Wrong the Antarctic ice sheet in danger is partially submerged... ie it is resting on land under the sea water level.  So it won't add much to sea level rise even if it did melt... but it won't.  The Antarctic will in general gain more ice and snow. The sea level will not rise by very much, IMO.

>>Translating that into years, Hansen says we have maybe a decade to get the climate problem under control. >>

Hansen is a greenhouse gas advocate.  Curious because NASA has incidentally reported upon the marine oil peril, but doesn't seem to have recognised the significance. Curious and curiouser, said Alice.

But, yes the first decade of possible effective mitigation has resulted in no-action action.

Another decade will see civilisation in its death throes.

I understand the reluctance to act....

What would you do ? So why worry ?

He also rejects the idea that scientists should pose as completely objective fact machines that refrain from offering opinions that aren't purely scientific in nature

Oh, yes, let's not be those scientists who deal with "facts", no, let's go and win some Oscars and have a lot of conferences despite the facts.

I mean, facts get in the way of him getting on television and scaring people.   If they knew the facts, they'd see that Global Warming is (a) beneficial to most people and (b) completely and utterly naturogenic.

Yes, let's be those kind of scientists that swill cappucinos at conferences in Geneva where we discuss "policies" rather than writing papers, formulating hypothesis and testing them in the lab (like Henrik Svensmark, a real scientist).

Science has always been value-driven and value-laden. Just because various aspects of the scientific method are means of approaching amore objective view of things doesn't mean that scientists aren't embedded in moral matrices that direct what they do.

You also clearly have no idea how the media industry works.

Whiskerfish

Yours expectantly

Whiskerfish