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

 

The uncompromising verdict of Dr M?rner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, writes Christopher Booker.?

 

 

Christopher Booker

Last Updated: 6:31PM GMT 28 Mar 2009

 

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.?

?

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 M?rner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr M?rner, 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 M?rner, 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 M?rner.?

 

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 M?rner 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.?

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columni...-ever-told.html

Hey look! Someone finally realized :exercise

 

Ever had a cup of ice in water? Story told.

Hey look! Someone finally realized :exercise

 

Ever had a cup of ice in water? Story told.

I don't think it works like that. I don't think the Ice shelves in Antarctica are actually "floating" on the water.

Hey look! Someone finally realized :exercise

 

Ever had a cup of ice in water? Story told.

I don't think it works like that. I don't think the Ice shelves in Antarctica are actually "floating" on the water.

 

Thats not the point. Water levels would not rise across the world. They would rise in Antarctica. The only consequences I cold think of would be oceanic patterns. Antarctica is 98% ice. Melt it and you create tons of space for that water to go.

 

Of course Im no scientist and Im sure theres more to it... but if they speak broad I speak broad back.

This all has been a bunch of bull crap from day 1. Al gore was just mad he lost that election (thanks to us), so he wanted to screw with every1.

The greatest lie ever told was "It's OK honey, you can go hang out with the guys, I don't mind."

Hey look! Someone finally realized :exercise

 

Ever had a cup of ice in water? Story told.

I don't think it works like that. I don't think the Ice shelves in Antarctica are actually "floating" on the water.

 

Thats not the point. Water levels would not rise across the world. They would rise in Antarctica. The only consequences I cold think of would be oceanic patterns. Antarctica is 98% ice. Melt it and you create tons of space for that water to go.

 

Of course Im no scientist and Im sure theres more to it... but if they speak broad I speak broad back.

 

Ice in Antartica sits on rock, above the sea level....as does ice in Greenland. The Ice in the north pole does, in fact, "float" on water.

 

-Ice melting in the north pole would proudce no rise in sea level, given that it is floating on water

- Ice melting in Antartica, could raise the sea level...but there hasn't been reciding ice levels in the south pole

 

- The biggest contributor to rising sea levels would be Greenland. The ice sits on rock above water, so ice melting there would add to the sea levels, in theory.

 

That said, I think global warming and rising sea levels is a crock of bull.

Hey look! Someone finally realized :exercise

 

Ever had a cup of ice in water? Story told.

I don't think it works like that. I don't think the Ice shelves in Antarctica are actually "floating" on the water.

 

Thats not the point. Water levels would not rise across the world. They would rise in Antarctica. The only consequences I cold think of would be oceanic patterns. Antarctica is 98% ice. Melt it and you create tons of space for that water to go.

 

Of course Im no scientist and Im sure theres more to it... but if they speak broad I speak broad back.

 

Ice in Antartica sits on rock, above the sea level....as does ice in Greenland. The Ice in the north pole does, in fact, "float" on water.

 

-Ice melting in the north pole would proudce no rise in sea level, given that it is floating on water

- Ice melting in Antartica, could raise the sea level...but there hasn't been reciding ice levels in the south pole

 

- The biggest contributor to rising sea levels would be Greenland. The ice sits on rock above water, so ice melting there would add to the sea levels, in theory.

 

That said, I think global warming and rising sea levels is a crock of bull.

 

The rock is also floating on liquid if you didn't know.

 

:owned :haha :haha :haha :haha

i have no doubt that ocean levels would rise if the Greenland glaciers began to melt......I don't, however, think it will happen at a pace to submerge coastal cities

Well its only fair to add that if this water were to be added... rising sea levels would be on Antarctica and Greenland majorly. Thats the point Im trying to make.

 

And solar cycles are your real answers to all of this.

Well its only fair to add that if this water were to be added... rising sea levels would be on Antarctica and Greenland majorly. Thats the point Im trying to make.

 

And solar cycles are your real answers to all of this.

 

The oceans are kind of all connected.

My one question I have always wondered about Global Warming is that if it is a greatly exaggerated myth (which everything I have read seems to point that way), what is the end game? In other words, what do these people gain by spreading this panic? Is it just a matter of they think this is the best way to keep the environment clean?

Well its only fair to add that if this water were to be added... rising sea levels would be on Antarctica and Greenland majorly. Thats the point Im trying to make.

 

And solar cycles are your real answers to all of this.

 

The oceans are kind of all connected.

sea levels vary by geography, is not like filling a bowl with water where the water surface would be leveled

My one question I have always wondered about Global Warming is that if it is a greatly exaggerated myth (which everything I have read seems to point that way), what is the end game? In other words, what do these people gain by spreading this panic? Is it just a matter of they think this is the best way to keep the environment clean?

 

My cousin told me some nutty conspiracy theory about trying to get people to move away from the equator :lol . I forget the entire reasoning behind it.

My one question I have always wondered about Global Warming is that if it is a greatly exaggerated myth (which everything I have read seems to point that way), what is the end game? In other words, what do these people gain by spreading this panic? Is it just a matter of they think this is the best way to keep the environment clean?

 

My cousin told me some nutty conspiracy theory about trying to get people to move away from the equator :lol . I forget the entire reasoning behind it.

 

 

I don't know about that, but simply put, many people think that an elite should control the masses for their own good. Drastic environmental controls influence every aspect of human activity and therefore provide a ready mechanism to dictate what actions are appropriate from the top down.

I don't think that is why Jennifer Aniston wants me to buy new lightbulbs.

I don't think that is why Jennifer Aniston wants me to buy new lightbulbs.

 

Some people are just misguided.

 

Some people work for multi-billion dollar law firms that exist solely to sue companies on environmental issues.

 

Some people want to enact sweeping government controls over various (if not all) aspects of society.

 

Some people are any mixture of the above.

Some people really like lambs and sloths, and carp and anchovies, and orangutans and breakfast cereals, and fruit-bats and stuff. I would say they make of the majority of the movement, if not the heads.

Some people really like lambs and sloths, and carp and anchovies, and orangutans and breakfast cereals, and fruit-bats and stuff. I would say they make of the majority of the movement, if not the heads.

 

 

I like all of that stuff, and I would much rather have a logical discourse about issues that are of actual concern rather than a false crisis that in many ways leads to policies and industries that are in fact harmful to the enviroment.

 

BTW, we should buy LED lightbulbs for many reasons unrelated to emissions.

Some people really like lambs and sloths, and carp and anchovies, and orangutans and breakfast cereals, and fruit-bats and stuff. I would say they make of the majority of the movement, if not the heads.

 

 

I like all of that stuff, and I would much rather have a logical discourse about issues that are of actual concern rather than a false crisis that in many ways leads to policies and industries that are in fact harmful to the enviroment.

 

I agree. I think individuals taking little steps is going to make a much bigger impact than government mandated stuff.

 

But there are hundreds of millions of people in this country that flat out believe there is nothing wrong with the environment and that we don't need to worry about any of this. That is wrong. Don't pretend it is just the environmentalists that don't want to have a logical discourse on this.

 

And I really think you're whole "people want the government to control everything" bit is really off base for 99% of environmentalists.

Well its only fair to add that if this water were to be added... rising sea levels would be on Antarctica and Greenland majorly. Thats the point Im trying to make.

 

And solar cycles are your real answers to all of this.

 

The oceans are kind of all connected.

sea levels vary by geography, is not like filling a bowl with water where the water surface would be leveled

 

Exactly. When you melt that ice, its not dispersing water levels across the world unless every single bit of Antarctica or Greenland are above sea level, which they are not.

 

As someone mentioned before... if ALL of that ice really melted (and we are talking about a good 20 degrees in temperature, not going to happen in a million years) you'd probably see fast rising sea levels, but none of that BS about ALL OF NEW YORK CITY and stuff like that. Maybe half of East Boca Raton, if that suits ya.

 

Anyways... if you want the real answer to "global warming" I think its the sun's fault. Solar activity from the solar cycles.

 

Take a look at this chart:

 

 

 

That Maunder Minimum there is believed (by the astronomical side of the global warming argument) to be the cause of the Little Ice Age. How it is ironic that the exact opposite way around, when we see extreme maximum's for our lifetime, we insist on blaming ourselves.

 

And please, dont try to shoot down the methods of 1700 AD astronomers. Their method still works today.

It keeps people like Al Gore employed.

The rock is also floating on liquid if you didn't know.

This isn't a cartoon world. Islands don't float.

 

:owned :haha :haha :haha :haha