Electric car advantages disappear for the Obama-funded Fisker EV - Consumer Reports can't complete tests of Fisker due to its failing after only 180 miles
(click on image to pleasantly enlarge)
Read here. Good looking car, better looking battery charger - does she do maintenance too?
The electric vehicle initiative from the Obama team has been a colossal example of failed leadership and the incompetence of a Democrat / liberal government. The inept Obama loaned Fisker, a Finnish company, tax-payer multi-millions to build a $100,000 plus vehicle in Finland, not in the U.S.
Obama crony capitalism at its worst
Sooo.....what could go wrong? Well, Consumer Reports discovered the real electric car "advantages" when its test Fisker EV went kaput after only 180 miles. Like all of Obama's green expenditures (billions of dollars over past three years) this was another failure that reveals why governments should not be wasting tax-payer dollars subsidizing Al Gore and wealthy consumers.
p.s. Hey, can I keep the charger if my "Fisker" fails?
What do you know about global warming? In the case of the IPCC, maybe you know a lot more - IPCC finally admits that paving over tropical forests is a major factor in climate change
Read here. Most people, having even an ounce of common sense, would correctly conclude that paving over agricultural lands with asphalt or that destroying forests to plant bio-fuel crops would have a major influence on temperatures. Amazingly, for the past 20 years, the IPCC has claimed that changes in such 'land-use' had little impact.
The IPCC and its closely controlled peer review journals have now admitted that land-use changes do indeed have a major impact on climate change and local/regional and even global temperatures. The IPCC will now include land-use changes as a major forcing in its "climate bible" assessments.
Honestly, is it any wonder the IPCC's climate models have been abysmally bad over the last 20 years at predicting global temperatures when such an obviously idiotic failure is finally admitted to?
"There is an article in the March 15 2012 issue of Nature that finally elevates land use change to its proper level as a first order climate forcing. While the article still does not recognize that land conversion, particularly in the low latitudes but also in the boreal forest regions continues and, therefore, will add further to how humans are altering the climate, it is an important step for the IPCC to finally make. In 1995 I resigned from the IPCC after efforts to get them to mention this issue were rebuffed..."
What do you know about global warming? The IPCC and its impact on tropical deforestation
Because the IPCC failed to correctly recognize, identify and publicly state that land-use changes were a primary driver of climate change and temperatures, wealthy individuals like George Soros and Richard Branson have been provided incentives to trash natural forested habitats, to be replaced with money producing bio-fuel agriculture plots (e.g., palm plantations). Now that the IPCC has belatedly recognized the importance of land-use changes on climate, possibly the world's wealthy elites will no longer be able to invest in major natural habitat changing projects.
Read here. Wikileaks, the organization dedicated to exposing the dark underbelly of big government, has published documents regarding the UN's climate program known as the “Clean Development Mechanism” (CDM). In essence, the program has been an abject failure bordering on flagrant corruption.
"What has leaked just confirms our view that in its present form the CDM is basically a farce,” says Eva Filzmoser, programme director of CDM Watch, a Brussels-based watchdog organization. The revelations imply that millions of tonnes of claimed reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions are mere phantoms, she says, and potentially cast doubt over the principle of carbon trading. “In the face of these comments it is no wonder that the United States has backed away from emission trading,” Filzmoser says."
Obviously, the CDM program had two principal functions, neither of which concerned a better environment. The first was to enhance the investment profitability of wealthy "green" investors; the second being a massive transfer of wealth from the taxpayers of advanced countries to countries incapable of producing their own prosperity without some form of subsidized theft.
The entire climate change endeavor sponsored by the United Nations is essentially a gigantic fraud, propelled by leftists and greens dedicated to no growth, no prosperity policies. The actual quotes from "elites" who support the UN's "green" policies confirms everything that Wikileaks is now discovering.
Read here. Producing the gigantic amounts of biofuel crops planned for the future will require the accelerated growth of dangerous chemicals and pesticides use across even pristine non-agricultural areas. To maximize yield and profit potential for wealthy biofuel investors, such as Al Gore and George Soros, modern industrialized agriculture demands the utilization of these hazardous, very toxic substances.
Peer reviewed research is documenting a future of significant environmental degradation as a direct result of the anti-fossil fuel, pro biofuel campaign - a campaign led by a collaboration of faux-green wealthy individuals and "sustainable" crony capitalists. Essentially, the "greens" will destroy the planet to save it.
"...the two researchers note that industrialized agriculture "is one of the most important drivers of environmental degradation worldwide," reporting that it "has caused large-scale contamination of soil, water and biota, through the extensive use of agro-chemicals, including pesticides and soil amendment products such as fertilizers." And they report that "there is increasing concern that micropollution -- characterized by low-level, multi-compound exposure -- may suffice to elicit critical, potentially hazardous effects on environmental and human health..."the hazards imposed by all 784 pesticides currently registered for use on biofuel crops in Brazil," and in doing so, they say they detected compounds that have been "suspended by international conventions," as well as compounds that are included in databases and lists of priority concern that are "highly toxic in acute exposure, neurotoxic, probable or known carcinogens, known groundwater contaminants, and/or of known reproductive or developmental toxicity,"...suggest that these chemicals will soon be employed "at increased rates, or for the first time, across large expanses of agro-industrially converted pastures and native (i.e., pristine) habitat in the cerrado (tropical savanna) and Amazonian rainforest biomes," which ecosystems will undoubtedly see great pressures exerted on the vast array of indigenous species of plants and animals that reside within them, perhaps driving many of them to extinction..." [Luis Schiesari, Britta Grillitsch 2011: Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment]
Read here. The massive hypocrisy of wealthy and political greens is universally known. Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC's top "climate scientist" is supposedly a man devoted to Gaia, putting Mother Earth first. Unfortunately though, the material-man seems prone to being a proponent of actual environmental destruction, which is the ultimate green hypocrisy.
Is he an international environmental criminal against humanity and Gaia?
"[India's] Environment minister Jairam Ramesh…expressed regret over the construction of the Commonwealth Games Village on the ecologically-sensitive Yamuna bank…”The Games village should not have been given clearance. It stands right on the riverbed,”..."An oversight body, called the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), has been auditing the 2010 Commonwealth Games that were held in Delhi...it is being alleged that the government failed to ensure that “specific environmental concerns” were addressed during the construction of the Games Village near the Yamuna river...Indian environmentalists were opposed to that particular building site. But their initial High Court victory was overturned by the Supreme Court.
According to a news article published last week, the Supreme court apparently allowed the Games Village construction to proceed after it received assurance from a government minister that a committee “would ensure that flagged environmental issues would be addressed.”...Pachauri was a member of said committee. But the auditors now say there’s no evidence it ever met."
"...environmentalists in his own country have…launched their own attacks on a man they claim is harming endangered forests, depleting scarce water reserves and promoting power companies which emit the carbon gases that cause global warming."
Read here. (h/t Tom Nelson) Most 'cool dudes' (aka skeptics) have long held the opinion that 'cap & trade' CO2 emission mechanisms are worthless, with the sole exception being for those wealthy individuals and crony capitalists who stand to hugely enrich themselves (Gore, Soros, GE, Duke Energy, Exelon, etc.). Almost all green groups and climate alarmists sided with the self-interested as the 'cap & trade' legislation was being fought out in Congress. Not any more, though.
Since Federal 'cap & trade' legislation is going nowhere soon, some states, like California, are pursuing their own moronic 'cap & trade' policies. But now the California environmentalists are fighting that state's 'cap & trade' implementation using the same arguments that the skeptics (and one single anti-CO2 fanatic named Hansen) were using during the fight over the Federal legislation.
“The fraudulence of … ‘goals’ for emission reductions, ‘offsets’ that render even iron-clad goals almost meaningless, an ineffectual ‘cap-and-trade’ mechanism must be exposed. We must rebel against such politics-as-usual.” - James Hansen, “Never-Give-Up Fighting Spirit,” November 30, 2009
“The truth is, the climate course set by [the] Waxman-Markey [cap-and-trade bill] is a disaster course. It is an exceedingly inefficient way to get a small reduction of emissions. It is less than worthless….” -James Hansen, “Strategies to Address Global Warming,” July 13, 2009.
Read here. America does not need any more corporate subsidies or earmarks, especially those that are designed to enrich real billionaires or wannabes, whether they be Boone Pickens or George Soros or Al Gore. This country is bankrupt, primarily because both Republican and Democrat politicians keep handing out billions to their friends and favorite lobbyists.
Natural gas is a clean and bountiful energy resource and will become more prevalent in daily use without any subsidies, if the politicans, regulators and the Federal government would just simply get out of the energy business. Instead, we get this crony capitalism that the likes of Obama and Ron Paul embrace and champion, which ends up totally distorting the market and lavishly lining the pockets of their friends, like Boone Pickens or GE.
Ron Paul does not deserve your vote nor your support, Mr/Ms Libertarian. And the below Republicans who also voted for this Pickens's subsidization should be tossed out of office, along with any leftist/liberal/progressive/Democrat who still remains in office. Terminate the careers of the big spenders and big subsidizers once and for all in 2012.
The Republican Co-Sponsors of H. R. 1380, the T. Boone Pickens Earmark Bill:
Read here. Chalk up even more inconvenient environmental disasters from politicians and those wealthy investors (Soros, Gore, Brin, Page and etc.) pursuing greater profits cloaked in the mantle of green. Because Cuisinart wind farms have a voracious appetite for flying creatures, some North American bat species face potential extinction due to an idiotic green power policy and dollars.
New research by Boyles et al. in the Science journal paints a bleak picture for the flying mammal and agriculture:
"At the same time, bats of several migratory tree-dwelling species are being killed in unprecedented numbers at wind turbines across the continent......Because of these combined threats, sudden and simultaneous population declines are being witnessed in assemblages of temperate-zone insectivorous bats on a scale rivaled by few recorded events affecting mammals.....“Populations of at least one species (little brown bat, Myotis lucifugus) have declined so precipitously that regional extirpation and extinction are expected,".....The authors calculated new estimates to the entire United States to gauge how much the disappearance of bats could cost the agricultural industry. “We estimate the value of bats to the agricultural industry is roughly $22.9 billion/year,” they state, with high end estimates as large as $53 billion/year."....“Bats are among the most overlooked, yet economically important, nondomesticated animals in North America, and their conservation is important for the integrity of ecosystems and in the best interest of both national and international economies,”" [Justin G. Boyles, Paul M. Cryan,Gary F. McCracken and Thomas H. Kunz 2011: Science]
In reality though, they favor tax-payer subsidized investments that actually make the world worse in terms of the environment, besides potentially endangering the entire globe.
The latest example of the latter is the lame-brain, geo-engineering idea to make the clouds whiter in hopes of cooling the world "somewhere" at "sometime" for some unknown span of time. We say "hopes" because no one knows for sure the outcome of these "I-want-to-play-god" ego-maniac experiments.
Now comes confirmation from scientists that these cloud experiments are likely to do the opposite of what was originally thought (warming instead of cooling) - definitely the law of unintended consequences is in play when performing in a pretentious god-like manner. If these type of billionaires' experiments go awry, hopefully it would lead to massive global class-action lawsuits that will finally impoverish the dumb ass billionaire class once and for all.
"“Whitening clouds by spraying them with seawater, proposed as a “technical fix” for climate change, could do more harm than good, according to research.’...Whiter clouds reflect more solar energy back into space, cooling the Earth... But a study presented at the European Geosciences Union meeting found that using water droplets of the wrong size would lead to warming, not cooling.”.....This article further underscores how little we know about the climate system. To deliberately alter the system by geoengineering is, therefore, quite a risky approach. The reason it is even being considered is that there remains the assumption that added CO2 is the dominate climate forcing that can “disrupt” the climate system from its current equilibrium....Such a static view of the climate is not supported by observations yet this simplistic view persists as illustrated by the 2007 IPCC..."
Read here. Who can forget Googlegate, (likely prompted by Google board member, Al Gore) during the Climategate e-mail scandal of pro-AGW scientists? Now, Google the business has decided to take sides on the science debate of global warming and Al Gore is still a Google board member - coincidence?
In an open letter to Google by Willis Eschenbach, Al Gore's billionaire Google friends are shredded by Willis regarding their partisan hack attempt to sway public opinion. As Willis succinctly points out, this is extreme Googlian stupidity.
"Recently, you have decided to take sides in a scientific debate. That in itself is very foolish. Why would Google want to take either side when there is a disagreement between scientists? I thought your motto was “Do No Evil.” For the 900-pound gorilla to take sides in any tempestuous politically charged scientific discussion is an extremely stupid thing to do.....So what did you guys do? You’re now providing money to 21 supporters of the CO2 hypothesis, funding them as “Google Fellows” to go and flog their scientific claims in the marketplace of ideas. Is this the new face of Google, advocating for a partisan idea?.....Supporting either side in the debate involves Google in a high-stakes, multi-billion dollar, long-festering, dog-ugly political/scientific battle, with passions running high on both sides, accusations thrown, reputations attacked … and putting your head in this buzz-saw, jumping into this decades-old scientific Balkan war, this is a good idea for Google exactly how?...Truly, are you off your collective meds or something?"
The fact that Google has decided to piss off some 50% of the American populace is a true revelation of how lame the pathetic UN/IPCC AGW science actually is.
Read here and here. Nuclear engineers actually resigned from General Electric some 35 years ago regarding the Japanese nuclear plant designs. Apparently GE did not take these concerns seriously, and now it's literally blowing up in the faces of current GE executives who think polluting the world's environment with mercury-laden is an exceptional, "imagination" idea. Karma, anyone?
Is it time to short Obama's GE? Will Obama and Democrats finally turn on GE, despite its largesse towards left/liberal/Democrat causes? Will GE still be the poster child of Democrat corrupt crony-capiltalism a year from now?
Read here. Food prices jump to record levels in February despite February wheat and rice prices being essentially flat. Yet, February corn prices are up significantly even with 2010 being the 3rd largest U.S. corn crop ever. Why? Because of the Obama and Democrats' policies to buy off favored, political contribution fat-cats, our cars now have a mandated, growing and voracious appetite for corn ethanol - wheat and rice, not so much.
"The increase in February mostly reflected further gains in international maize prices, driven by strong demand amid tightening supplies, while prices rose marginally in the case of wheat and fell slightly in the case of rice."
"In other words, this is mainly about corn. And who’s the biggest corn exporter in the world? The United States...And where is 40% of US corn production going this year? Ethanol, for use in US car engines."
The Obama administration policy of purposefully enriching the Big Corn-agribusiness interests with huge ethanol subsidies and a favored regulatory environment, at the expense and harm to global food consumers and U.S. taxpayers, is business as usual for the favored crony capitalism of the "messiah."
Read here. As has been written before, using crops to feed cars instead of mouths is an unmitigated disaster for multiple reasons. The only explanation that the biofuels industry survives is the Obama Democrats need to enrich its billionaire supporters and its big business friends in the agriculture sector.
Study after study has documented the complete waste that the biofuels effort represents, with the latest by Bryan et al., again providing the proof that only taxpayer funded subsidies keep this unconscionable renewable energy effort afloat.
"...as they [researchers] describe it, "assessed the potential benefits, costs, and trade-offs associated with biofuels agriculture to inform bioenergy policy.".....The three Australian researchers report finding that "biofuels agriculture was more profitable over an extensive area of the most productive arable land," producing "large quantities of biofuels" that "substantially increased economic profit." But they add that the end result was "only a modest net GHG [greenhouse gas] abatement" that had "a negligible effect on net energy production." In addition, they indicate that the economic profit was largely due to "farm subsidies for GHG mitigation," and that whatever benefits were accrued came "at the cost of substantially reduced food and fiber production."....."if biofuels are to be embraced," as Bryan et al. comment in concluding their assessment of the issue, "additional policy design features and institutions are required to support farm subsidies."" [Brett A. Bryan, Darran King, Enli Wang 2010: Global Change Biology Bioenergy]
Read here and here. The infamous, never-before-seen, IPCC climate model prediction of scary, positive AGW-feedback has now been vanquished by scientific empirical research. NASA's researchers have just pushed the button of detonation, which will likely hasten the collapse of the IPCC's version of "climate science" upon itself.
Simply stated, the IPCC's Climategate scientists and computer models conjured up the scary prediction of a 3 to 5 degree Celsius temperature increase from a doubling of CO2, along with requisite, speculative, calamitous events of biblical destruction proportions. But now the latest research finds that CO2 doubling causes an increase of only 1.64 degrees, which is within the range of outcomes that skeptical scientists have been saying for decades.
Per physicist Luboš Motl, the NASA researchers, Bounoua et al., concluded the following:
"The article in Geophysical Research Letters combines their climate model with the feedbacks linked to vegetation, especially evapotranspiration - the sum of plant transpiration and evaporation from leaves...What is their result?...The resulting climate sensitivity attributed to the CO2 doubling from 390 ppm today to 780 ppm expected in 200 years from now (under business-as-usual) is just 1.64 °C - less than a Celsius degree per century or so. This figure is below 2 °C, the low end of the interval guessed by the IPCC." [Note: study's authors - L. Bounoua, F. G. Hall, P. J. Sellers, A. Kumar, C. J. Tucker, M. L. Imhoff (2010)]
From another publication comes this:
"A group of top NASA boffins says that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise...According to Lahouari Bounoua of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and other scientists from NASA and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), existing models fail to accurately include the effects of rising CO2 levels on green plants. As green plants breathe in CO2 in the process of photosynthesis – they also release oxygen, the only reason that there is any in the air for us to breathe – more carbon dioxide has important effects on them...In particular, green plants can be expected to grow as they find it easier to harvest carbon from the air around them using energy from the sun: thus introducing a negative feedback into the warming/carbon process. Most current climate models don't account for this at all, according to Bounoua. Some do, but they fail to accurately simulate the effects – they don't allow for the fact that plants in a high-CO2 atmosphere will "down-regulate" and so use water more efficiently."
Based on this newest research, we now know the following:
The climate models are definitely, and spectacularly, wrong.
The IPCC (and the UN's Cancun conference) is wrong.
Al Gore and all other leftist/liberal/progressive hack politicians are wrong.
Hollywood celebrities and MSM reporters are wrong (okay....nothing new here).
Self-righteous, self-misinformed, lame "science" writers are wrong. (Dudes, climate models are not science; they're fancy spreadsheets projecting non-empirical, non-proven output about as scientific as a Ouija board or a crystal ball output.)
The super CO2-spewing lifestyles of the billionaires makes many of them very vulnerable to the mega-rich guilt syndrome, leading to the support of left-activist oriented issues. A classic example of this phenomenon is the left dominated global warming fear-mongering.
Because of the guilt-complex, billionaires often will become the useful idiots of the anti-CO2 left. Thus, billionaires, such as Bill Gates, will condone and engage in the mindless CO2 fear-mongering promulgated by leftists, yet are completely reluctant to sacrifice his/her outlandish, personal $30,000 per month CO2 electric bill. Instead, the billionaires propose the rest of humanity should sacrifice by reducing their electric bill (CO2) to zero. (See below for the latest peer-reviewed article about climate-model-idiocy.)
Okay, the facts are still real world facts, despite the zombie billionaire dreamworld - reducing industrial and transportation CO2 emissions to zero by 2050 is totally impossible. And unless the billionaires are recommending that all fire combustion and human breathing be banned, the zero-CO2 idea is simply galactic stupidity on the scale of the stupidity that is exhibited by,....well....er....a 66,000 square foot house for a few family members, just for example.
How did Bill Gates and other Cancún-loving billionaires become so galactically stupid about global warming and CO2?
Simple. They've been infected by the computer virus contagion known as "virtual climate models" that only makes a stealthy jump from the Window's operating system (XP, W7, etc.) to very rich humans. It's been speculated that this stupidity-inducing virus was created by the combined effort of Indian/Chinese government hackers, in hopes of assuring massively idiotic economic and energy decisions being self-imposed on Western economies. [Caution: Attempting to remove this virus causes a human variety of the BSOD syndrome in those mega-CO2 emitting individuals already afflicted with megalomania and severe guilt complex. Removal failure is confirmed by continuous re-boot to the stupidity-state when confronted with real climate evidence and science.]
Soooo, back to the real world and no more Microsoft bashing in this post - what's the latest peer-reviewed science really say about climate models? In summary, one has to be really, really billionaire-stupid to believe any climate model's predictions:
"1. "the physics of unresolved phenomena such as clouds and other turbulent elements is not understood to the extent needed for incorporation into models," so that...
2. models are presently merely "experimental tools whose relation to the real world is questionable," that...
3. "current models depend heavily on undemonstrated positive feedback factors to predict high levels of warming," that...
4. "there is compelling evidence for all the known feedback factors to actually be negative," that...
5. "even supercomputers are inadequate to allow long-term integrations of the relevant equations at adequate spatial resolutions," that...
6. "current models all predict that warmer climates will be accompanied by increasing humidity at all levels" but that "such behavior is an artifact of the models since they have neither the physics nor the numerical accuracy to deal with water vapor," and that...
7. "the models' predictions for the past century incorrectly describe the pattern of warming and greatly overestimate its magnitude." In this regard, Lindzen further states that a doubling of the air's present CO2 content might lead to a warming of only "0.5 to 1.2 degrees centigrade," [Lindzen, Richard 2010]
The big scare that the greenie alarmist movement, Hollywood and the MSM is always shouting about is the scare of accelerating and huge sea level increases. They speak of 3-foot increases by 2050, or 10, 20 and 80 foot increases by 2100.
Where did all these incredible sea increase predictions come from?
It turns out that all these frightening predictions share a couple things in common: one, they are based entirely on fantasy, with no scientific or empirical basis; and two, they have been fabricated by a minority of individuals seeking the limelight, which the MSM has gladly provided for them without a shred of fact-checking.
How do the over-the-top sea level increase predictions really compare to reality, though? Not well as the below chart reveals. (click on image to enlarge)
The blue bars of the chart represent both historical estimates of sea level increases and actual tide gauge and satellite measurements from recent periods. Scientists know there was a gigantic ice-sheet and glacier melt over thousands of years that raised the sea levels some 120 to 130 meters (390 to 425 feet). When averaged out over thousands of years, the sea level increase is estimated to have been about 5.0 to 7.5mm per year - with some years achieving an approximate 40mm increase.
How do more recent and current sea level increases compare to the historical record? First, it is widely recognized by all scientists that sea levels did not increase much over the 1,000 years prior to the mid-19th century. Around 1850, measurements reveal that sea levels started to increase, and interestingly, glaciers started to melt and recede, globally. Amazingly, this was decades before the modern influx of human CO2 emissions, yet it was just at the same time when natural global warming followed the frigid and freezing natural global cooling of the Little Ice Age. (For global warming alarmists, Hollywood and the MSM, this is just an "amazing" coincidence and certainly these natural cool/warm cycles could have nothing to do with modern sea levels increasing or glaciers melting.)
Regarding those current sea level measurements? Well, the remaining blue bars (starting with #6) from peer-reviewed, empirical evidence studies show increases for different time periods that range from less than 1mm/year to 3.1mm/year, with the single year of 1980 recording a 5.3mm increase. In summary, all of these studies are based in reality and one can extrapolate (predict) from the empirical evidence that sea levels are increasing at about a one-foot per century rate, which even the IPCC concurs with. A one-foot increase by 2100 is entirely manageable and entirely non-scary.
Climate alarmist scientists needing government funding for their global warming catastrophe research do not like this inconvenient empirical evidence; and, for that matter, nor does the MSM since it relies on doom and gloom stories for increased readership and viewers.
Unfortunately, for those that embrace and promote global warming fears and climate change ("disruption") catastrophes, the most current sea level evidence is especially disheartening. Indeed, the last several years of tide gauge/GPS/satellite measurements have recorded global sea level increases that are trending to zero (see bar #'s 18 and 19).
How do the predictions of scientists or climate models compare to reality based on current evidence? Some predictions are in the realm of reality and they are represented by the gold bars - reasonable, with most being higher than what recent measurement studies indicate.
The predictions with orange bars represent those that are starting to escape the world of reality, though. Typically, these are "worst" case scenarios with a very low likelihood of occurrence due to their extreme assumptions.The vast majority of scientists would not agree to climate model predictions that excessively exceed both historical estimates and current measurement studies of sea level increases.
Then there are the red-bar predictions from a distinct minority of alarmists and scientists that get all the attention of the MSM press and Hollywood. These "red-bar" predictions literally are fantasy designed exclusively to gain the attention of the feeble-minded, unable to critically think. Ultimately, these predictions can't even be considered science fiction since they are not based on a scintilla of scientific evidence.
Not surprisingly, the red-bar predictions raise some very important contradictions that global warming alarmists would prefer not to reveal (besides not comporting to recent evidence), including:
1. They claim that the predictions are based on ancient evidence over the last 20,000 years that the world was significantly warmer, which caused large sea level increases. Note, they are stating categorically that modern temperatures are not "unprecedented" and the world will return to those significantly warmer past temperatures in the near future (which is not actually looking so "hot" based on the actual evidence.)
2. The ancient warmer world happened when CO2 atmospheric levels were well below the modern, industrial levels - there were no human CO2 emissions that caused the world to warm and the ice to melt.
3. When the ancient world warmed, ice sheets and low elevation glaciers were spread all across the northern hemisphere, well into the non-polar areas. Those no longer exist, which means there is not enough ice to melt in the non-polar regions that will deliver sea level increases that would rival ancient increases.
4. The vast majority of today's ice sheets and glaciers are located in areas of extreme cold temperatures (high latitudes and/or high elevations) that minimize the potential of melting. For example, at the Greenland ice sheet Summit, current annual temperatures are -31.0°C, and for the Vostok-Antarctica station on the polar ice sheet the respective temperature is a -55.0°C. Both of these extremely cold areas hypothetically could suffer a 20° increase in temperatures and nothing is going to melt - and by the way, no sane scientist even hypothesizes a 20°C increase in these polar areas.
5. Recentstudies of ice mass loss at both Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets show that the wild-ass, speculative predictions of climate alarmist scientists and their climate/ice sheet models are galactically over-estimating the losses.
To summarize Mr/Ms new Republican elected-official, the scary sea level predictions are pure fantasy, derived not from empirical, scientific evidence, but from the incessant, non-factual speculations of a minority of individuals seeking fame, power, control and fortune. These predictions are designed to pressure you to vote for more climate research funding, and also to vote for the increased taxation of consumers and small businesses to assure the subsidization of green-energy investments by wealthy investors and large corporations - it's as simple as that.