What The Economist Didn’t Tell You about Greenland’s Ice

Cato Institute's Patrick Michaels has written (LINK):
At the contentious interface of climate science and policy, there’s one thing that people of all flavors agree upon: if Greenland were to shed all its ice in a century that would be an unmitigated catastrophe, raising sea levels an average of 22 feet simply from the sheer volume of water contained thereon.
We know that sea ice melting does not raise sea level (SLR). Patrick goes on to notate two alarmist articles (here and here). 
“The most worrying changes are happening in Greenland, which lost an average of 375bn tonnes of ice per year between 2011 and 2014.”
Patrick calls the alarmists out on cherry-picking. (Gee, again - Ed)

Patrick continues:
2012 was an exceedingly warm year averaged over the island-continent. Had they included all the recent data, they would have shown that the surface mass balance budget of ice on Greenland recently reached a record high compared to the previous three decade. This is simply the accumulation of ice and snow minus losses from melting and and sublimation (the direct evaporation of snow), and you can see how unusual 2012 was in the figure below. 
Source:  Danish Meteorological Institute

The IPCC projects that melting of Greenland’s ice will raise sea level a bit under one-tenth of a meter, or three inches by 2100. (<10cm br="">
Pat Michaels concludes:
Most Economist readers aren’t aware of the true nature of the literature on Greenland’s ice and don’t have a friendly climatologist to supply them the important links The Economist didn’t. No wonder so many are worried.