On Jun 20, 11:28 am, William M Connolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The idea that it supports his predictions of less than century-timescale rapid
> sea level rise.
He has been arguing for the possibility of rapid sea level rise in his
earlier papers -- I'm not able to qualify the evidence, though. But
given this, and his recent writings about the unwillingness of
scientists to communicate outcomes of AGW in emotive terms, there is
not much surprise here.
'Imminent peril' is not often seen in scientific publications, but on
the other hand it is not a precise term and does not therefore exactly
claim anything unsupportable. In the absence of quantitative
predictions, it is just coloring. I find it personally quite
entertaining, and a bit worrying of course.
--
Janne
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
