Rise of sea levels is ‘the greatest lie ever told’

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

By Christopher Booker, TELEGRAPH UK 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 Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, 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 Mörner, 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 Mörner.

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 Mörner 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.

•For more information, see Dr Mörner on YouTube (Google Mörner, Maldives and YouTube); or read on the net his 2007 EIR interview “Claim that sea level is rising is a total fraud”; or email him – morner@pog.nu – to buy a copy of his booklet ‘The Greatest Lie Ever Told’

Fined, frozen and now jailed

The Marine Fisheries Agency was certainly onto a winner when it enlisted the aid of the Assets Recovery Agency in its ruthless war against our fishermen. In December 2007 Charles McBride and his son Charles, from Kilkeel in Northern Ireland, were fined £385,000 for under-declaring catches of whitefish and prawns in the Irish Sea, threatening the loss of their homes and boat. But the Assets Recovery Agency, using powers designed to recover money from drug dealers, also froze all their assets. To pay the fines, the McBrides tried to borrow against their assets. Now, for this effort to pay the fines, Liverpool Crown Court has sentenced the two men to two and three months in gaol for “contempt of court”.

Blown away

The Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, timed his jibe impeccably last week when he said that opposing wind farms is as “socially unacceptable” as “not wearing a seatbelt”. Britain’s largest windfarm companies are pulling out of wind as fast as they can. Despite 100 per cent subsidies, the credit crunch and technical problems spell an end to Gordon Brown’s £100 billion dream of meeting our EU target to derive 35 per cent of our electricity from “renewables” by 2020.

Meanwhile the Government gives the go-ahead for three new 1,000 megawatt gas-fired power stations in Wales. Each of them will generate more than the combined average output (700 megawatts) of all the 2,400 wind turbines so far built. The days of the “great wind fantasy” will soon be over.

June 2, 2017 | 10 Comments » | 118 views

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

10 Comments / 10 Comments

  1. BOTH sides in this dispute, the “Liberals” and the “Conservatives” are using the big lies to advance their own agendas. The Liberals want to spend a fortune and also control the public via energy controls. The Conservatives want to keep us all enslaved to oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear power.
    But BOTH sides are in lock step on blocking ANY new energy technology that could challenge big oil.
    Energy inventors, mostly American, have long ago come up with advanced technologies that are totally clean, safe, very cheap and capable of supplying unlimited power to the entire world.
    I and others have tried for years to have anyone from either side just review some published research from credible sources. No cost and no risk. And yet we encountered a stone wall. Every side is locked in concrete just like trying to reason with Muslim Jihadists.

  2. “US JEWISH GROUPS CONDEMN TRUMP’S WITHDRAWAL FROM PARIS AGREEMENT

    BYDANIELLE ZIRI JUNE 2, 2017 02:58
    “Climate change is already placing a disproportionate burden on vulnerable communities around the world, generating severe storms, flooding, droughts and famine.””
    http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/US-Jewish-groups-condemn-Trumps-withdrawal-from-Paris-Agreement-494593

    Should “religious” groups be throwing their weight around on temporal issues? “Democratic party with holidays” indeed!

  3. @ yamit82:

    Thank you, Yamit. I needed that, with all the hot air going around, saying that “the sky is falling” because Trump and advisors scrapped a useless (unenforceable, unclear) piece of paper.

    As a scientist indeed (I hold an MS in Chemistry), I can safely say that most of the global warming has come from sore-loser Democrats, Jean-Claude Juncker and other alarmists. Carbon emissions around my house, meanwhile, come mainly from Franklin stoves and cow farts.

    I don’t think the Paris accords addressed the issue at all; but I suspect that if the Democrats won, we would be required to harness all cows to Tygon® tubing and hot water bottles, to capture and recycle the methane they generate. The cows have been mooing their appreciation, ever since November, 2016, that Trump won.

  4. CAPITALISM HAS CAUSED OUR GREAT MODERN PROBLEMS AND NO WAY CAN CAPITALISTS SOLVE IT…THEY ONLY COMPOUND THE PROBLEM AS THEY SPLIT INTO COMPETING TRIBES

    I DEFEND TRUMP AGAINST MSNBC BUT I NEED SCIENCE TO GUIDE ME ON VITAL ISSUES LIKE THE EARTH WARMING (IF IT IS)

    No question about it I defend the rightful nationalism of Trump. I defend Trump against Soros, against Globalism, against Obama and Clinton, against the MSNBC. I disagree with Trump on the way he approaches the issue of Global Warming. Trump approaches Global Warming which is a world phenomenon as a nationalist and as an opportunist.

    (There is at least one small element of truth in what Trump has said and done. If not carried to an extreme in one respect Trump is right. The UN Globalists have already totally failed to halt these problems of the environment. So the road to success is not with the Globalist UN. This is the most important starting point. All of these Globalists, if there is Global Warming, are totally unable to do a single thing to change this trend. This is because people like Gore and Soros are capitalists too, they are heavily invested in the capitalist system. But this capitalist system is SURELY the cause of the problem. Capitalism has reigned for 500 years and as Karl Marx pointed out in his “Communist Manifesto” capitalism opened up the world and moved the world on from feudalism but contains serious contradictions within its very structure. And Marx gives detail. So for Trump that (a critique of the likes of Merkel) is at least a starting point and while I do not dismiss it it is not much of a big deal either because Trump too is dumb-founded)
    Listen to this writer on Brietbart:
    QUOTE…
    “Policies that aim to reverse and disparage CO2 use have always been popular in the media, among ensconced government bureaucrats, and in academic circles, but they are anathema to the men and women who work in industry and agriculture. In my view, Trump is in the White House today largely because of that North Dakota energy speech. And if you doubt it, take a look at an election map showing the results of the 2016 presidential race. You’ll see that 84 percent of the nation is colored red, with huge majorities of Trump voters residing in America’s Heartland.”

    So that is not about science either. It is about electoral support. But that is also called “tailism”. There is no certainty that the “people” are correct either. Read that carefully and understand…Trump is following the crowd on this. If the crowd do not want to see global warming because it may harm the price of their livestock at market or any one of hundreds of pure profit reasons then Trump will follow.

    How can I put it? This is pure opportunism.
    Is it based on a reply to the evidence collected by scientists? No it is not! Rather the scientists are rubbished on a personal basis.
    The writer above is saying

    1. 84 per cent are for Trump so therefore if they do not want their profits harmed (as they think) by the concept of global warming then Trump goes along
    BUT 2. His daughter Ivanka thinks differently. I am saying that all should be out in the open and the arguments put in front of people with less emotion involved so we can arrive at some clarity. Note that Trump once rubbished the concept of global warming using a technique of loutish ignorance. But Trump is not doing this now. His position is to abstain. On the key issue, the science, he opts out. This is probably in response to Ivanka and possibly Kushner.

    By the way last night I listened to Michael Savage. He disparages the concept of global warming. It is emotional all emotional from Savage. No science. Also Savage stated his belief that the origin of man is not in Africa so dismissing all the science and all of our human knowledge. Savage does have an engaging voice but that is no substitute for the scientific method.
    This is deadly this non-scientific approach to life and living.

    As regards this little mini-ice age thing it seems to originate on one very dicey person from a very minor university (Northumbria) and needs to be looked at very carefully. She seems to depart totally from the scientific method and discipline. I would not attack her personally but there is a real story there…see https://phys.org/news/2015-07-mini-ice-age-hoopla-giant.html

  5. This is first and foremost a scientific matter. The issue of the environment will be settled only by science. It will not be settled by ignoring science.

    After I wrote the above yesterday the news I heard this morning, just a snippet, could be missed, is that Trump now does believe there is heating of the earth and that it is man made. How right I was yesterday. The method of Breitbart and Infowars as well as Savage is totally illogical and anti-science. How does it feel then to be in the anti-scoience camp?

    That is where quite a few on Israpundit have ended up. Congratulations!

    Line up now to place a torch to the figure of Giordano Bruno.

    Having tied his tongue to his jaw to stop him speaking.

    Actually on this new ice age thing you can see the pattern. All of these Bruno igniting reactionaries lie in wait for any bit of rubbish research or some scientist who ignores all of the literature and tries to make a name for herself. This scientist as the article makes very clear is a total idiot, but more, it is clear that the British scientific authorities who accepted her garbage without the most serious critique are the real culprits. Then it is up to the media to complete the lie.

  6. It reminds me also of the ignoramus Michael Savage with his grand airs about himself he shot in a few sentences, claiming that what he always thought is proven correct, that man did not emerge from Africa but from Europe. No sources from Savage. Nothing!

    I think he was talking about a papper that showed that the Egyptian civilization was linked to Europe and not to Africa.

    From that Savage makes an absurd leap. That man as a species did not emerge from apes and hominids in Africa.

    Possibly a piece of research cathes his eye, confirms his prejudice against evolution and Darwin.

    That is also exactly the method that is displayed by certain people on this Israpundit thread.

    You can well imagine the same louts rolling about in laughter as the flames lick into the flesh of Bruno.

    I cannot ever see Bannon and Jones of Infowars ever changing their views. Jones is a religious conspiracist very close to David Icke and Jews need to keep a very close eye on both Jones and Icke.

    But what if Trump becomes an evolutionist, and a real scientist, using the scientific method, and begins more and more to take man’s effect on the climate seriously.

    And Trump does not lack courage. There is more in this story to come. I was right yesterday. I may be right today as well.

Comments are closed.