kevin rudd and the global warming farce are being exposed...

Assemblyman urges repeal of NJ global warming law, warns of ‘dramatic cooling’



StumbleUponPoliticker NJ.com
Friday, August 15, 2008

DOHERTY: NEW SCIENTIFIC DATA JUSTIFIES REPEALING GLOBAL WARMING RESPONSE ACT

URGES STATE TO HOLD OFF ON DAMAGING NEW REGULATIONS AS CLIMATE CHANGE THEORIES CLASH

Responding to various new scientific reports questioning the concept of global warming, Assemblyman Michael Doherty today called on Governor Corzine to hold off on proposing any new regulations associated with the state’s Global Warming Response Act and urged the Legislature to repeal that act when it returns to legislative business after Labor Day.

“There are many credible members of the scientific community who have questioned the theory of global warming, and now we have some scientists actually suggesting the earth’s temperatures may be entering a period of dramatic cooling,” said Doherty, R-Warren and Hunterdon. “With this growing level of scientific uncertainty, it makes no sense to enact a new set of economically damaging regulations prompted by the global warming hysteria of recent years.”

(Article continues below)




The Global Warming Response Act was signed last year by Corzine, which requires the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050. The law required the state Department of Environmental Protection to release a report detailing how the state would meet the goals, with recommendations now expected to be issued this fall.

According to recent news reports, a top observatory that has been measuring sun spot activity predicts that global temperatures will drop by two degrees over the next 20 years as solar activity slows and the planet drastically cools down. They suggest this could potentially herald the onset of a new ice age. Following the end of the sun’s most active period in over 11,000 years, the last 10 years have displayed a clear cooling trend as temperatures post-1998 leveled out and are now decreasing.

(SEE Dearth Of Sunspot Activity To Herald New Ice Age?)

Earlier this year, John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel, stated that manmade global warming is “the greatest scam in history,” adding, “I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a scam.” Coleman said the theory of global warming is based on fraudulent science.

“New Jersey’s tax and regulatory climate is already chasing jobs from this state left and right and these new regulations will make matters worse,” Doherty said. “Rather than conforming our policies to questionable scientific theories, we should be looking at the concrete economic indicators that show our state’s economy is in trouble. And we should be taking steps to help people who are losing jobs and being forced out of their homes by this state’s anti-economic growth agenda – not making matters worse.”

Welcome to OzPolitic Imperial.

Do you have any original references to this 'top observatory'? Odd that they didn't mention it by name.

Obviously the global warming scientists are scamming for more research money, it is obviously a conspiracy.

Today in Melbourne it is raining, but scientists and politicians still say we are in drought.
Obviously the talk of drought is a lie.

Today in Melbourne it is cold, but scientists and politicians say we have global warming.
Obviously the talk of GW is a lie.

You've convinced me Imp, now, do you happen to know who REALLY shot JFK?

Welcome, Imperial.


imperial wrote on Aug 16^th, 2008 at 9:53am:

“There are many credible members of the scientific community who have questioned the theory of global warming, and now we have some scientists actually suggesting the earth’s temperatures may be entering a period of dramatic cooling,” said Doherty, R-Warren and Hunterdon. “With this growing level of scientific uncertainty, it makes no sense to enact a new set of economically damaging regulations prompted by the global warming hysteria of recent years.”

Again, the 'some scientists disagree" argument which ignores that the OVERWHELMING majority of credible scientists that do agree with the science. And, credible to whom? And how so? Are they credible because they agree with the AGW movement? It's like saying that Al-Jazeera is not credible Muslim media source because it is funded by Qatar (which is allied to the US). Find a link and twist it whichever way to advantage your argument.

The global temperature is cooling and the the heating/cooling cycle argument.... yes, the earth goes through a natural cycle of heating and cooling. No one disputes that. However, the rate of temperature decrease do not equal the rate of temperature increase, thereby the lineal global average temperature is actually increasing.

A good illustrative link





The average global temperature has risen in the past 150 years. The period from 1961 to 1990 is the comparison point for this graph. This is represented by the horizontal line at 0. The anomaly, or variation from this average, is shown for each year.
The average global temperature for a given year is indicated by a blue or red dot. For example, the year 1900 was 0.2 C degree (0.36 F degree) cooler than the 1961–1990 average. The warmest year in this record was 1998, nearly 0.6 C degree (1.1 F degrees) warmer than the 1961–1990 average.
The heavy blue and red line traces the average global temperature for five year periods. For example, the average temperature for 1998—2002, which is centered on 2000, was 0.4 C degree (0.7 F degrees) above the 1961–1990 average. The period from 1958 to 1962, centered on 1960, was right on that average.

---

Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered
_____________________________
  
15 Aug 08 - “Just a few weeks ago, predictions of Arctic ice collapse were buzzing all over the internet. Some scientists were predicting that the "North Pole may be ice-free for first time this summer". Others predicted that the entire "polar ice cap would disappear this summer".

“The Arctic melt season is nearly done for this year. The sun is now very low above the horizon and will set for the winter at the North Pole in five weeks. And none of these dire predictions have come to pass. Yet there is, however, something odd going on with the ice data.

“The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado released an alarming graph on August 11, showing that Arctic ice was rapidly disappearing, back towards last year's record minimum. Their data shows Arctic sea ice extent only 10 per cent greater than this date in 2007, and the second lowest on record (see link below to view graphs).

However, a comparison of maps derived from NSIDC data shows that “Arctic ice extent was 30 per cent greater on August 11, 2008 than it was on the August 12, 2007. (2008 is a leap year, so the dates are offset by one.)

"... ice has grown in nearly every direction since last summer - with a large increase in the area north of Siberia. Also note that the area around the Northwest Passage (west of Greenland) has seen a significant increase in ice. Some of the islands in the Canadian Archipelago are surrounded by more ice than they were during the summer of 1980.

“(The NSIDC graph) appears to disagree with the maps by a factor of three (10 per cent vs. 30 per cent) - hardly a trivial discrepancy.

“The Arctic did not experience the meltdowns forecast by NSIDC and the Norwegian Polar Year Secretariat. It didn't even come close. Additionally, some current graphs and press releases from NSIDC seem less than conservative. There appears to be a consistent pattern of overstatement related to Arctic ice loss.

And what of the Antarctic? Down south, ice extent is well ahead of the recent average. Why isn't NSIDC making similarly high-profile press releases about the increase in Antarctic ice over the last 30 years?

See entire article by Steven Goddard
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/

Observatory predicts two degree drop in temperatures over next two decades as solar activity dwindles
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, August 14, 2008

A top observatory that has been measuring sun cycles for over 200 years predicts that global temperatures will drop by two degrees over the next two decades as solar activity grinds to a halt and the planet drastically cools down, potentially heralding the onset of a new ice age.

While the mass media, Al Gore and politicized bodies like the IPCC scaremonger about the perils of global warming and demand the poor and middle class pay CO2 taxes, both hard scientific data and circumstantial evidence points to a clear cooling trend.

Following the end of the Sun’s most active period in over 11,000 years, the last 10 years have displayed a clear cooling trend as temperatures post-1998 leveled out and are now plummeting.

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)



China recently experienced its coldest winter in 100 years while northeast America was hit by record snow levels and Britain suffered its coldest April in decades as late-blooming daffodils were pounded with hail and snow on an almost daily basis. The British summer has also left many yearning for global warming, with temperatures in June and July rarely struggling to get over 16 degrees and on one occasion even dropping as low as 9 degrees in the middle of the afternoon.

“Summer heat continues in short supply, continuing a trend that has dominated much of the 21st Century’s opening decade,” reports the Chicago Tribune. “There have been only 162 days 90 degrees or warmer at Midway Airport over the period from 2000 to 2008. That’s by far the fewest 90-degree temperatures in the opening nine years of any decade on record here since 1930.”

The reason? Sunspot activity has dwindled. There have only been a handful of days in the past two months where any sunspot activity has been observed and over 400 spotless days have been recorded in the current solar cycle.

“The sun’s surface has been fairly blank for the last couple of years, and that has some worried that it may be entering another Maunder minimum, the sun’s 50-year abstinence from sunspots, which some scientists have linked to the Little Ice Age of the 17th century,” reports one science blog.

Long-time man-made global warming advocates NASA assure us that significant sunspot activity will return in 2012, but a recent a paper on recent solar trends by William Livingston and Matthew Penn of the National Solar Observatory in Tucson, predicts that sunspots will all but vanish after 2015.

Since the sun, and not carbon dioxide, is the principle driver of climate change, a dearth of sunspot activity would herald a repeat of the Maunder Minimum, the name given to the period roughly from 1645 to 1715, when sunspots became exceedingly rare and contributed to the onset of the Little Ice Age during which Europe and North America were hit by bitterly cold winters and the Thames river in London completely froze.


The spotless sun: Eerily quiet solar activity has many scientists concerned that a new ice age could be on the horizon.

Forecasts of a sharp cooling trend are backed by the UK’s Armagh Observatory, which has been observing solar activity for over 200 years.

The observatory notes that solar cycles 21 and 22, which were characterized by being short and intense in their activity, led to the natural global warming observed in the 80’s and 90’s.

“Cycle 23, which hasn’t finished yet, looks like it will be long (at least 12 to 13 years) and cycle 24, which has still to start, looks like it will be exceptionally weak,” writes one observatory scientist.

“Based on the past Armagh measurements, this suggests that over the next two decades, global temperatures may fall by about 2 degrees C — that is, to a level lower than any we have seen in the last 100 years….“Temperatures have already fallen by about 0.5 degrees C over the past 12 months and, if this is only the start of it, it would be a serious concern,” concludes David Watt.

Such predictions are of course of little interest to a global PR machine that butters its bread on attributing every weather event, be it droughts, floods, volcanoes or earthquakes, to man-made global warming.

No matter that the last ten years have showed no global warming and the next 10 years are predicted to show no global warming, the fact that temperatures are clearly dropping in correlation to the lack of sunspot activity means nothing to people who are already committed to a quasi-religious belief system and governments that have resolved to squeeze the middle class citing fraudulent claims of eco-apocalypse as an excuse, while the real environmental crises - deforestation, GM madness, cell phone tower radiation, genetic splicing and chemtrails go almost completely ignored.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/dearth-of-sunspot-activity-to-herald-new-ice-age.html

A good illustrative look at the extent of the Arctic polar ice shelf 1979 - 2005. Just because the prediction is out doesn't discount the fact that there is a trend towards zero ice.

Link to interaction illustration

notice now GW now has become 'climate change'...with a tax no less..

www.iceagenow.com  (worth a look)

Do you think you could present the argument here, in your own words, just once rather than providing links in every post?

imperial wrote on Aug 17^th, 2008 at 8:37am:

And what of the Antarctic? Down south, ice extent is well ahead of the recent average. Why isn't NSIDC making similarly high-profile press releases about the increase in Antarctic ice over the last 30 years?

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the Arctic and the Antarcticis are two very different scenarios. The Antarctic is a land mass covered in ice while the Arctic has no land mass and comprises of ice mass floating on water and therefore subjected to aberrant global water temp.

When it gets really cold, snowfall increase with temperature. The same is not true of sea ice.

imperial wrote on Aug 17^th, 2008 at 5:41pm:

notice now GW now has become 'climate change'...with a tax no less.. www.iceagenow.com  (worth a look)

Clmate change is the term generally used by AGW. Their argument is "yeah, climate conditions change so what!" It is used to distract away from the real issue at hand which the overall warming of global temps causing changes in conditions (climate change). They are explaining away the symptons without actually addressing the cause.

Generally, those who are against or skeptical of the science of global warming (for whatever reason) are the ones using the term "climate change". The real issue stil remains global warming.

I think the term climate change may have been pushed by the scientific community, as it better reflects the non-uniform global response and the long term non-linearities of the response.

freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2008 at 5:47pm:

When it gets really cold, snowfall increase with temperature. The same is not true of sea ice.

Actually, it has more to do with the thickness of the ice sheet. The ice sheet together with a blanket of snow acts as an insulator for the warmer water below with the colder air above.

freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2008 at 6:02pm:

I think the term climate change may have been pushed by the scientific community, as it better reflects the non-uniform global response and the long term non-linearities of the response.

Yes but the key issue is global warming. Global warming is an overall warming of the planet, based on average temperature over the entire surface. This relates to CO2, emissions, CFCs etc.

Climate change refers to changes in regional climate characteristics, including temperature, humidity, rainfall, wind, and severe weather events. A rise or a drop in temp is a change in the climate.

The difference is subtle. The term climate change does not directly infer the role of carbon emitters in the the warming of the planet because change goes both ways. However, global warming does.

Scientist Predicts Ice Age Within 10 Years

University of Mexico expert says lack of solar activity to cause significant cooling that will last over half a century

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, August 19, 2008

As evidence builds of the earth entering a dramatic cooling trend, another scientist has gone public with his conviction that we are about to enter a new ice age, rendering warnings about global warming fraudulent and irrelevant.

Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera of the Institute of Geophysics at the University of Mexico states that “In about ten years the Earth will enter a “little ice age” which will last from 60 to 80 years and may be caused by the decrease in solar activity,” according to a report in the major Mexican newspaper Milenio Diario.

Herrera slammed the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) stance on global warming as “erroneous” because of their failure to factor in the impact of solar activity.

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)



The models and forecasts of the IPCC “is incorrect because only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity,” said Herrera.

Herrera states that the earth is entering a natural phase of climate transition during which solar activity will diminish considerably, “so that in two years or so, there will be a small ice age that lasts from 60 to 80 years.”

Herrera cited the growth in glaciers observed at the Andes, Perito Moreno, Logan, the highest mountain in Canada, and Franz-Josef Glacier, New Zealand.

A dramatic cooling trend is being observed across the planet even as people like Al Gore continue to claim that the threat of global warming mandates the poor and middle class be hit with CO2 taxes in order to prevent climate change.

Both anecdotal evidence and hard data indicates that the planet is in the beginning stages of a significant downturn in global temperatures.

Following the end of the Sun’s most active period in over 11,000 years, the last 10 years have displayed a clear cooling trend as temperatures post-1998 leveled out and are now plummeting.

China recently experienced its coldest winter in 100 years while northeast America was hit by record snow levels and Britain suffered its coldest April in decades as late-blooming daffodils were pounded with hail and snow on an almost daily basis. The British summer has also left many yearning for global warming, with temperatures in June and July rarely struggling to get over 16 degrees and on one occasion even dropping as low as 9 degrees in the middle of the afternoon.

“Summer heat continues in short supply, continuing a trend that has dominated much of the 21st Century’s opening decade,” reports the Chicago Tribune. “There have been only 162 days 90 degrees or warmer at Midway Airport over the period from 2000 to 2008. That’s by far the fewest 90-degree temperatures in the opening nine years of any decade on record here since 1930.”



The reason? Sunspot activity has dwindled. There have only been a handful of days in the past two months where any sunspot activity has been observed and over 400 spotless days have been recorded in the current solar cycle.

“The sun’s surface has been fairly blank for the last couple of years, and that has some worried that it may be entering another Maunder minimum, the sun’s 50-year abstinence from sunspots, which some scientists have linked to the Little Ice Age of the 17th century,” reports one science blog.

Since the sun, and not carbon dioxide, is the principle driver of climate change, a dearth of sunspot activity would herald a repeat of the Maunder Minimum, the name given to the period roughly from 1645 to 1715, when sunspots became exceedingly rare and contributed to the onset of the Little Ice Age during which Europe and North America were hit by bitterly cold winters and the Thames river in London completely froze.

Long-time man-made global warming advocates NASA assure us that significant sunspot activity will return in 2012, but a recent a paper on recent solar trends by William Livingston and Matthew Penn of the National Solar Observatory in Tucson, predicts that sunspots will all but vanish after 2015.

As we reported last week, the Armagh observatory, which has been measuring sun cycles for over 200 years. predicts that global temperatures will drop by two degrees over the next 20 years as solar activity grinds to a halt and the planet drastically cools down, potentially heralding the onset of a new ice age.

“Based on the past Armagh measurements, this suggests that over the next two decades, global temperatures may fall by about 2 degrees C — that is, to a level lower than any we have seen in the last 100 years….”Temperatures have already fallen by about 0.5 degrees C over the past 12 months and, if this is only the start of it, it would be a serious concern,” concludes David Watt.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/scientist-predicts-ice-age-within-10-years.html

Arctic Ice Grows 30 Per Cent In a Year

Predictions of “ice free” summer for first time in history completely debunked

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Alarmist scientists who predicted that the North Pole could be “ice free” this summer as a result of global warming have been embarrassed after it was revealed that Arctic ice has actually grown by around 30 per cent in the year since August 2007.

Back in June, numerous prominent voices in the scientific community expressed fears of a mass melting of the polar ice caps, including David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, who told National Geographic Magazine, “We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history].”

“This summer’s forecast—and unusual early melting events all around the Arctic—serve as a dire warning of how quickly the polar regions are being affected by climate change,” adds the article.

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)



In February, Dr. Olav Orheim, head of the Norwegian International Polar Year Secretariat, told Xinhua, “If Norway’s average temperature this year equals that in 2007, the ice cap in the Arctic will all melt away, which is highly possible judging from current conditions.”

As per usual, the reality has failed to match the hype of the climate doomsayers.

According to collated data from the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center and the University of Illinois, Arctic ice extent was 30 per cent greater on August 11, 2008 than it was on the August 12, 2007. This is a conservative estimate based on the map projection.


Blue pixels represent increased ice coverage over the North Pole in the year since August 2007.

The video below highlights the differences between those two dates,” reports The Register. “As you can see, ice has grown in nearly every direction since last summer - with a large increase in the area north of Siberia. Also note that the area around the Northwest Passage (west of Greenland) has seen a significant increase in ice. Some of the islands in the Canadian Archipelago are surrounded by more ice than they were during the summer of 1980.”



But what of the Antarctic down south? Figures tell us that ice coverage in the year since August 2007 has grown by nearly one million square kilometers.

As The Register article notes, “The Arctic did not experience the meltdowns forecast by NSIDC and the Norwegian Polar Year Secretariat. It didn’t even come close. Additionally, some current graphs and press releases from NSIDC seem less than conservative. There appears to be a consistent pattern of overstatement related to Arctic ice loss.”

A general cooling trend across the planet is now clearly apparent as sunspot activity, the main driver of climate change, dwindles to almost nothing.

As we reported last week, A top observatory that has been measuring sun cycles for over 200 years predicts that global temperatures will drop by two degrees over the next two decades as solar activity grinds to a halt and the planet drastically cools down, potentially heralding the onset of a new ice age.

While the mass media, Al Gore and politicized bodies like the IPCC scaremonger about the perils of global warming and demand the poor and middle class pay CO2 taxes, both hard scientific data and circumstantial evidence points to a clear cooling trend.

How man-made global warming advocates will spin this one remains to be seen - maybe they will just continue to adopt their current tactic by claiming that any geological or weather event whatsoever, be it hurricanes, earthquakes, droughts or floods, temperature increase or decrease, and even a 30 per cent growth of the polar ice cap - is a result of that evil life-giving gas that we exhale - CO2.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/arctic-ice-grows-30-per-cent-in-a-year.html

Herrera slammed the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) stance on global warming as “erroneous” because of their failure to factor in the impact of solar activity.

Strawman. They do factor in solar activity.

that is your OPINION.....please provide your FACT....A link WILL SUFFICE. I have presented the findings of a scientist. surely you should back up your OPINION with evidence????

I have presented the findings of a scientist.

How do you know that? You can write any old garbage and chances are, some scientist somewhere in the world will be prepared to publicly agree with it. If you are going to make an appeal to scientific authority, you should look for something published in a peer reviewed journal, otherwise it's of no more value than the rantings of some nutter on an internet forum.

That being said, I would be interested in your own opinion on the issue. If I suspected you actually believed that crap, I might make an effort to counter it.

Quote:

Strawman. They do factor in solar activity

truely impressive rebuttal..... ::)

you stick to opinion...i'll handle the facts....

Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud


Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner was interviewed by Gregory Murphy on June 6 for EIR. Dr. Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. He is past president of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years.

EIR: I would like to start with a little bit about your background, and some of the commissions and research groups you've worked on.

Mörner: I am a sea-level specialist. There are many good sea-level people in the world, but let's put it this way: There's no one who's beaten me. I took my thesis in 1969, devoted to a large extent to the sea-level problem. From then on, I have launched most of the new theories, in the '70s, '80s, and '90s.

Working in this field, I don't think there's a spot on the Earth I haven't been in! In the northmost, Greenland; and in Antarctica; and all around the Earth, and very much at the coasts. So I have primary data from so many places, that when I'm speaking, I don't do it out of ignorance, but on the contrary, I know what I'm talking about.

EIR: What is the real state of the sea-level rising?

Mörner: You have to look at that in a lot of different ways. ... we can see that the sea level was indeed rising, from, let us say, 1850 to 1930-40. And that rise had a rate in the order of 1 millimeter per year. Not more. 1.1 is the exact figure.

That ended in 1940, and there had been no rise until 1970 ... There's no trend, absolutely no trend.... and then we go to satellite altimetry, and I will return to that.

Another way of looking at what is going on is the tide gauge. Tide gauging is very complicated, because it gives different answers for wherever you are in the world. But we have to rely on geology when we interpret it. So, for example, those people in the IPCC choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It's the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn't use.

... Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that. ...So tide gauges, you have to treat very, very carefully. Now, back to satellite altimetry. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.

Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in [the 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....

I have been the expert reviewer for the IPCC, both in 2000 and last year. The first time I read it, I was exceptionally surprised. First of all, it had 22 authors, but none of them—none—were sea-level specialists. They were given this mission, because they promised to answer the right thing....Three of them were from Austria, where there is not even a coast! The others were not specialists. So that's why, when I became president of the INQUA Commission on Sea-Level Change and Coastal Evolution, we made a research project, and we had this up for discussion at five international meetings. And all the true sea level specialists agreed on this figure, that in 100 years, we might have a rise of 10 cm (3.9 inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10 cm—that's not very much.

        (Four inches of sea level rise in 100 years - plus or minus four inches.
        Not exactly earth shattering.)

Then we went to the Maldives. I traced a drop in sea level in the 1970s, and the fishermen told me, "Yes, you are correct, because we remember"—things in their sailing routes have changed, things in their harbor have changed. I worked in the lagoon, I drilled in the sea, I drilled in lakes, I looked at the shore morphology—so many different environments.

Always the same thing: In about 1970, the sea fell about 20 cm, for reasons involving probably evaporation or something.

Another famous place is the Tuvalu Islands, which are supposed to soon disappear ... There we have a tide gauge record, a variograph record, from 1978, so it's 30 years. And again ... absolutely no trend, no rise.

You have Vanuatu, and also in the Pacific, north of New Zealand and Fiji— there is the island Tegua. They said they had to evacuate it, because the sea level was rising

That heading is false. It's even states within the article that "4 inches of sea level in 100 years - plus or minus 4 inches. Not exactly earth shattering." indicates that the science sof rising sea levels is not debated. What is really debated is whether the RATE of the rise is increasing or not.

4 inches.... 100 years....

Historical data such as ice core sample has shown that the average sea level has been rising for 10,000 years (since the last glacial period). Data has shown that post glacial epriod the sea level rose approx 130m with most of the rise occuring in the first 6000 years. From 3000 years ago to the start of the 1900s the average annual rise has been 0.1 - 0.2mm. For the 1900 onwards the annual increase has been 1 - 2mm. From 1993, satelite pictures shows that the annual increase was 3mm. 4 inches in 100 years is hardly earth shattering indeed. Ho9wever, that figure is taken out of context. The figure is a combine average overage 100 years. It does not take into account the the early to middle/late part the average rise was very low with the majority increase rate towards the later end of the 100 years. The data to be calculated exponentially as does the data shows. With the exponential trend the sea level in 2100 should be about 340mm (13 inches) higher than what is is now. This calculates to a lineal average of approx 6 inches - still highly earth shattering but gives a false impression.

As I've said the AGW movement doesn't have to prove that the science is wrong, they only need to cast doubt on the science (even if their assertion is wrong as this one is). With reports like this and its subsequent circulation via the www is enough to stymie the true and total conversion to the science of GW.

Postscript.....

I note that Morner was interviewed by EIR (Executive Intelligence Review - a publication of Lyndon LaRouche). Read up on Larouche which should further explan the basis of origin of the Morner article.

LaRouche critics labels him as a conspiracy theorist, a fascist, an anti-Semite (anti-Jewish or anti Arabs - depending on which definition you subscribe to), the leader of a political cult, a neo-con, and most certainly a political lobbyist. LaRouche was once quoted to say that he believes that the Queen of England controls the world drug trade. He has been known to lie to make his points.

imperial wrote on Aug 17^th, 2008 at 8:50am:

Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner was interviewed by Gregory Murphy on June 6 for EIR. Dr. Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. He is past president of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years.

So then he should have no trouble or ignorance in knowing that the way to put forth a serious academic theory is to submit it to a peer reviewed journal... rather than conduct an interview about how the sea is supposedly not rising.  :-?