moonbattery.gif


« Dan Rather Wins the James Earl Carter Bitter Old Man Award | Main | BBC: What Terrorism Problem? »


June 29, 2007

How the UN Falsifies Data on Rising Sea Levels

According to Al Gore and his acolytes at the UN's hyperpoliticized Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), we will soon need to abandon civilization and head for the hills, because the sea is rising up to wash us all away. Like most everything else having to do with the global warming hoax, this is a lie, as helpfully explained by sea-level specialist Nils-Axel Mörner, the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University.

One way we determine if sea levels are really rising is by measuring the speed of the Earth's rotation. Rising sea levels would increase the Earth's radius, thereby slowing it down. This method confirms a measurement of not more than 1.1 millimeters per year, which has been going on for ages. There is no trend of an increased rate in the rise of sea levels. So the UN's global warming hoaxers created one.

First, they chose a Hong Kong tide gauge which helpfully gave them a 2.3 mm per year reading, thanks to the fact that Hong Kong is subsiding due to compaction of sediment.

This 2.3-mm rate was then confirmed by satellite data, with the help of a "correction factor." Mörner was outraged:

Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC's] publications, in their website, was a straight line — suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn't look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn't recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a "correction factor," which they took from the tide gauge. So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow — I said you have introduced factors from outside; it's not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don't say what really happened. And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!
That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And there you come to the point: They "know" the answer; the rest of us, we are searching for the answer. Because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations. The observations don't find it!

Welcome to the new science of political correctness, where first you decide what the data needs to say, then you go out and find it.

dayaftertommorrow.jpg
Scientifically preposterous. But it makes great propaganda.

Hat tip: Ranting Stan.

Posted by Van Helsing at June 29, 2007 2:27 PM

Comments

For those of you "nervous" about the coming flood/drought/ice/heat, I would like to extend an offer of services.

As a civil engineering manager (in the business for 30+ years) I am fully qualified to assess the dangers to your livelihood and property due to the unavoidable and catastrophic affects of global warming.

Using all available predictive climate models made public and attested to by Dr. Albert Gore, Jr., I will tell you what your 'danger factor' is based on latitude, longitude, and elevation.

Act now. This week only, I'm offering two carbon credits per analysis.

All rights reserved. Services for towns, cities, and states also available.

Posted by: Jimbo at June 29, 2007 2:58 PM

But Morner is a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition, Exxonsecrets says he's a bad dude, hangs around with the wrong people, gives speeches on the wrong side of the science. Just because he has seen the lack of evidence with his own eys, doesn't mean its not happening. We have models and we make corrections to data that doesn't match those models, that's the way climate science is done. Observation in the field is so passe and really quite needless, we have a consensus that the sea level is rising rapidly, so it is, the debate is over.

My computer says that the sea level will rise 10,000 feet by next Friday and the global temperature will climb to 3,000 degrees by Wednesday at 3:00pm. See, your computer says the same thing, so it must be true.

I need a drink. These IPCC environuts are driving me crazy. If you want a good read, the IPCC review comments are now online at http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html You can read for yourself how experts are discounted because they don't follow party line. But aren't they part of the 2 billion scientists that the IPCC calls in from every planet in the solar system? If they don't agree, does that mean we don't have a consensus?

Posted by: jev2000 at June 29, 2007 5:15 PM

Like Jimbo, I'm here to help. This global warming will get you, no doubt about it.

Anyone living on oceanfront property, I am willing to buy your property. I can't offer much, of course, but you'd better sell it to me and get out while the gettin's good. No need to thank me.

Actually, I'd keep an eye on algore et al to see if THEY are buying up oceanfront property! They're cashing in on this in other ways.

Many years from now, when my grandkids give me a hard time about us fools back in the day thinking the earth was doomed, I hope I can convince them that not ALL of us were idiots.

Posted by: NudeGayWhalesForJesus at June 29, 2007 5:31 PM

Ocean level is rising? This isn't Rosie's week to go to the beach, by any chance, is it?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 29, 2007 5:33 PM

Wow. That interview was published in A Lyndon Laroouche joint. Way to grab the credibility there rightwingers!

Posted by: xc194zr3b at June 29, 2007 8:31 PM

Wow. That interview was published in A Lyndon Laroouche joint. Way to grab the credibility there rightwingers!

Wow. That comment was utterly devoid of critical content. Way to be an asshat, there, google-eyed lefty troll!

So LaRouche is a wackjob. Can you refute the scientist's assertions, or are you just another illiberal moron in search of a partisan cudgel with which to beat your NASCAR-loving lessers?

Posted by: Darth Bacon at June 29, 2007 10:58 PM

Attack the messenger as a means to show mental superiority? Very typical of dipwad liberals. Happens from their "leadership" right down to the slugsnot like xc194zr3b. Not an original idea in their pea-brains and they have no tolerance for those who do.

Posted by: Jimbo at June 30, 2007 6:00 AM

It's up to the paranoid scientist to provide proof. You see, that's the way these things work. You make an accusation and then you provide proof. If your accusation is extraordinary, then you should have some very convincing proof, not some story about evil UN guys tearing down a tree.

If you could tear yourself away form the right wing circlejerkosphere and actually read the fucking research you might understand how stupid this guy is and why his interview is relegated to the intellectual sewer that is the LaRouche empire. Good luck with that.

Posted by: xc194zr3b at June 30, 2007 6:07 AM

"Wow. That interview was published in A Lyndon Laroouche joint. Way to grab the credibility there rightwingers!"

I see, we can discount what Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden, the past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project, who has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years - because someone named xc19zr3b says they don't like the website at which this article is published. I looked all over that website for any reference to Larouche and couldn't find any. Personally, my criteria for judging credibility is to ask myself, is what this person is saying true or false? Doesn't matter if I like the person or not. I've used that hard fast rule since I was about 3 years old. People like xc194zr3b don't seem to follow that rule.

Posted by: Kevin at June 30, 2007 6:28 AM

"I looked all over that website for any reference to Larouche and couldn't find any."

I think this speaks volumes about your research abilities. Okay, to be fair, the website that republished this interview only refers to the pub as EIR. Gosh, I wonder why?

Executive Intelligence Review:

http://www.larouchepub.com/

And a little more research shows that the Swedish doctor has been saying he is still INQUA's president. So much so that they wrote him a letter asking him to stop.

So why is he doing interviews with Larouche and not publishing in the literature? Why is he padding his speaking engagments with false info? Oh, yes, to undo the socialist conspiracy,. Of course.

Posted by: xc194zr3b at June 30, 2007 8:11 AM

Hey, look at this. Here's another Nils-Axel Mörner article. This is from the Publications and Records of the Parliament, U K.

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

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we18.htm

Posted by: Kevin at June 30, 2007 8:17 AM

xc194zr3b, is what the man is saying true or false? So, the Larouche people interviewed him. What is it about his arguments specifically that you find in error? Never mind that his interview was conducted by the EIR. What does the man say that you find to be false?

Posted by: Kevin at June 30, 2007 8:30 AM

>>>It's up to the paranoid scientist to provide proof.

What about your "scientists" whose proof turned out to be FALSIFIED as in the example above? What about Al Gore who is NOT a scientist, yet global warming PARANOIDS like yourseld how believe every word he says?
Or do you believe that YOUR SIDE needs not offer anything remotely like proof? I would say that that is the case xc194zr3b, since Liberals will avoid an honest debate at all costs.

Posted by: KHarn at June 30, 2007 11:00 AM

Nils-Axel Mörner doesn't provide specific proof. He makes vague assertions which are swallowed whole by those who already believe that global warming is a socialist scam.

Where are the details? What report is he talking about? The TAR or the AR4? Where are the changes? How does he know the tide gauge in question was used? Where is a copy of the response from the IPCC saying "we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!" Why aren't you guys asking thee obvious questions?

Posted by: xc194zr3b2 at June 30, 2007 3:08 PM

So, invading moonbats, tell us all...

1. Based on all the natural history you can put your sticky little paws on, exactly what climate is the earth SUPPOSED to have?

2. Why are Mars, Neptune, and Jupiter's moons experienceing global warming?

I bet not a single one of you silly little farts will give us a straight coherent answer for either of those two questions.

Aren't you guys cute - "the silly little liberals who could".

"We can do it!" puffed the silly little liberal, "We can do it! If we tell them the same lies over and over and over and over, we can convence them Al Gore isn't naked! We can do it!"

I'm getting damned near as sick of 'world-is-ending' liberals as I am the Islamofascists they worship who ARE trying to end the world.

Liberals - you are some sick, sick puppies.

Posted by: Jimbo at June 30, 2007 3:10 PM

Silly troll.

This is how "arguments" work:

One person makes a statement. Then another person attempts to debunk it.

See, Nils-Axel Mörner is what they call a "scientist". They call him that because he has studied, and practiced "science".

On the other hand, lefty troll, you have no such presumed expertise.

In any case the burden of debunking is on you. Morner is a scientist, and if he cares about his reputation, he makes his statements based on his understanding of the facts.

Why- other than being referenced in a publication associated with LaRouch (and not 'interviewed' by LaRouche, as you state repeatedly.) are you attempting to impugn him?

Let's see if you can marshall a factual argument against his statement- or if sneering's all you've got.

Posted by: Darth Bacon at June 30, 2007 8:55 PM

No, the burden is on the person who makes the argument to provide evidence. He provides a story, which you swallow without question.

You see, I require evidence to form an opinion. You merely require the warm cozy footies of your ideology.

Posted by: xc194zr3b2 at July 1, 2007 8:32 AM

Jimbo, you are a moron. Call me when you guys have some published scientific research to go with your beliefs.

In other words, never call me.

Posted by: xc194zr3b2 at July 1, 2007 9:01 AM

Call me when you guys have some published scientific research to go with your beliefs.

Yeah, because THAT would change your Chicken Little perverted worldview, right?

Dipsh#t.

Posted by: Crush Liberalism at July 2, 2007 7:50 AM