## Thursday, July 31, 2008 ... /////

### Bangladesh gained 1000 squared km recently

Many climate alarmists, especially James Hansen, have been predicting a complete inundation of Bangladesh in this century. It has been one of the key examples how the "nasty" carbon-emitting rich nations are destroying the "nice" and poor ones. See, for example, page 11 of this paper by Hansen and thousands of web pages.

What is happening in reality?

As AFP, BBC, and others report, satellite images combined with old maps have revealed that the country has gained 1,000 squared kilometers since 1973 (more than 1 percent of the Czech Republic) and it seems to be continuing gaining landmass, roughly 20 squared kilometers per year.

Well, what was the mistake of the "scientists" who are predicting something completely different? Well, just as in many other cases, they have only counted contributions of one sign (negative sign) but they have completely omitted the contributions of the opposite sign (positive sign) that turn out to be completely crucial for the landmass budget, especially sedimentation and dams. New dams can reclaim up to 5,000 additional squared km in the near future, including new islands.

It seems that folks like Mr Hansen are the most influential pseudoscientific bigots and cranks that our civilization has seen at least since the 15th century, certainly when you measure their influence by the GDP fraction that they are able to destroy.

Yesterday I responded to Andrew Revkin's claims that similar new scientific findings "don't matter" for the "big picture" in the climate debate. Really? If one needs roughly 1 day to see that 10% of the "scary" predictions about the world are the opposite of the truth, how many days would you expect the life expectancy of this "science" to be?

Flash: Farm animals in Peru are threatened by an unexpected cold spell. Meanwhile, Al Gore places infant son in rocket to escape dying planet and reach a new home where the sky is clear and there are no Republicans.

Some biologists finally noticed that different climate models produce different results i.e. different answers to some biology-related questions that actually matter. Their proposed cure is to waste even more money for this pseudoscience.