For years, climate reports have relentlessly painted a bleak picture: the ice caps are melting, the oceans are rising, and humanity is on the brink of catastrophic flooding.
The motivation for the recently published opinion by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was justified, among other things, by the dangers to islands and coastal areas. ” Rising temperatures are leading to the melting of ice sheets and glaciers, resulting in a rise in sea levels and threatening coastal communities with unprecedented flooding.” These unprecedented floods, by the way, have been predicted for 40 or more years, each five years in a row. But let’s look at the scientific evidence on this. Personally, I’m going to Venice to see if the islands there have finally sunk under water since their founding in 421.
We have heard it again and again from politicians, activists and the media who want to dramatize every rise in global temperatures as an unprecedented catastrophe.
We know that the Holocene Temperature Maximum, during the ongoing interglacial period, was warmer in Greenland than today, at about 4–8.5°C. Amazingly, despite this warmth, global sea level was lower than today. How is this possible if models predicting catastrophic sea level rise are correct? If the Greenland ice cap survived such warming without flooding the coasts, how does this fit with claims that the current moderate warming will do so?
Hellbound and Down 