Reason, Liberty, & Culture

Skepticism is good.

150 Million Won't Drown by 2100

by Lewis Loflin

Here we go again. Another computer model hypothesis fails or had to be altered. This has gone on for the last 50 years. After decades of Chicken Little hysterics and cries of wolf every few months is why I no longer believe any of this.

Their computer model prophecy has been as accurate as the claim of Jesus' return any day. Repent! The end is near! 150 million people will drown by 2100!

Well, not really.

A "study" at a recent scientific conference has taken the latest scary hypothesis off the table. In 2017 or so Robert DeConto and David Pollard played their latest climate computer game. It terrified the climate gaming community.

Sea level was rising by 3 feet by 2100 they claimed! Two glaciers in Western Antarctica were going into meltdown. Now the gamers have revised the game back to 12 inches or so by 2100.

Yet sea level normally rises by about 7 inches per century since the end of the last ice age 11,700 years ago. A 2-3 deg. Celsius (about 5 deg. Fahrenheit) temperature rise since the industrial revolution began will usher in catastrophe they claim.

No it won't

Hundreds of researchers debated this issue. The article dribbles on about marine ice sheets instability. More computer gaming hypothesis doom and gloom.

The new changes they claim still doesn't change the gaming hypothesis of 26 feet of sea rise by 2300. Why doesn't it? They have no proof. They do not know.

Worse they have no proof humans can even control the climate if we tried. I don't want to hear about centuries into the future. They failed with the previous 50 years.

They demand we return to temperatures prior to the industrial revolution. They fail to mention that was the Little Ice Age. I'm sure they don't know that either.

It's the same old runaway tipping-point hysterics. Repent from CO2! While this might happen (or an asteroid strike or Yellowstone eruption) decades of fear-mongering and political activism poisoning science has ruined their credibility.

The entire article was an attempt to save the latest failed computer climate game modeling. Every few years they redo the models. Sorry after 50 years of this since I was a teenager I will not be building an Ark.

I believe in science. I do not believe political activists with a science degree using science for personal gain. These people should not be trusted. They don't know.

Better yet let's cut funding for this phony climate research and use the funding to develop new nuclear reactor designs. That would really cut emissions of that scary old carbon dioxide.

Advancing technology would do far more good for the environment than wealth redistribution. That is the real goal of the U.N. and its followers.

Ref. The Atlantic 1-4-2019 "Terrifying Sea Level Prediction Now Looks Far Less Likely"