Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Global Warmists Lie About Ocean Levels

No sooner did we discover that the trees are sabotaging global warming, than we get news that global warming enthusiasts are fudging their data to make the oceans appear to be rising, when they aren’t. This has been a bad month for the enthusiasts. In fact, it’s been a bad couple years.

Climate change enthusiasts have had a bad time of late:

1. Their seminal religious text, the Nobel-Prize-winning Fourth Report (2007) of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been repeatedly disgraced:
● They had to retract a completely unsupported statement that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035.

● Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. In fact, global temperatures are currently below the “low end” of the IPCC’s prediction. What’s more, 1999-2008 showed no warming, and certainly not the 0.20 degrees Celsius expected by the IPCC.

● It was revealed that flaws in weather stations wrongly created warming.

● It was revealed that the report wrongly used summer data for winter months to generate warming.

● The IPCC claim that global warming will hurt biodiversity was shown to have no basis -- not to mention that the world’s species are at least one million years old and thus have all been through hundreds of climate cycles.

● They had to retract unsubstantiated fears about threats to the Amazon rainforests;

● The IPCC’s statement that sea level would rise 2.3 mm per year was shown to be based on data collected in a part of Hong Kong that is sinking.
2. Real scientists have debunked much of the enthusiasts claims. For example, despite claims by enthusiasts, CO2 does not constitute 3% of the atmosphere, it actually constitutes 0.037%. What’s more, ice core samples show that we are currently in a low CO2 period compared to earth’s history. Indeed, CO2 levels have been as much as 10 times higher than today. And CO2 changes typically follow temperature changes, i.e. they do not lead temperature changes, and often by hundreds of years.

3. In 2009, the climate “scientists” primarily responsible for tracking global warming were caught fudging their data and formulas and waging a jihad against their opponents (see climategate).

4. In January, IPCC scientist Osvaldo Canziani was listed as an advisor on a report that overstated warming by 1000%, and which was published even after this error was pointed out to the study’s authors. They neither corrected nor noted the error.

5. Last week warming enthusiasts had to back down from claims about warming because it turned out that trees were actually absorbing carbon dioxide. . . as expected.
Now we have the sea level issue. Warming enthusiasts assert that rising sea levels would wipe out islands and coastal cities. The IPCC predicts sea level rises equal to 2.3 meters per century, with 2.7 feet happening this century. But in January 2010, they had to retract this report because of “mistakes in time intervals and inaccurately applied statistics.” Then in May of 2010, a paleogeophysics/geodynamics professor from Stockholm University in Sweden issued a report that observations from around the world showed no rising sea levels in the last 40 years.

So what do you do when the sea just won’t do what you predict? The University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group decided to add 0.3 millimeters a year to their sea level figures to create rising sea levels where none exist.

But don’t worry, they assure us, this rising is real. . . you just can’t see it because the land level is rising too. Does this make sense to anyone? If this is true and both land and sea are rising equally, then where is the justification for panicking the world into fighting global warming? And if it’s not true, then this is just another example of poli-scientists fudging their data to make their predictions appear to be true. And if land and sea are rising equally, why add 0.3 millimeters to create the impression that the sea is rising faster than the land?

Do you know what the Sea Level Research Group responded? Come on, we're not adding much.

I kid you not.


(P.S. Sorry for not continuing the 2012 contender series today, but Bachmann is requiring more research than expected. Besides. . . Ronald "Huntsman" Reagan has it all sewn up, right?)

34 comments:

Tennessee Jed said...

Great report, Andrew. I am wondering how WAPO, NYT, and NBC missed this :-)

darski said...

I find it most interesting that when the purpose of Science was to discover God's Universe and its functioning Science was a true science. Since it has become Man's discovery of what Man can do - it has become a joke and no one is laughing.

I remember a time when Science was still trusted. Guess that just tells you how very, very old I must be.

Anonymous said...

But Andrew, I thought when The One got into office the oceans were going to recede? This is just terrible! We must do something!!

TJ

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I can't imagine how they missed it? Something must have gone wrong at the printer, because I can't imagine the MSM missing such a story! LOL!

AndrewPrice said...

darski, Science has often been co-opted by money, public opinion, government or religion. But we're supposed to be well beyond that, with science now being concerned solely with the discovery of truth. Yet, strangely, parts of science are more riddled with politics today than ever before. In fact, the global warming crowd are more like liars or criminals perpetuating a fraud than scientists -- whatever they need to make their current claims they just make up.

AndrewPrice said...

TJ, I'm honestly not sure what happened. The homeless did disappear, except for the one guy who got the inheritance the other day. I believe AIDS was cured, as was famine. And I'm pretty sure that everyone got 12% smarter and 14% better looking. But for some reason, the oceans did not recede. Maybe we've done something wrong? Maybe Obama just hasn't honored us yet with this miracle? LOL!

T-Rav said...

Andrew, I noticed this story the other day and would have mentioned it on the trees & CO2 thread if I'd thought of it.

Just curious...these scientists do realize that "sea level" is a relative term, right? If the land is rising at roughly the same rate, there is not, in fact, a sea level rise? (sigh)

Also, I find it ironic/hilarious that the same people squawking about how a one degree rise in temperature is such a huge deal now claim a 0.3 mm addition per year is no biggie.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: Good update. This is the eco-cuckoos' version of the Big Lie. They're doing to keep repeating it, lying about it, and forcing it down people's throats until they get their way. I think they may have mistaken the people of the United States in 2011 for the Germans in 1929. We're not an easy sell.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, That was pointed out to them that if both land and sea rise, then there is no "sea level rise," but they rejected that. They said that all that matters is that the sea level has gone up in absolute terms.

A couple points on that. First, if that's true, then why not be honest about it? Why pretend that we're all going to drown when that's clearly false? Also, there is no way 0.3 mm is anywhere outside of a margin of error. This has to be nothing more than pure guess work to begin with. And adding the 0.3 mm only shows an intent to generate a rising sea level where none can be observed.

But then, look at who we're dealing with? Seriously, of all the spots in the world to measure the sea, they pick the one part of Hong Kong that is sinking? That's a level of dishonesty that's just staggering for "scientists."

Also, I agree with you that it's amazing that they would claim an unnoticeable 1 degree rise is the end of the world but somehow 0.3 mm rise (which is 9 feet every hundred years) somehow is irrelevant? Nothing about their "science" is consistent.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, What's interesting is that this might have worked before the internet, but it certainly won't work now. There is just too much information available out there. So when they come up with a lie like this, the group think people will buy into it, but the rest of us can spread the truth. And as fewer and fewer people believe this garbage, they will fail.

AndrewPrice said...

Hmm. I saw that Obama is speaking tonight. Who knew? Apparently he's talking about Afghanistan. I don't recall hearing much about that in the news since Obama solved all of their problems.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: Unless they get control of the internet. Bwah-hah-hah.

AndrewPrice said...

Hence their efforts to "regulate" the internet... and talk radio. If you can't win on the message, then suppress the other guy. It's the leftist way.

DUQ said...

I have to wonder if anything we've heard from environmentalists over the last couple decades is real? I'm betting none of it is.

Huntsman announcing from where Ronald Reagan announced was a joke. He should have burst into flames for trying that. Rush did a great job tearing him apart yesterday.

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, Probably none of it's true.

Yeah, the Huntsman thing was just wrong. The guy is a mega-RINO, why he would try to pretend to be Ronald Reagan is just beyond me except that he's cynical and he thinks this will fool people.

LawHawkRFD said...

DUQ and Andrew: The New Republic just asked "Is Jon Huntsman the Next Wesley Clark?" That pretty much says it all, and also indicates that even the left doesn't take him seriously enough to advance him as "the Republican who could win." They also caught the irony of Huntsman appearing at the same place as Ronald Reagan for his announcement. "Huntsman’s words themselves were flickering sparklers rather than skyrocketing Roman candles."

Ed said...

It never stops with these people does it? I can even kind of understand why they want to keep track of sea and land levels in absolute terms, but they lose all credibility when they tried to portray this as a sea level rise that should concern us.

Andrew, do they know why both the sea level and the water level are rising?

wahsatchmo said...

Once again, this was another one of those "science by press release" deals from an advocacy group. Surprise, surprise: Greenpeace features prominently in this advocacy group's sponsors. Given that several of the IPCC's lead authors were uncredentialed grad students, I hold their reports in very low regard, their executive summaries even less so, and any group's press release I immediately dismiss out of hand.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, That's interesting. I don't give Huntsman much of a chance because I can't see where his support base will come from on the Republican side?

That's a good comparison to Wesley Clark too as I expect Huntsman (when he realizes he can't ever win as a Republican) to suddenly discover that he's always really been a Democrat, and then to eventually end up with a CNN gig.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, No, it never stops.

They say that the land is rising because as the ice melts from the last global ice age, the weight on the land has reduced and the land has lifted. So presumably, even if Greenland melts (which is their latest fear now that it's clear the poles aren't melting), that will only continue to make the land rise.

Once again, the earth is in balance.

AndrewPrice said...

wasatchmo, I find it interesting that the BIG text on global warming/climate change, the one adopted by all those "scientists" at the UN has been so poorly done. Lack of credentials, obvious errors, unsupported assertions of "fact." It's really pathetic. If a science team had been hired by a business to research something and put together a report like this, those scientists would be sued. But since this is a political issue rather than a scientific issue, and they reached the "right" result, they are instead heralded.

"Science by press release" is a great way to put it. I think they don't care if they are accurate or not, they just toss these reports out there and ride the news cycle. Then, if a retraction is needed, they make it quietly and that way they keep their claim alive in the public's mind even though it's totally wrong. It's like rumor-mongering.

And like you, I am not surprised at all that they are affiliated with Greenpeace. So much for unbiased scientists seeking the truth!

BevfromNYC said...

This all reminds me of the May 21, 2011 Rapture thing. "Oh, did we say today? Our calculations were off. We mean October 21, 2011! Yeah, that's it - October."

Did we say there was "global warming"? We didn't mean that, we meant "climate change"! It's not just that the sea is rising, the entire EARTH is rising because of CO2 in the Earth's core, not atmosphere."

Grrrrr..

Obama is speaking tonight about "bringing the troups home from Afghanistan". Against the advice of his military commanders, he is planning on withdrawing 10K troops by December. BTW, what's happened to our drawdown in Iraq?

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, It seems very similar. You're going to die from X... did we say X? We meant Y. Did we say Y? We meant Z? Did we say.....

And yet, the MSM doesn't seem to have a hint that something is wrong here. What does that tell us about our media?


Obama's Afghan policy reminds me of the phrase "half pregnant." He seems to want to fight, but not send enough troops, and then withdraw what he sent, but only enough to cause problems for those who are left. It's like he thinks if does everything half-assed, somehow that makes him morally right no matter which way things go.

And forget Iraq, Iraq no longer exists... just like Gitmo.

T-Rav said...

Huntsman: For those who think Mitt Romney is too extreme.

AndrewPrice said...

Nice slogan T-Rav, you should make that a bumper sticker! LOL!

Ed said...

I just saw to interesting headlines.

The first is that Gore says Obama failed on climate change. So much for honor among thieves.

The second is that Huntsman's family gave $25k to Harry Frick'n Reid. Huntsman is in the wrong party.

StanH said...

Great overview Andrew, exposing these SOB’s for lying bastards that they are.

Anecdote in regards to sea-level: I was watching a travel show one lazy Saturday, the show was in Scotland. They were touring a thousand year old castle, and walked out to the back boat/ship landing, that somehow or another, was around 2-300 hundred feet from the ocean. Now, I know this is Medieval Scotland, and compared to some of our geniuses, (see above article poli-scientist) but I would guess the castle builders knew to put the “boat” dock next to the ocean. My point is sea-levels rise, and fall, and can by many feet, we don’t control the earth, it controls us, as much as it pains the Goreacle and his witless minions to admit.

BevfromNYC said...

But aren't the seas rising because there are many more whales to displace the water than there were 100 years ago? You know, like when you put too much ice in a cocktail, it overflows so you have to lick the excess off the...oh, wait...I've said too much.

BevfromNYC said...

By the way you are correct. Obama does everything half-assed, so he can claim whichever way the wind blows on whatever topic. His entire career has been built on a series of half-truths or avoidance. He is avoiding the gay marriage issue by suddenly discovering "States rights".

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Stan. On Scotland... shhhhh! We're not supposed to notice things like that which disprove their stupid theory that mankind is destroying the planet! LOL!

I'm so glad that the internet has come along and we can spread these kinds of facts without having to rely on the MSM.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I never thought about that, but boy does it make sense! We should start killing whales to save our cities! LOL!

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, Obama's career really is based on avoiding responsibility. I'm glad he's not my candidate! Could you imagine how bad of a President he would make. . . oh, wait. :-(

Seriously though, you're right, he's all about avoiding decisions. And I think the gay rights thing will blow up in his face. The gay lobby does not react well to avoidance measures.

BevfromNYC said...

But Stan, what about all of those ancient cities under the Meditarranean? What about Atlantis!!!

StanH said...

Bev! …do not believe your lying eyes. You must listen to the Goreacle, he’s all knowing and fat.

Post a Comment