Cryolisters, just to be clear, it's the 15% ice loss figure that is the problem with the story. All the rest, the emerging island, the Aral Sea drying up, and probably all sorts of other good stuff can be totally right. But just like IPCCs '2035' (one key, massively wrong paragraph), a number like 15% ice loss used for advertising the book is simply a killer mistake that cannot be winked away. Worse for science, this is not a science error, but it can be perceived as a science error once it is corrected, unless scientists make clear that this is errant and not of science origin, right from the outset.
You're subscribed to the CRYOLIST mailing list
To change your subscription options, visit http://cryolist.org/ To send a message to the list, email [hidden email]