Good news! Sea levels aren't rising dangerously

This week’s Spectator cover star Nils-Axel Mörner brings some good news to a world otherwise mired in misery: sea levels are not rising dangerously – and haven’t been for at least 300 years. To many readers this may come as a surprise. After all, are not rising sea levels – caused, we are given to understand, by melting glaciers and shrinking polar ice – one of the main planks of the IPCC’s argument that we need to act now to ‘combat climate change’?

(to read more, click here)

14 thoughts on “Good news! Sea levels aren't rising dangerously”

  1. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Holocene_Sea_Level.png

    Between 8000 and 7000 years ago, sea levels rose 11.5 metres (1150 cm), or 1.15 cm/year, without killing life on earth. The current rate of rise is 0.2 to 0.4 cm/year, depending on which measurements you use. Sea levels were 120 metres lower some 18,000 years ago, at the height of the last ice age. 450 million years ago, sea levels were 400 metres higher than today. That’s natural variability for you. Those who try to artificially keep nature in status quo don’t understand that it doesn’t exist. Change is the basis for everything. There is no balance of nature, and no natural stability other than negative feedback from cloud cover which cancels out CO2. The ecofascists have no baseline marker to call “natural” because the world is ever changing.

  2. “Those who try to artificially keep nature in status quo don’t understand that it doesn’t exist. ”

    Who are “those”? No-one with half a brain would ever think that nature would remain static. All the more reason to rely on proper research, not loonies like Morner who believes in dowsing (and looked a proper berk when challenged to prove it), and that he has discovered “the Hong Kong of the Greeks” in Sweden.

    1. “Who are “those”? No-one with half a brain would ever think that nature would remain static.” – Brian Rose

      Michael Mann’s hockey stick curve was faked to show constant temperature until CO2 began rising. IPCC/NASA gurus on the Horizon BBC2 “Science under Attack” propaganda film claimed that humanity emits 7 times more CO2 than nature, when in fact natural sources of CO2 emit 30 times more (even the IPCC 4th assessment report lists in its un-hyped small print that humanity’s emission is 29 Gt of CO2 from all fossil fuels etc, compared to 771 Gt from all natural land and ocean emissions). It’s well within the natural climate fluctuations of CO2, and the scare-propaganda relies entirely on censoring out the evidence of natural variability by tricks like switching temperature proxies at 1960 and 1980 so as to try to produce a hockey stick curve.

      Before 1960 they use tree rings as the major proxy, which is false because tree growth is sensitive to cloud cover and rainfall, not particularly CO2 levels. From 1960-80 they used temperature station records near expanding “heat islands” like industrial factories and cities. After 1980 they used satellites which can’t tell the temperature under the cloud cover where all negative-feedback from cloud cover actually occurs. No prizes for guessing that the satellite “temperature data” didn’t properly include negative feedback from the extra cloud cover resulting from the extra evaporation of water due to rising CO2. They’re complete fanatics, who don’t donate a single brain cell to objectivity, let alone half a brain!

      1. Nige, did you copy and paste every debunked and/or scientific conspiracy argument found on the internet into your reply?

        1. We dont have to invent stories about conspiracies – they’re all in Climategate, in plain view. Only an idiot or a fanatic can fail to see how damning the evidence against the climate community is.

          Take this gem for example – the WWF brokering a deal between Climategate Scientists and the Australian CSIRO on how much they should lie about the risk of extreme weather.

          http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/0933255789.txt

          I’m sure you will get some comments direct from Mike Rae in WWF Australia, but I wanted to pass on the gist of what they’ve said to me so far.

          They are worried that this may present a slightly more conservative
          approach to the risks than they are hearing from CSIRO. In particular, they would like to see the section on variability and extreme events beefed up if possible.

          1. “… [Dr Andy] Dessler has … used models which DO NOT ALLOW cloud changes to affect temperature, in order to support his case that cloud changes do not affect temperature!”

            – Dr Roy Spencer, ex-NASA climatologist, http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-my-initial-comments-on-the-new-dessler-2011-study/

            All of cheats, liars and charlatans ALWAYS start talking about intelligent design or religion to avoid the science using ad hominem attacks, and when you point out that this led to the holocaust, they ALWAYS then claim they are not attacking people’s beliefs, they are just conflating one thing with another in an ad hominem smear campaign of racial hatred disguised as objectivity:

            “Ad hominem attacks on people’s religious views are not science. Eugenicists like Medical Nobel Laureate Alexis Carrel (the first to propose gas chambers for “ethnic cleansing” in his 1935 bestseller, “Man the Unknown”) dismissed critics for being Jews. Making ad hominem attacks doesn’t count, I’m very sorry to tell you dear.”

            These ad hominem attackers know nothing of science, but dominate the media and politics scene.

            We need to censor out those who avoid the science and try to reject criticisms on the basis of conflating “science credentials” with personal preferences concerning irrelevant issues like religion or the best filling in a doughnut.

        2. AGW is debunked by Dr Roy Spencer: negative feedback from H2O and how it is being censored out by circular arguments, you guys will be as popular as eugenicists, so watch out. If you warm the ocean surface a bit (which covers 71% of the globe, unlike a greenhouse) the evaporated water forms extra clouds which cool the altitudes below the clouds and due to convective rising of warm air there is no mechanism for vertical mixing so the surface stays cool. In a “greenhouse” this can’t happen due to a glass ceiling, which all IPCC models implicitly assume. You eugenicists just want to profit from the green carbon credits, admit it! Actually the climate is always varying so there is 50% chance of rising temperatures, 50% of falling temperatures. This reduces the statistical value of correlations of CO2 and temperature when you take account of the fact that there is a 50% chance of an apparent “correlation”. It’s complete bullshit, and always has been:

          “… [Dr Andy] Dessler has … used models which DO NOT ALLOW cloud changes to affect temperature, in order to support his case that cloud changes do not affect temperature!”

          – Dr Roy Spencer, ex-NASA climatologist, http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-my-initial-comments-on-the-new-dessler-2011-study/

          1. Oh dear. That would be the same Roy Spencer who is an advisor to the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and a signatory to “An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming”, which tells us

            “We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception.”

            Incidentally the junk science that is Intelligent Design has been criticised by, among others, Ian Plimer, who needs no introduction here I am sure.

            Even accepting that the AGW supporters like Mann or Jones are charlatans does not redeem equal (or rather greater) charlatans like Morner; surely Nige you don’t believe in dowsing? Or intelligent design? Of course they might simply be right about AGW and wrong about dowsing etc (indeed, I would maintain Plimer was right about intelligent design, but rather shoddy when it comes to AGW – deliberately reversing findings of papers, relying on discredited sources etc – again this is not fatal to the anti-AGW thesis but nor does it help it) but it’s not much of an advertisement for Morner’s scientific credentials, is it?

          2. Ad hominem attacks on people’s religious views are not science. Eugenicists like Medical Nobel Laureate Alexis Carrel (the first to propose gas chambers for “ethnic cleansing” in his 1935 bestseller, “Man the Unknown”) dismissed critics for being Jews. Making ad hominem attacks doesn’t count, I’m very sorry to tell you dear.

          3. Your Alexis Carrel reference should win a prize for the most irrelevant comment in any comment thread anywhere in the history of the internet. I have no problem with anyone’s religious views. I do have a problem when they try and pass them off as science, such as intelligent design, which has as much scientific basis as the flying spaghetti monster, or “intelligent falling” (the deliberate parody of ID). The fact that Spencer advances such nonsense does not speak well of his credentials as a scientist, any more than Morner’s belief in Dowsing advances his.

            I can just imagine what you would say about a pro-AGW “scientist” who supported ID or dowsing – why the double standard for the sceptics?

          4. “Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.” – George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty Four, Chancellor Press, London, 1984, p. 225.

Comments are closed.