Dumbest Global Warming Study Ever Wins Raves From New York Times

The Paris climate conference is only about six weeks away, and evil Republican "climate deniers" are looking to slash federal funding of what passes nowadays for climate science. So what’s an agency like NASA to do?

Call in the New York Times for a junk science-fueled airstrike.

Greenland Is Melting Away” is certainly, as Times columnist Nick Kristof tweeted, “a visually amazing piece,” featuring impressive aerial and satellite imagery of the Greenland ice sheet. The underlying story, on the other hand, is much less amazing.

The article spotlights the efforts of a group of researchers who are collecting data on summertime melt of a river in Greenland. Readers are told:

[The] scientific data could yield groundbreaking information on the rate at which the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, one of the biggest and fastest-melting chunks of ice on Earth, will drive up sea levels in the coming decades.

This, the Times worries, could raise sea levels by ... 20 feet.

Stunning visuals and melodrama aside, what’s really melting faster than a river during summertime is the Times’ credibility. The notion that these “researchers” are doing anything close to collecting data that could predict future melting of Greenland’s ice sheet is absurd.

These researchers are taking measurements at a single river. One.

They claim they can then somehow extrapolate this data into a prediction of the fate of the entire ice sheet. But thousands and thousands of these summertime rivers appear on the Greenland ice sheet, which is 660,000 square miles in size.

Four times the size of California.

Data from one section of one 60-foot wide river is going to tell us precisely zero about anything related to the ice sheet’s future.

"We scientists love to sit at our computers and use climate models to make those predictions,” one of the researchers told the Times, but it was time to get out there and collect some actual data on the ground. Somehow, they progressed from that noble idea to this Quixotic effort -- a three-year study costing taxpayers $778,000 -- to measure one river among thousands and to somehow derive accuracy from that.

Of course, that earnest researcher hasn't though this through. This pointless experiment would nonetheless require them to ... sit at computers and use climate models.