Two weeks ago, WMUR wanted everyone to know how awful it would be for the New Hampshire Seacoast if arctic ice melted and the seas rose. Don’t tell the burning hot housing market for these “projected” to be “underwater” properties because Realtors and buyers are not listening.
The insurance companies aren’t listening to the climate cult either, or they’d stop writing policies on those “doomed” over-priced properties which suggests they know a thing or two because they’ve ignored a thing or two.
Like a “prominent” news piece published in Nature in late August that prompted a weeks-long super-bomb-cyclone of hyperbolic headlines about sea level rise. Another what-if projection by computer models that couldn’t predict what will happen to the bread in the toaster.
Related: Organization Estimates $1.03 Billion Needed to Protect NH from Sea Level Rise.
The timing was lousy too.
The same week as the model-driven study was published, data from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) and Denmark’s Polar Portal undermined the claims of accelerating ice loss and provided factual support for Watts’ analysis.
On August 29, Greenland posted a gain of seven billion tons of ice. This represented the largest single-day ice gain the DMI has recorded since it began keeping consistent records in 1981, more than 40 years ago. This gain was remarkable not only for the amount of ice but because it came in the waning days of the Arctic summer, when ice is usually still melting.
Not unlike the accidental surprise death of a self-proclaimed psychic, you have to wonder why they didn’t see that coming. All that money, technology, and “research,” and the same week they publish doom and gloom about melting ice, Greenland adds seven billion tons of the stuff. Something that, if we follow their logic, hints at a doomsday delay.
No, not necessarily, but a sensible review of this without political bias tells us that CO2 has no connection to how much or how little ice is amassed on Greenland or anywhere else.
There’s also no connection between emissions and warming, but they can’t let it go, which is why they can’t get anything right. Until they abandon political science for actual climate science, they can only predict grant funding and government spending, both of which look like hockey sticks feeding research whose sole purpose is the sustainability of the funding model.
HT | WUWT
