Global Warming, real or fallacy? Science vs pseudo science

Arts & Sciences Science & Nature
21

[quote]Then we went to the Maldives. I traced a
drop in sea level in the 1970s, and the fishermen told me, “Yes,
you are correct, because we remember”—things in their sailing
routes have changed, things in their harbor have changed.
I worked in the lagoon, I drilled in the sea, I drilled in lakes, I
looked at the shore morphology—so many different environments.
Always the same thing: In about 1970, the sea fell
about 20 cm, for reasons involving probably evaporation or
something. Not a change in volume or something like that—it
was a rapid thing. The new level, which has been stable, has
not changed in the last 35 years. You can trace it so very, very
carefully. No rise at all is the answer there.[/quote]

This, by the way, was very easy to find… see the link…

climatechangefacts.info/Clim … erview.pdf

Gosh. This one was not very hard to find either… The tables/graphs do not copy so go to the link to see these. Happy to hear from you where the criticisms will be. I shall be looking forward to it as I have already read them myself. I do look forward to your response. And damn it mods… this screen is still jumping so there is technical difficulty of something here again with long posts… I left a message in feedback but the problem still seems just as bad.

[quote]Memorandum by Professor Nils-Axel Mörner, Head of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden President, (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, Leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project

FACTS AND FICTION ABOUT SEA LEVEL CHANGE MAY LOW-LYING ISLANDS AND COASTAL AREAS BE FREED FROM THE CONDEMNATION TO BECOME FLOODED IN THE NEAR-FUTURE

Climate is becoming increasingly warmer we hear almost every day. This is what has become known as Global Warming. The driving idea is that there is a linear relationship between CO2 increase in the atmosphere and global temperature. The fact, however, is that temperature has constantly gone up and down. From 1850 to 1970, we see an almost linear relationship with Solar variability; not CO2. For the last 30 years, our data sets are so contaminated by personal interpretations and personal choices that it is almost impossible to sort up the mess in reliable and unreliable data.

Most remarkable in the record of climatic changes during the last 600 years are the cold periods around 1450, 1690 and 1815 and their correlation with periods of Solar Minima (the Spörer, Maunder and Dalton Solar Minima). The driving cyclic solar forces can easily be extrapolated into the future. This would call for a new cold period or “Little Ice Age” to occur at around 2040-50. Still, we hear nothing about this. It is as if IPCC and the Kyoto Protocol enthusiasts want to “switch off the Sun itself”. Let us take this, at least, as a piece of information to rise our awareness and curiosity.

In the global warming concept, it has been constantly claimed that there will be a causal rise in sea level; a rise that already is in the accelerating mode, in the near future to cause extensive and disastrous flooding of low-lying coastal areas and islands. “It will be the death of our nation”, says the President of the Maldives, and the people of Tuvalu in the Pacific claim that the flooding has already commenced.

Is this facts or fiction? It is true that we are flooded by this information. But what lies behind this idea? And, especially, what do the true international specialists think?

The recording and understanding of past changes in sea level, and its relation to other changes (climate, glacial volume, gravity potential variations, rotational changes, ocean current variability, evaporation/precipitation changes, etc) is the key to sound estimates of future changes in sea level.

The international organisations hosting the true specialists on sea level changes are to be found with the INQUA commission on sea level changes and the IGCP special projects on sea level changes. When I was president of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, 1999-2003, we paid special attention just to this question; ie proposed rise in sea level and its relation to observational reality. We discussed the issue at five international meetings and by Webb-networking. Our opinion is illustrated in Fig 2. In view of the Fig 1 prediction, I have later revised the estimate for year 2100 to: +5 cm ± 15 cm.

Prior to 5000-6000 BP, all sea level curves are dominated by a general rise in sea level in true glacial eustatic response to the melting of continental ice caps. In the last 5,000 years, global mean sea level has been dominated by the redistribution of water masses over the globe. In the last 300 years, sea level has been oscillating close to the present level, with peak rates in the period 1890-1930 (Fig 3).

It is true that sea level rose in the order of 10-11 cm from 1850 to 1940 as a function of Solar variability and related changes in global temperature and glacial volume. From 1940 to 1970, it stopped rising, maybe even fell a little. In the last 10-15 years, we see no true signs of any rise or, especially, accelerating rise (as claimed by IPCC), only a variability around zero. This is illustrated in Fig 3.

With the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite mission in 1992, we now have new means of recording actual sea level changes. The record from 1992 to early 2000 (Fig 4) lacks any sign of a sea level rise; it records variability around zero plus a major ENSO even in year 1997.

When we three years later have the same record extended into year 2003 on the Webb, a tilt has been introduced. This tilt does not originate from the satellite altimetry readings, however, but represents an inferred factor from tide-gauge interpretations. In order to get back to true satellite data, we have to tilt the whole record back to its original data of Fig 4. When this is done, there is no sea level rise to be seen—only a variability around zero plus a number of high-amplitude ENSO oscillations (Fig 5). This is why I in Fig 3 conclude that the sea level remained stationary at around zero for the last 10-15 years (as further discussed in Mörner, 2004a and 2005).

The tide-gauge introduced into the satellite data on the Webb seems to violate observational facts at sites spread all over the globe; not least our NW European data covering both uplifted areas (Fennoscandia, Scotland) as subsiding areas (the North Sea).

From 2000 to the present, we have run a special international sea level project in the Maldives including six field sessions and numerous radiocarbon dates. Our record for the last 1,200 years is given in Fig 6. There are no signs of any on-going sea level rise. It seems all to be a myth.

Tuvalu in the Pacific is often said already to be in the flooding mode. The tide-gauge record (Fig 7) for the last 25 years does not show any rise, however. The truth seems to be that a Japanese pineapple industry had subtracted too much freshwater by that forcing saltwater to invade the subsurface.

Fig 7. The Tuvalu tide-gauge record 1978-2003 showing stability around a zero level plus three negative ENSO events (from Mörner, 2004c).

Venice is notorious for its flooding problems. It lies on a delta area subjected to subsidence. Therefore, the sea level variations are superposed on a long-term subsidence trend (Fig 8). Any rise in sea level would immediately worsen the situation. The last 30 years lack signs of any rise or accelerated rise, on the contrary sea level fell (partly as a function of engineering work).

Fig 8. Observes sea level changes (purple) superposed on a long-term subsidence trend (blue). At 1970 (green arrow), there is a marked change in tendency, partly due to engineering work, but certainly seriously contradicting a sea level rise and especially an accelerated sea level rise.

In conclusion; observational data do not support the sea level rise scenario. On the contrary, they seriously contradict it. Therefore, we should free the world from the condemnation of becoming extensively flooded in the near future.[/quote]

22

Well, I think it’s pretty fair to say that:

  • The attacks on the validity of the IPCC can no longer be shrugged off as industry-funded BS. The IPCC has lost much of it’s credibility, due to Climategate, the Himalayan Glaciers Gaffe (Please no one say “Glaciergate”!) and the Case of the Disappearing Rising Sea Levels. It seems unlikely to get it’s credibility back without a major overhaul, and some heads rolling. It is quite possible that the IPCC fell into the trap of groupthink, augmented by a sense of global self-importance.

  • Overall, we can’t trust climate change skeptics any more than we can trust climate change alarmists. They are both acting from a conviction that is at its root non-scientific.
    Much of the problem with either skeptic or alarmist groupthink came from vilifying the other side, and hence being unreceptive to their facts and arguments. A typical thought pattern might be, “I love the Earth and want it to be green and beautiful. I don’t trust big stinky oil companies and their right wing allies. The IPCC, Al Gore and David Suzuki say the Earth is warming because of CO2. Therefore, what skeptics say is wrong.” Another one might be, “God I hate those hippy greenie bums. Now look what has happened with the IPCC. I was right all along, Global Warming is a fraud.” Science is supposedly about objective facts or non-falsifiable theories, not about political agendas or moral systems.

Therefore, if we are to find the truth about Climate Change, and have people accept it, we need a real alternative to the IPCC, and one that is politically neutral, or very nearly so.

23

Big John:

Fair points and certainly the IPCC and others deserve their pie in the face. Now, I know that this is going to be hard to believe coming from me. I HOPE that another organization will be established or take the lead to continue to monitor the climate. Regardless of the failings of the IPCC and the hype, I firmly believe that we should and must monitor the climate so as to prepare ourselves for any and all changes. The social re-engineering (courtesy of the communist, anti-development fringe) needs to disappear but that does NOT make the study of climate a waste of time or the findings of various research institutes irrelevant. I guess while I am savoring some of the balance that has returned to this debate and for watching those who labeled us all sorts of nasty names getting their own back, I also wish to caution the skeptics from triumphalism and even worse for suggesting or thinking that this is not an important subject that requires our attention.

24

[quote=“fred smith”]Big John:

Fair points and certainly the IPCC and others deserve their pie in the face. Now, I know that this is going to be hard to believe coming from me. I hope that another organization will be established or take the lead to continue to monitor the climate. Regardless of the failings of the IPCC and the hype, I firmly believe that we should and must monitor the climate so as to prepare ourselves for any and all changes. The social re-engineering (courtesy of the communist, anti-development fringe) needs to disappear but that does NOT make the study of climate a waste of time or the findings of various research institutes irrelevant. I guess while I am savoring some of the balance that has returned to this debate and for watching those who labeled us all sorts of nasty names getting their own back, I also wish to caution the skeptics from triumphalism and even worse for suggesting or thinking that this is not an important subject that requires our attention.[/quote]

This response itself seems like triumphalism with a magnanimous spin. Your imply that all belief in climate change was engineered and imply that it is a discredited theory. You are clearly a skeptic and obviously have a political agenda. You are not a source of impartial comment. I am saying that that is what we need, not politicals like yourself.

25

If they had polls, I would vote for real and science.

26

Not a chance are you getting away with that.

You don’t mind that tax dollars be spent on more research into climate change but reject the notion that tax dollars be spent on improvents in public transport and initiatives to promote other forms of development that do not depend on fossil fuels.

That is profoundly illogical and all too typical of the horseshit we’ve seen from our leadership (both business and governmental) so far.

Funny thing too that we never hear anything from you about tax payer support of the oil industry…

monitor.net/monitor/10-9-95/oilsubsidy.html

VERY few of the people calling for a fossil fuel tax are communists. That is a DELIBERATE mischaracterization on your part.

Most want more development. They just want different forms of development and for a host of very good reasons. Climate change is a potentially very serious threat. You appear to agree with that. Urban sprawl, air, water and soil pollution, loss of habitat… (the list goes on) are ONGOING problems that we can witness any time we choose to step out the door in many places in the world. There are also economic and security reasons to start moving away form an oil based economy.

The global warming debate was divided into two different threads so that this kind of political, economic, philosophical discussion could be seperated from the scientific.

27

Still taking flak Mr. Smith…it means you are still on target.

from the USA:
News regarding a legal maneuver being pressed by Peabody Energy Company and 16 lawsuits filed corporate groups and AG’s in 3, so far, US states.

[quote]World’s biggest coal company brings U.S. government to court in climate fraud
by John O’Sullivan on February 17, 2010

The world’s largest private sector coal business, the Peabody Energy Company (PEC) has filed a mammoth 240-page “Petition for Reconsideration,” a full-blown legal challenge against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The petition must be answered and covers the entire body of leaked emails from ‘Climategate’ as well as those other ‘gate’ revelations including the frauds allegedly perpetrated under such sub-headings as ‘Himalayan Glaciers,’ ‘African Agricultural Production,’ ‘Amazon Rain Forests,’ ‘Melting Mountain Ice,’ ‘Netherlands Below Sea Level’ as well as those much-publicized abuses of the peer-review literature and so called ‘gray literature.’ These powerful litigants also draw attention to the proven criminal conduct by climate scientists in refusing to honor Freedom of Information law (FOIA) requests.

Peabody is, in effect,challenging the right of the current U.S. federal government to introduce cap and trade regulations by the ‘back door.’[/quote]
This case bears particular watching as, IMO, it will prove to be a significant public expose’ of both the AGW/ClimateChange/Global Warming fraud science as well as the political shenanigans that have become part and parcel of the ‘Cap & Trade’ charade.

Lest we forget this campaign promise:

Obama Tells SF Chronicle He Will Bankrupt Coal Industry
(includes an interesting update)

====
About the lawsuits:

16 ‘Endangerment’ Lawsuits Filed Against EPA Before Deadline

Domino Effect: Utah, then Texas, and now Virginia challenging EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations

Climate Depot

For your holiday gathering conversation needs:
What to say to a global warming alarmist

28

More politicized shitte from the right, eh TC?

Climate Change is about science not politics, so be scientific, not political.

29

Bob:

Well, well well… Lots of noise about public transporation systems. Most in the US are plagued by high cost and low ridership. If they work and there is an economic reason for them, sign me up but it does not have to be the government to address this. After all, last time I looked there was little government involvement in airplanes and they seem to have delivered what the people want: low cost, shitty service and fairly efficient. As to the communist/anti-development, you are the living example on this forum. Your interest and concern about this issue is dominated neither by true understanding of the economics nor science. You just want everyone else to be barred from making the same economic choices that you believe that you have the right to make when it comes to yourself. That is no doubt to be excused because you are “concerned.”

Big John: Well, well, well… aren’t we becoming another J Scholl? Not about politics, but about the science instead? Well, that clearly is not what we are discovering about the IPCC and its scientists. Perhaps, you have failed to read the newspapers recently? what a surprise. Hitherto, I have no doubt that anyone reading your posts would have imagined you an incredibly bright light… now we have discovered to our dismay that you are merely a dim one… a very dim low-watt bulb at that! Of course, I was never fooled. I knew that wherever you were, darkness followed… like an intellectual black hole. Hey, we found a new scientific subject to talk about!

30

[quote=“fred smith”]Meltdown Mick:

You provided a link where most of the figures were “incomplete.” [/quote]

No, I provided a site where ALL the data records are "incomplete’. They all cover a finite time spam, they do not represent every spot on the earth and so on. The question is can the data be used for accurate analysis, the dozen or so scientists whose papers I already provided conclude yes, they discuss unknowns and come to very similar conclusions. Independent verifiable sources of study lend weight to the idea they are correct.

This is the level concluded , independently by at least a dozen scientists. Pooh Poohing it doesn’t make it go away, I must say, I like how the threads have been broken up, I don’t feel at all bad taking my time to really see what you are saying, it doesn’t feel like the thread is being hijacked, because others would like to talk about solutions, more please Fred, especially more on Morner. Didn’t he lie to the Russians and claim to be something he wasn’t, more please.

Well, first, the scientists do not belong to me, we are discussing science, not politics and yes, that is the best they can do with what limited knowledge they have and seem to be in agreement, with the odd example of Dr Morner (who doesnt belong to me either).

Theres a sense of irony in talking about absolutes when large margins of error are offered. No its not absolute, but there is very little to support the idea the sea is not rising.

Bollocks. You think all these scientists, using different samples of tide gauges ALL come to roughly the SAME “random” number ?

31

[quote=“fred smith”]Bob:

Well, well well… Lots of noise about public transporation systems. Most in the US are plagued by high cost and low ridership. If they work and there is an economic reason for them, sign me up but it does not have to be the government to address this. After all, last time I looked there was little government involvement in airplanes and they seem to have delivered what the people want: low cost, shitty service and fairly efficient. As to the communist/anti-development, you are the living example on this forum. Your interest and concern about this issue is dominated neither by true understanding of the economics nor science. You just want everyone else to be barred from making the same economic choices that you believe that you have the right to make when it comes to yourself. That is no doubt to be excused because you are “concerned.” [/quote]

You are asleep. I am asleep. In my sleep I can question that having no understanding of science and economics equates with being anti-devlopment/communist. In my sleep I can doubt that most public tranist in the US is plagued by high cost and low ridership and if it is it is because the service is infrequent and when it comes it is plagued by traffic congestion. My understanding of the science and economics is probably as good as yours. Snore. I never agreed to kyoto because it seemed to complicated to work. It didn’t work. I haven’t spoken about global warming for years. The phrase I chose a long time ago was climate change. There is still a lot of evidence that it is occuring. I don’t know what economic choices you are talking about. The choice I made was to save my peanuts and buy alternative energy stocks and a bicycle. You already know all this.

Snore.

I am not a communist and I am not anti-development. You know that too.

The lie you that your industry has perpetrated is the lie that “development” is “fossil fuel development.” You either can’t concieve that anything else is possible or you want to perpetrate the lie that no other form of development is possible.

Snore.

32

Meltdown Mick:

Your data are incomplete. AND the scientists have no way of using tidal gauge data to achieve any kind of measurement without projections and modeling. V was kind enough to bring up the satellite data which Dr. Morner has also addressed. Note that the satellite data which are much more complete show no sea level rise. In fact, it is the very modeling of the tidal gauge data that makes the measurement faulty. When comprehensive local measurements are taken, there is no rise in sea level in any of the places mentioned. You keep coming back to global figures because you cannot provide any examples of a locality where the sea level rise chimes in with the incomplete data provided by your sources. Again, the satellite data show no rise. You have provided no studies to dispute Morner or the Pacific Island 12 measurements. Again, the satellite data is complete but it has to rely on the tidal gauge data (incomplete) to provide a modeled measurement so that there is a benchmark going back more than 29 years (and even the initial satellite data was no comprehensive). You just keep going back to repeat the same source over and over again but this has been disputed and you have no fallback studies to justify your assertion.

Bob: Read a cost benefit analysis of any public transport system especially light rail in the US. Very few can generate the cost savings that would warrant them. We already have comprehensive bus networks. Why would light rail along a few major routes justify the expense? when they are often merely duplicating existing bus lanes? Also, remember that for all your talk of industry lobbying… these light rail systems often involve a number of actors (construction companies) that wish to see their systems built. You are anti-development. WE have a whole history of past statements to go by. Sorry but no… you don’t get it. You don’t understand business. You live in a world where “principles” only yours are relevant or worthy. You can continue to argue like this all you want but the reality is that the money has to come from somewhere and sorry but you are not a tax payer… it would not come from you… but your sensibilities somehow convince you that you have the right to demand the same even without understanding it. And after all you are not there to ride any such system… so wherein lies your concern? Perhaps, local tax payers would prefer to see this money go elsewhere or perhaps they are not willing or able to pay 40% or more in taxes even though they are evil SUV driving suburbanites… The worst!

33

Meltdown Mick:

Your data are incomplete. AND the scientists have no way of using tidal gauge data to achieve any kind of measurement without projections and modeling. V was kind enough to bring up the satellite data which Dr. Morner has also addressed. Note that the satellite data which are much more complete show no sea level rise. In fact, it is the very modeling of the tidal gauge data that makes the measurement faulty. When comprehensive local measurements are taken, there is no rise in sea level in any of the places mentioned. You keep coming back to global figures because you cannot provide any examples of a locality where the sea level rise chimes in with the incomplete data provided by your sources. Again, the satellite data show no rise. You have provided no studies to dispute Morner or the Pacific Island 12 measurements. Again, the satellite data is complete but it has to rely on the tidal gauge data (incomplete) to provide a modeled measurement so that there is a benchmark going back more than 29 years (and even the initial satellite data was no comprehensive). You just keep going back to repeat the same source over and over again but this has been disputed and you have no fallback studies to justify your assertion.

Bob: Read a cost benefit analysis of any public transport system especially light rail in the US. Very few can generate the cost savings that would warrant them. We already have comprehensive bus networks. Why would light rail along a few major routes justify the expense? when they are often merely duplicating existing bus lanes? Also, remember that for all your talk of industry lobbying… these light rail systems often involve a number of actors (construction companies) that wish to see their systems built. You are anti-development. WE have a whole history of past statements to go by. Sorry but no… you don’t get it. You don’t understand business. You live in a world where “principles” only yours are relevant or worthy. You can continue to argue like this all you want but the reality is that the money has to come from somewhere and sorry but you are not a tax payer… it would not come from you… but your sensibilities somehow convince you that you have the right to demand the same even without understanding it. And after all you are not there to ride any such system… so wherein lies your concern? Perhaps, local tax payers would prefer to see this money go elsewhere or perhaps they are not willing or able to pay 40% or more in taxes even though they are evil SUV driving suburbanites… The worst!

34

Fred, you’re hilarious. One crank says there is no sea level rise, thousands of competent scientists say there is.

From the NASA GISS page

giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/
Since 1993, an even higher sea level trend of about 2.8 mm/yr has been measured from the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite altimeter.

Lessee, who to trust: a crank who doctors his data, none of whose claims are supported in the scientific literature, and believes in dowsing… or thousands of scientists + NASA?

35

Morner was smacked down by actual scientists in an actual scientific publication:

imedea.uib.es/goifis/OTROS/V … e_2007.pdf

Morner was so stupid, he didn’t refer to any satellite altimeter study, and then posted the raw data from it without any corrections – including a 10 mm drop from an instrument problem in his “work.” From the actual scientific paper referenced above:

[ul]A second major error was introduced when the redundant TOPEX altimeter was turned on in early 1999 due to degradation in the
original instrument (Chambers et al., 2003). Since the electronics of the redundant altimeter were different, it caused an apparent bias in the GMSL measurement related to the Sea State Bias (SSB). The sense of the bias was such to cause an incorrect sudden drop in GMSL from the end of 1998 to the beginning of 1999 of nearly 10 mm. This drop is apparent in Fig. 2 of Mörner3s paper (and in comparison to tide gauge data (Mitchum, 2000)).[/ul]

“Sea level rise at tropical Pacific and Indian Ocean Islands” (Church, White and Hunter, 2006, Global and Planetary Change) looked at data from tide gauges and satellites and found:

[ul]In the Indian Ocean, the tide-gauge records at the Maldives indicate large rates of relative sea-level rise in agreement with Singh et al. (2001) and Woodworth (2005), and in disagreement with Morner et al. (2004). …

For the Maldives themselves, the estimated rate of sea-level rise over the 52 year period is close to 1 mm/yr and, in contrast to Morner et al. (2004), we find that there is no indication of a fall in sea-level of 20 to 30 cm at any time in the last 30 yrs (which would imply a rate of fall of between 7 and 10 mm/yr over 30 yrs, and double that over the “1970s to early 1980s” specified by Morner et al. (2004)). This drop in sea-level has also been shown to be inconsistent with geological data (Woodroffe, 2005;Kench et al., 2005). [/ul]

Move along Fred, Morner is comprehensively wrong – so stupid he even included instrument error in his dataset. ROFLMAO!

Vorkosigan

36

[quote=“fred smith”]
Big John: Well, well, well… aren’t we becoming another J Scholl? Not about politics, but about the science instead? Well, that clearly is not what we are discovering about the IPCC and its scientists. Perhaps, you have failed to read the newspapers recently? what a surprise. Hitherto, I have no doubt that anyone reading your posts would have imagined you an incredibly bright light… now we have discovered to our dismay that you are merely a dim one… a very dim low-watt bulb at that! Of course, I was never fooled. I knew that wherever you were, darkness followed… like an intellectual black hole. Hey, we found a new scientific subject to talk about![/quote]

Actually, I don’t enjoy being insulted by anyone, but if you agreed with me and gave positive feedback to my points I would be shocked. In fact, “Fred Smith agrees with me on many things” would be a certain tell that this person was a neocon bonehead, so in that sense I don’t mind so much.

If I am an infinitely dense singularity of light squelching matter, then you are a nebula of toxic scent droplets shining in a poisonous pink data-scattering haze.

BTW, back to the debate. Yes, Global Warming is about science, not politics. It is when people overly politicize it that the science - or people’s understanding of it - gets hurt.

37

I never said anything about 40%. I think the tax level should be very low in the beginning. Low enough to be absorbed from oil company profits. As the tranist system improved and people began to see that it had the potential to make real improvement in their lives the tax could be increased and the systems improved even more. This would be a form of development. Improvements in energy efficiency would be another form of development. Solar
energy installations and wind farms would be anoher form of development.

Lets drop this. It belongs in the other thread.

38

Fred suffers from a myopia brought on by his political views. It’s a common problem with Americans in particular…whether from political or religious influence, they tend to see science through these lenses first, then make their judgements.

They cherry-pick the parts they want to fit their conclusion, falsely believing that science is similar to politicing or quoting lines from the bible.

While science isn’t perfect it constantly reacts to changing information and better theories and models in a mostly open way, the same cannot be said of partisan politics or fundamentalist religion.

39

[quote]Fred suffers from a myopia brought on by his political views. It’s a common problem with Americans in particular…whether from political or religious influence, they tend to see science through these lenses first, then make their judgements.(sic)

They cherry-pick the parts they want to fit their conclusion, falsely believing that science is similar to politicing or quoting lines from the bible.

While science isn’t perfect it constantly reacts to changing information and better theories and models in a mostly open way, the same cannot be said of partisan politics or fundamentalist religion.[/quote]

Lets kill him… :howyoudoin:

Damn him for having an opinion that differs from the herd.
Damn him for presenting science that doesn’t match the ‘approved’ science.
Damn those ‘Americans.’

He’ll never be approved for herd acceptance with that kind of attitude. He just doesn’t get it…probably never will.

40

Yes, your “dozen” scientists “claim.” Can I have the exact quote where that happens? Also, I note again that they are doing projections with “estimated” sea level rises.

Yet, Morner was AT the Maldives. Your projections are from sources that were where exactly when they were conducting these measurements? more projections? Also, you have not explained the Pacific 12 study. I note how none of you has dared raise that subject… why not?

As to Morner’s personal character… you have an example of uncorrected instrument data being introduced. Jesus! With all the incorrect measurements and incomplete ones that have gone into your favored studies! what Chutzpah! And you have an example of where he was labeled at a Russian conference as still working for the one that he used to head in Sweden. Big deal. It could have been the PR team mistranslating this. I have worked in Russia before and I can tell you that is one possibility. He might have said he was FORMER head and they just said Head of the organization. Anything else?

In the meantime, we have “complete” figures from Meltdown Mick’s scientists. Again, people, if you want to understand how “complete” these tidal gauge measurements are, then go to the site. The list of incompletes runs years and the entire gamut. There has been NO complete tidal gauge measurement system in place and it is so bad that even Meltdown Mick’s OWN SITE concludes that it is bad but the best that we have. Now, we have Dr. Morner AND a group of scientists working on 12 islands in the Pacific. The studies and their results were provided. Check out the links again. Not one concluded that there had been any rise in sea level and this was done through rigid measurements on site not like Meltdown Mick or V’s “projections” from “global dat.” and Speaking of cherrypicking… that has been the major prblem with scientists like Meltdown Mick’s … picking and choosing whatever data is available and then pretending like it is comprehensive when it is no such thing!