Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'

#1
Says who?

Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe.

Depressed but not surprised to see that:

"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."


"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".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html
 
#2
Come on, there must be lots more, bigger lies than this.

CO2 causes global warming?
 
#3
This the same Axel-Morner who is listed as an "allied expert" of NRSP, a lobby group which (amazingly enough) refuses to disclose where it gets its funds, despite strong links with the energy industry? The same Axel-Morner who was ripped to shreds by James Randi for, among other things, purported psychic powers and water dowsing ...?!
 
#4
Interesting. Obviously all of us that have been called stupid cynics for all these years because we were the ones, that quite early on saw that this was just the greatest ever Tax Scandal known to man may soon be proved to be right all along.

My question though is, if it is ever proved to have been just another tax scam, will we get all our Green Taxes refunded to us by the thieving basstards that stole it from us in the first place?
 
#5
Old_Reprobate said:
This the same Axel-Morner who is listed as an "allied expert" of NRSP, a lobby group which (amazingly enough) refuses to disclose where it gets its funds, despite strong links with the energy industry? The same Axel-Morner who was ripped to shreds by James Randi for, among other things, purported psychic powers and water dowsing ...?!
Has holland sunk yet?

The water is not licking Blackpool tower. In fact apart from some erosion what has changed over the past, say 50 years?
 
#6
Old_Reprobate said:
This the same Axel-Morner who is listed as an "allied expert" of NRSP, a lobby group which (amazingly enough) refuses to disclose where it gets its funds, despite strong links with the energy industry? The same Axel-Morner who was ripped to shreds by James Randi for, among other things, purported psychic powers and water dowsing ...?!
Would you like to support that particularly ill informed post or just bugger off
 
#7
If the Greenland ice cap melted the reduced gravitational affect in the northern Atlantic would effect a sea level rise more prominent in the Southern Hemisphere. It all seems rather complicated doesn't it, and perhaps doesn't do to make sweeping generalisations...
 
#8
All_I_Want said:
Come on, there must be lots more, bigger lies than this.

CO2 causes global warming?
Yes, but not as much as people think - but for the benefit of something tangiable Carbon Dioxide is is an easily quantifiable substance that people can be seen to care about. The 'Greenhouse' gas that contributes most to the Greenhouse effect (up to 66%) is Water Vapour.

False arguments exist on both sides - however the planet cycles between hot and cold periods and at present has only recently entered an interglacial period; therefore the planet is due to warm up, and although industry isn't helping, we're due a hot period.
 
#9
Ninja_Turtle said:
therefore the planet is due to warm up, and although industry isn't helping, we're due a hot period.
Well I wish it would hurry up and arrive, I want a decent suntan this year! :D
 
#10
Ninja_Turtle said:
All_I_Want said:
Come on, there must be lots more, bigger lies than this.

CO2 causes global warming?
Yes, but not as much as people think - but for the benefit of something tangiable Carbon Dioxide is is an easily quantifiable substance that people can be seen to care about. The 'Greenhouse' gas that contributes most to the Greenhouse effect (up to 66%) is Water Vapour.

False arguments exist on both sides - however the planet cycles between hot and cold periods and at present has only recently entered an interglacial period; therefore the planet is due to warm up, and although industry isn't helping, we're due a hot period.
Water vapour is the most significant greenhouse gas (in terms of being radiatively active per molecule and its relative quantity), but it is a secondary greenhouse gas, in that it is part of a feedback. A warmer atmosphere holds more water vapour, but that only warms in the gas phase and upon condensing its effects get more complicated. It is better to think of it as reactionary than a stimulus.

And I think you'll find that "66%" is part of the natural greenhouse affect - in that without it the planet would be 30 degrees colder. I for one am rather grateful for it, and it's misleading to present the 'fact' as you do.
 

Flight

LE
Book Reviewer
#11
90%+ for water vapour actually.

One of the biggest scare stories is that if the Arctic melts then sea levels rise. This is based on a common misconception. Ice displaces no more water than when it melts, due to hydrogen bonding and the expansion of solid water.

Take a pint glass, fill it with ice, add water to the brim and let the ice melt. It won't overflow.

Ice sheets based on land, ie greenland, the Antactic and glaciers, could make the water level rise slightly. But the ice in Antactica is thickening and glaciers account for the square root of fcuck all.

Oddly enough the energy companies all try to out green each other. Its the watermelons that have an agenda, ie keeping their funding.
 
#12
Well I have it on good authority that the 2x 100watt bulbs in my garage is killing every baby within a 5 mile radius...see if I fcuking care :twisted:
incidently are these the same high calibre scientist's who in the eighties told us that everyone in the world would be dead by now of aids.
 
#13
Let's look at this simply.....

Who wants to sit in a car with a hose pipe fitted from the exhaust?

Anybody? No?

Does anyone want to a couple of Bedfords parked behind their house so their kids can frolic down wind?

Anybody? No?

Does anyone want petrol, diesel, oil and anyother chemicals I can think of liberally doused around their gardens and houses?

Didn't think so.

Doesn't matter if green house effect, global warming etc is true or false. No one wants to live in a polluted sh1t pit of an area.

So be sensible about the whole thing, and start looking at how you can clean up your act. If such acts have to be induced into people by that powerful driving force "the wallet" so be it.

Perhaps some Greenies get carried away.

But those two 100w lightbulbs burn 200w of energy..... which probably comes from a fossil fuel.

It all adds up. 10 houses on a street?, 10 streets in an area, 10 areas in a town.
 
#14
FFS.

Flight said:
Ice sheets based on land, ie greenland, the Antactic and glaciers, could make the water level rise slightly. But the ice in Antactica is thickening and glaciers account for the square root of fcuck all.
Firstly, it's Antarctica.
Secondly, the amount of precipitation is increacing in the centre of Antarctica. But it only snows 5mm a year, so 5% is still feck all. It's the driest place on the planet. And it's not even statistically significant. However, around the coast, where 5m of snow a year is fairly typical, an increase of 10% (which is statistically significant) means a hell of a lot more. I'm sick of people abusing this statistic. It's also fcuking raining down there as the primary reason for the change in precipitation is a change in the circulation and increase in the frequency and severity of midlatitude storms, not a change in temperature.

And Antarctica is 3km thick in most places. Only a fraction of it is floating, and the seasonal sea ice shelves whilst in flux are partly fed by ice streams coming off the continental plateau.
 
#15
For gods sake!
The world has never been cleaner, Fifties London people were dying in the famous smog that London was notorious for, Every household in the land was burning cheap coal and in those days we actually had a country that was covered in heavy industry, and people are worried about lightbulbs? I take it choc-frog that you dont have a car?
 
#16
And another thing.

The reason the USA should be particularly worried, is that what ever the 'average' sea level rise is for the rest of the world, tidal forces mean that the Eastern Seaboard will experience a good fraction higher than everyone else. This might sound fine, but in a storm swell a few cm multiplied by the low pressure centre of an extratropical storm could mean the difference between an nuisance and drowning half of New York.

It's true there's bugger all to worry about in our lifetime, but your grandkids may be fecked. Esp if they live in East Anglia. :D
 
#17
Its all a scam.
The purpose of which is to milk money from us.
Yes the climate is changing, just as it has since the planet was born, its why we had ice ages, its why Scotland in no longer covered in glaciers. The list of changes is endless.
Global warming, we don't discuss that now that it appears not to be happening do we?
Mankind has a tiny impact compared to natural events. There is no shortage of oil.
In the 1970's we were told oil was running out and anew ice age was on its way, 30 odd years later the oil is still running out (despite the fact we already should have run out according to predictions back then) and now we are getting warmer not colder.

Lets be honest, the science is made up to suit whoever is paying for the research.
The harsh fact is that the planet is constantly changing, if we must spend money in the name of climate change then it ought to be to adapt to that change, not to try and prevent something we cannot influence.
We obviously learnt nothing from King Canute......
 
#18
All_I_Want said:
Come on, there must be lots more, bigger lies than this.

CO2 causes global warming?

Nah...The biggest Lie ever told was:

"There are Weapons of Mass Destruction"
 
#19
jagman said:
Lets be honest, the science is made up to suit whoever is paying for the research.
The harsh fact is that the planet is constantly changing, if we must spend money in the name of climate change then it ought to be to adapt to that change, not to try and prevent something we cannot influence.
We obviously learnt nothing from King Canute......
I object to that. I'm an atmospheric scientist funded by the Gov't. Afterall it doesn't logically follow that if you're a soldier you're an instrument of the Government who shares their ethos on say, the war in Iraq. At least credit some of us with the professional integrity you enjoy....

Now if I actually did any work, I wouldn't give a jot who was paying for it. Met some creeps funded by the oil men though, who are quite unashamedly willing to distort conclusions, but when pushed struggle on the facts.
And my superiors whom actually advise on policy are pretty straight fellows.
We're not too keen that policy makers now seem to misquote us all over the place, and like to put what they want to hear in our mouths, but that's not our fault, and we'll just keep plugging away narrowing those uncertainty estimates as we've been doing for years.

No arguement that the planet is constantly changing, and in more powerful ways than we can hope to influence, but on the other hand, something very different began happening to the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, and I'd sooner not go out of my way to feck it up more than is absolutely necessary.
 
#20
milsum said:
jagman said:
Lets be honest, the science is made up to suit whoever is paying for the research.
The harsh fact is that the planet is constantly changing, if we must spend money in the name of climate change then it ought to be to adapt to that change, not to try and prevent something we cannot influence.
We obviously learnt nothing from King Canute......
I object to that. I'm an atmospheric scientist funded by the Gov't. After all it doesn't logically follow that if you're a soldier you're an instrument of the Government who shares their ethos on say, the war in Iraq. At least credit some of us with the professional integrity you enjoy....

Now if I actually did any work, I wouldn't give a jot who was paying for it. Met some creeps funded by the oil men though, who are quite unashamedly willing to distort conclusions, but when pushed struggle on the facts.
And my superiors whom actually advise on policy are pretty straight fellows.

We're not too keen that policy makers now seem to misquote us all over the place, and like to put what they want to hear in our mouths, but that's not our fault, and we'll just keep plugging away narrowing those uncertainty estimates as we've been doing for years.

No arguement that the planet is constantly changing, and in more powerful ways than we can hope to influence, but on the other hand, something very different began happening to the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, and I'd sooner not go out of my way to feck it up more than is absolutely necessary.
Being a soldier (sailor or airman) does indeed mean one is an instrument of the Government and if anyone has any doubts about the matter then he/she should not join up in the first place.

As for “pretty straight fellows”; that’s how Blair described himself and look what we got.

As for what has happened since the industrial revolution, it should be noted that that was the time when mankind began to able to monitor events and record them in hard copy. Prior to that we were in blissful ignorance, so we don’t really have much idea of what was happening.

In the meantime, more gunk emerges each day from vents in the earth’s surface (don’t forget the sea bed) than mankind produces in a year.

Finally, I believe the eruption of Mount St Helens produced many times mankind’s annual pollution.
 

Top