What Fresh Hell Is This?

May 8, 2010

Yep. THAT Debunks Climate Science!

True to form, the Tribune-Review's editorial board pounces on anything (ANYTHING!) that it can spin to "debunk" the science that shows that the planet's temperature is rising.

Usually they get it wrong and today is no different:
Another wrinkle has surfaced in the United Nations' climate-change "science," disputing the assertion that rising sea levels will leave 17 percent of Bangladesh treading water by 2050.

The 2007 climate report to the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) fails to account for the role sediment plays in mitigating rising sea levels. In this case, millions of tons of sediment carried along by Himalayan rivers into Bangladesh, reports the Agence France-Presse (AFP) news agency.

That sediment has shaped the coast of Bangladesh for "thousands of years," according to the Center for Environmental and Geographic Information Services in Dhaka.

Even if sea levels rise to the maximum level predicted by the IPCC, the nation's coastline would remain intact, according to the center's findings.
Ok. Let's take a look at that AFP article.
Scientists in Bangladesh posed a fresh challenge to the UN's top climate change panel Thursday, saying its doomsday forecasts for the country in the body's landmark 2007 report were overblown.
And then...
Previous "studies on the effects of climate change in Bangladesh, including those quoted by the IPCC, did not consider the role of sediment in the growth and adjustment process of the country?s coast and rivers to the sea level rise," he told AFP.

Even if sea levels rise a maximum one metre in line with the IPCC's 2007 predictions, the new study indicates most of Bangladesh's coastline will remain intact, said Sarker.

"Based on the findings of the study, it appears that most of Bangladesh's coastline, notably the Meghna estuary, which is one of the largest in the world, would rise at the same pace as the sea level growth," he said.
So this is not about the overall science, just about whether the coastline of Bangladesh would be affected as much as the IPCC panel said it would.

The report itself (and you can see a set of PDF files that accompany it here) does not question climate change at all.

And yet to Scaife's braintrust it represents a "challenge to global-warming theology."

Do they even recognize that they're talking about themselves when they end the editorial with:
In the creed of climate change, facts have little bearing on adherents' faith.
I don't think so, either.

1 comment:

EdHeath said...

Actually I would say that the Trib essay shows that subtle shift, that even conservatives now accept that there is at least something to climate change. Now they are nit picking over details. Actually, if it pans out, the story about Bangladesh is kind of positive. Although the change in climate may affect their ability to feed themselves , which might also be important. Maybe Bangladesh will luck out and see an increase in crop production. But would you want to bet millions of lives on that?