More empiric data deflating global warming doomsday predictions.

Dreddnafious Maelstrom · 2010-09-10T01:24:20

Quote: If one thing more than any other is used to justify proposals that the world must spend tens of trillions of dollars on combating global warming, it is the belief that we face a disastrous rise in sea levels. The Antarctic and Greenland ice caps will melt, we are told, warming oceans will expand, and the result will be catastrophe. Although the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only predicts a sea level rise of 59cm (17 inches) by 2100, Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth went much further, talking of 20 feet, and showing computer graphics of cities such as Shanghai and San Francisco half under water. We all know the graphic showing central London in similar plight. As for tiny island nations such as the Maldives and Tuvalu, as Prince Charles likes to tell us and the Archbishop of Canterbury was again parroting last week, they are due to vanish. Quote: But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story. Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about. The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world". When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, he launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster. Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about. The government refused to let it be shown. Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has if anything dropped in recent decades. The only evidence the scaremongers can cite is based on the fact that extracting groundwater for pineapple growing has allowed seawater to seep in to replace it. Meanwhile, Venice has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr Mörner. One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend". When I spoke to Dr Mörner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an "expert reviewer" on the IPCC's last two reports, he was "astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one". Yet the results of all this "deliberate ignorance" and reliance on rigged computer models have become the most powerful single driver of the entire warmist hysteria. Yes it's the Telegraph :) There seems to be an ever more revealing trend related to the mass of the scientific community where science is chucked for the intended result. Using a "corrective factor" because you must "show a trend" is another way of saying that you fabricated evidence in an intentional attempt to defraud.As always, I have to caveat that there is no doubt that as a species we're impacting some geography in negative ways, although in 99% of the cases it's the "tragedy of the commons" sort and not private property.

GDNet Lounge Community

Started by Dreddnafious Maelstrom August 30, 2010 09:55 AM

53 comments, last by taby 14 years, 2 months ago

Alpha_ProgDes

6,963

September 09, 2010 11:44 PM

So instead of a 100% probability there's 70% probability. So it is very likely we are causing a problem but until we are 100% sure, we should continue with business as usual?

Was that the point of your quote?

Beginner in Game Development? Read here. And read here.

Hodgman

52,718

September 10, 2010 12:19 AM

Do you mean my quote?
If so, my point was that almost every country in the world worked together to conclude that we are (almost certainly) drastically changing the composition of the atmosphere for the worse, and we better do something about it.

. 22 Racing Series .

way2lazy2care

793

September 10, 2010 12:24 AM

Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
So instead of a 100% probability there's 70% probability. So it is very likely we are causing a problem but until we are 100% sure, we should continue with business as usual?

Was that the point of your quote?

I don't think anybody thinks we should just go on. Even if our pollution wasn't causing climate change, the whole green movement would still lead to healthier lives for everyone. It's a huge driving factor in technological advancement and economic growth outside of the more obvious benefits too.