An article by Seth Borenstein predicts a disastrous six-foot rise in the oceans over the next several hundred years… and the AP just prints it without asking questions… or doing any research.

From a Monday report:

No matter how much the world cuts back on carbon emissions, a key and sizable chunk of Antarctica is essentially doomed to an ‘unavoidable’ melt, a new study found.

Though the full melt will take hundreds of years, slowly adding nearly 6 feet (1.8 meters) to sea levels, it will be enough to reshape where and how people live in the future, the study’s lead author said.

The predictions of doom and gloom are based on computer models, a fact to which Borenstein even admits when he explains that the researchers “used computer simulations to calculate future melting….”

Isn’t AP concerned that previous dire predictions based on computer models have been wrong? Shouldn’t they exercise extreme caution, given the precedent, and ask the scientists why they keep using a failed model? Shouldn’t these “investigative journalists” ask why the government should base policies on easily manipulated computer software that can be programmed to get the desired results? After all, garbage in equals garbage out.

Here are a few other questions a journalist should ask:

How much have the oceans risen over the last 160 years, while CO2 content has risen from 280 ppm to 420 ppm, or almost 50%? Let me help them out: between 8 and 9 inches.

So what is the average depth of oceans in the world? (The answer is over 12,000 feet.) Seems like to me, it would be impossible to measure all oceans within one or nine inches, whether it’s over one year or over 140 years. Do they make sure all variables are equal when they take measurements each year? It is as impossible to get an average ocean depth as it is to get an average global temperature when 70% of the Earth is covered by water.

Even if they could measure the oceans accurately, how could they possibly attribute the tiny rise to CO2 or anything else when there are so many natural variables?

Let’s look at the new dire prediction from Borenstein: a “sizable chunk of Antarctica” melting to cause a six foot rise over hundreds of years is a whopping five hundredths of one percent of the average ocean depth.

Wouldn’t people and animals be able to adapt to such a gradual and small rise? Why would you destroy industries that have greatly improved our quality and length of life based on easily manipulated computer models, especially when the rise is so small and gradual, and isn’t even set to occur for hundreds of years?

How did these scientists determine what the perfect ocean depth would be?

Here are a couple more questions for these “experts” from a non-scientist.

If the earth warms as predicted, wouldn’t a significant amount of water evaporate, offsetting the ice melt?

Don’t waves pounding sea shores every day cause erosion, reducing the sand and making the ocean appear deeper when it hasn’t actually risen at all?

I don't recall previous computer programs predicting that Antarctica would have the coldest six months on record in 2021. I bet they didn’t calculate future cold periods into their dire predictions. As CNN reported, between April and September of 2021, Antarctica saw the coldest temperatures ever recorded for those months.

We have a president that frequently can’t find his way off stage and looks like a deer in the headlights when he is reading off a teleprompter; yet when he signs executive orders to destroy the energy industries, which greatly help Russia and Iran while harming Americans, and when he and the Democrats allocate trillions for a green slush fund called the “Inflation Reduction Act,” most of the media cheers and tells America what a great and successful president we have. Aren’t we fortunate?

Wouldn’t it be fun and valuable for some enterprising reporter to ask Biden, Harris, KJP, Kirby, Kerry, or any other green pusher to provide the scientific data that shows the relationship between our use of natural resources and driving gas powered cars and temperatures? (Make sure and ask for actual data and not let them use computer models to justify their policies.)

It has been obvious for a long time that this is a massive fraud to transfer massive amounts of money to the government and green pushers. Most scientists go along because if they don’t, there goes their funding.

Here’s a (probably) true stat for you: 99% of climate scientists agree, they don’t want their funding removed.

Image: Free image, Pixabay license, no attribution required.