February 7, 2007

NO HYSTERIA, NO GRANT MONEY:

Cacophony Over The Climate (BJORN LOMBORG, February 7, 2007, NY Sun)

The report did, however, contain two surprising facts. Both went unmentioned in most reports. First, the world's scientists have re-jigged their estimates about how much sea levels will rise. In the 1980s, America's Environmental Protection Agency expected oceans to rise by several meters by 2100. By the 1990s, the IPCC was expecting a 67-centimeter rise. Six years ago, it anticipated ocean levels would be 48.5 centimeters higher than they are currently. In this year's report, the estimated rise is 38.5 centimeters on average.

This is especially interesting since it fundamentally rejects one of the most harrowing scenes from Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth." In graphic detail, Mr. Gore demonstrated how a 20-foot rise in the sea level would inundate much of Florida, Shanghai, and Holland. The IPCC report makes it clear that exaggerations of this magnitude have no basis in science -- though clearly they frightened people and perhaps will win Mr. Gore an Academy Award.

The report also revealed the improbability of another Gore scenario: that global warming could make the Gulf Stream shut down, turning Europe into a new Siberia. The IPCC simply and tersely tells us that this scenario -- also vividly depicted in the Hollywood movie "The Day After Tomorrow" -- is considered "very unlikely." Moreover, even if the Gulf Stream were to weaken over the century, this would be good, as there would be less net warming over land areas.

So why have we been left with a very different impression of the climate panel's report? The IPCC is by statute "politically neutral" -- it is supposed to tell us just the facts and leave the rest to politicians and the people who elect them. This is why the report is a careful and sensible document.

But scientists and journalists -- acting as intermediaries between the report and the public -- have engaged in greenhouse activism.


What else would we expect from activists?

Posted by Orrin Judd at February 7, 2007 11:57 AM
Comments

Here's The Guardian's response:

The best part:
"They note, among other things, that the IPCC's "maximum prediction [for rises in sea levels by 2099] is 17 inches", which simply isn't true. (National Review's number doesn't include future changes in ice flow, which could raise sea levels an additional eight inches or more, according to the IPCC.)"

So, 17 + 8 = 25, right? They're predicting the oceans will rise by TWO feet!? Whatever happened to 250 meters?

Posted by: Bryan at February 7, 2007 4:25 PM
« BUT WAIT...: | Main | YOU'VE GOT TO EAT A LOT OF RUBBER CHICKEN TO LEARN TO BE A GREAT LEADER: »