The Antarctic ice: The other side
A not-so-funny thing happened on the way to much of the breathless reporting that “global warming” is destabilizing parts of the Antarctic ice sheet and, as The New York Times put it in a front-page story on Tuesday, could lead to “a rise in sea level of 10 feet or more ... in coming centuries.” It seems that much of the reportage has been quite selective.
The West Antarctic ice sheet has begun falling apart, two papers published in the journals Science and Geophysical Research Letters conclude. And many of the usual players in the “climate change” game are sounding the alarms of gloom, doom and holy moley pumpkin pie, we're all going to die.
But curiously not mentioned in The Times' report — and woefully too few other reports — is this salient fact:
East Antarctic sea ice coverage reached a record 3.5 million square miles in April, reports the National Snow and Ice Data Center. And the center says ice formation thus far in May continues at a record pace. The development has caught more than a few climate scientists by surprise — which is what happens when data that contradict the theology of global warming are ignored. You might recall, as The Daily Caller does, that December expedition to document the loss of ice getting trapped in record levels of ice.
Oh, and unlike The Times, which ignored the East Antarctic development, The Caller includes details of the West Antarctic ice story. Indeed, there are two sides to the climate story. And telling both sides goes a long way in debunking the hardly “settled science” of man-made “climate change.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- U.N. Watch: Climate games
- Benchmarking questions: Fueling perversion
- Jesse White’s chutzpah
- The Box
- Radar searches: Get a warrant
- Public pension ‘ka-boom’
- Undercover Peduto: A promise broken
- Saturday essay: The thumb itches
- Snow shovelers needed: A call for volunteers
- Shenango shakedown: Public money at risk
- Piercing the media’s shield: Muzzles & slopes