis in science? When will Media Watch pounce on a science journalist that can insist on something so preposterous?