Sea Level Scam

Mohammed Nashed, the new president of that string of low-lying islands in the Indian Ocean, the Maldives, has declared that he is setting up a sovereign wealth fund in order to purchase a new homeland for the inhabitants in the event of sea level rise caused by man-made ‘global warming’. This will come from a tax on the billions of dollars of tourism that the country enjoys – a ‘climate change levy’ that tourists will be glad to pay for, to atone for having contributed to ‘global warming’ by flying to get there. This is keying into the spin and guilt-manipulation that politicians try to engender in us. Other islands, such as Tuvalu, are seeking compensation directly from governments of the developed world for causing ‘global warming’.

The BBC is in the vanguard of the propaganda machine and guilt manipulation. Consider the following by Nick Bryant, BBC correspondent in the Maldives, under the emotive title Maldives: Paradise soon to be lost

To visit the Maldives is to witness the slow death of a nation. For as well as being blessed with sun-kissed paradise islands and pale, white sands, this tourist haven is cursed with mounting evidence of an environmental catastrophe. To the naked eye, the signs of climate change are almost imperceptible, but government scientists fear the sea level is rising up to 0.9cm a year. Since 80% of its 1,200 islands are no more than 1m above sea level, within 100 years the Maldives could become uninhabitable. The country’s 360,000 citizens would be forced to evacuate. The Maldives’ survival as a sovereign nation is truly at stake…The Maldives can exert moral pressure and press its strong scientific case. But not much more. So come here fast, before it disappears. This is a paradise faced with extinction.

With a plug like that, we wonder whether Bryant is on a retainer from the Maldives Tourism Promotion Board. But let’s deconstruct this a little. Firstly to be a witness to a death, the subject has actually to be dying. As a matter of fact, the Maldives have never been healthier, but, more to the point, the symptoms of this fake death are, as is admitted, ‘imperceptible’. So BBC journalists can now be false witnesses to events that are not taking place, and which are actually imperceptible. Incredible!

OK, so much for journalistic spin. What about the science? Well, ‘government scientists fear the sea level is rising up to 0.9cm per year’. But what is this fear? Sea level is either rising or it is not rising. In fact (see below) it is manifestly not rising. Real scientists don’t fear something to be happening when it clearly isn’t happening, because real scientists deal with reality. If the evidence shows that something is certainly not happening, then how can ‘government scientists’ fear that it is? That’s irrational fear, and might require psychiatric intervention. For example, if scientists say that they fear an invasion of Martians, or a deadly epidemic when they have no evidence to support such assertions, we would rightly call that scare-mongering, and anti-scientific, and have them restrained as a menace. Ah, but you see, these are government scientists, and according to the journalist, the country is ‘cursed with mounting evidence of an environmental catastrophe’ and has a ‘strong scientific case’. Oh really? Let’s take a look at the strength of this mounting scientific evidence.

The scientist who has perhaps done more than any other to establish the scientific case for sea level changes in the Maldives is Dr Nils-Axel Mörner, head (until retirement) of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden, past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. His observations showed that sea level in the Maldives declined by 20-30 cm over the last 40 years. The abstract to his paper The Maldives Sea Level Project. II: Past-Present-Future declares:

The Maldives have a unique position in sea level research…In the last decade, they have attracted special attention because, in the IPCC-scenario, the Maldives would be condemned to become flooded in the next 50-100 years. Our research data do not lend support to any such flooding scenario, however. On the contrary, we find no signs of any on-going sea level rise…In the last decade, there are no signs of any rise in sea level. Hence, we are able to free the islands from the condemnation to become flooded in the 21st century.

So, the IPCC scare-mongering scenario is wrong yet again.

In a 2004 paper, New Perspectives for the Future of the Maldives, published in Global and Planetary Change, Mörner, Tooley and Posnert write

Novel prospects for the Maldives do not include a condemnation to future flooding. The people of the Maldives have, in the past, survived a higher sea level of about 50–60 cm. The present trend lacks signs of a sea level rise. On the contrary, there is firm morphological evidence of a significant sea level fall in the last 30 years.

In the IPCC scenarios, the Maldives were condemned to disappear in the sea in the near future (e.g. Hoffman et al., 1983; IPCC, 2001). Our documentation of actual field evidence contradicts this hypothesis.

Yes, there’s no substitute for actual field evidence. The IPCC hypothesis was falsified.

…satellite altimetry does not record any significant rise in global sea level in the last decades…In order fully to investigate the situation, however, available tide gauge records, now extending from 1990 to 2002, were re-examined. This reveals a total absence of any rising secular trend.

In the region of the Maldives, a general fall of sea level occurred some 30 years ago…Furthermore, there seems no longer to be any reasons to condemn the Maldives to become flooded in the near future. Besides, at about 1000–800 BP [before present], the people of the Maldives survived a higher sea level by about 50–60 cm.

The reconstructed sea level over the last 5000+ years is shown below:

Sea Level in Maldives - years before present

Sea Level in Maldives - years before present

Notice the trend from 2000 years ago to present: the long-term trend is distinctly downwards. There is now a lower shoreline in the Maldives than there was 100 years ago, as can be seen from British maps from the earlier part of the twentieth century.

John A. Church et al (in the Journal of Climate, July 2004) produced an interesting plot of sea level rise/fall (from tide gauge data) around the globe over the period 1950-2000. The portion around the Indian Ocean is shown below, enlarged, together with the original caption. Clearly the region around the Maldives (south west of the tip of India) is shown as having stable sea level – the indigo and deep blue regions show a trend from -0.5mm per year to +0.5mm per year:

indianocean

caption

Satellite altimetry results are also given by Church et al for the period 1993-2000, see below. Notice that the light grey region near the ‘centre’ of the Indian Ocean is for rate of sea level rise of minus 10-20mm per year, i.e. dropping. The Maldives are just to the north of the contour marked “-10″ where the sea level was recorded as dropping at a rate between 0 and 10mm per year. The solid line is the boundary between rising and falling trends, and the Maldives are to the west of that line, where sea level has a negative trend.

Sea level rise/fall 1993-2000 (satellite altimetry)

Sea level rise/fall 1993-2000 (satellite altimetry)

When interviewed about his findings (reported in EIR, June 2007), Mörner declared

[T]hose people in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], 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 [area of Hong Kong] is a subsiding area. It’s the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn’t use…And that is just ridiculous. Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that.

So, the IPCC deliberately use false data.

From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [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.

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!

So, the IPCC deliberately lie and falsify data.

As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And there you come to the point: They “know” the answer; the rest of us, we are searching for the answer. Because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations. The observations don’t find it!

So, just as in the atmosphere, the IPCC computer models and hypotheses are falsified.

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. Again, it was a computer issue.

So, the IPCC authors are not experts. Why all this lying and deception?

[T]hey need the rise, because if there is no rise, there is no death threat. They say there is nothing good to come from a sea-level rise, only problems, coastal problems. If you have a temperature rise, if it’s a problem in one area, it’s beneficial in another area. But sea level is the real “bad guy,” and therefore they have talked very much about it. But the real thing is, that it doesn’t exist in observational data, only in computer modeling.

So, IPCC reports are based on political manipulation, faked results and fiction. Real scientists deal with reality, and reliable science explains what is observed. But IPCC scientists are playing fantasy games on computers to produce fantastic scenarios in a fantasy world that their sponsoring governments want to believe in. Observational science has been supplanted by environmental religion. Dr Vincent Gray, who has been an expert reviewer on every draft of the IPCC Reports, declares:

No climate model has ever been properly tested, which is what ‘validation’ means, and their ‘projections’ are nothing more than the opinions of ‘experts’ with a conflict of interest, because they are paid to produce the models. There is no actual scientific evidence for all these ‘projections’ and ‘estimates’. It should be obvious that they are ridiculous.

Back to Dr Nils-Axel Mörner and the Maldives Sea Level Project:

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…the new level, which has been stable, has not changed in the last 35 years. You can trace it so very, very carefully. No rise at all is the answer there.

1970 shoreline and present erosion

1970 shoreline and present erosion (source: Mörner)

So what happened when these favourable and comforting results were shown to the government of the Maldives?

[W]e made a very nice program for Maldive television, but it was forbidden by the government! Because they thought that they would lose money. They accuse the West for putting out carbon dioxide, and therefore we have to pay for our damage and the flooding. So they wanted the flooding scenario to go on…they get support, they get money, so their idea is to attract money from the industrial countries. And they believe that if the story is not sustained, they will lose it. So, they love this story.

What do those zealots do who find the real evidence too inconvenient?

This tree, which I showed in the documentary, is interesting. I knew that this tree was in that terrible position already in the 1950s. So the slightest [sea level] rise, and it would have been gone. I used it in my writings and for television. You know what happened? There came an Australian sea-level team, which was for the IPCC and against me. Then the students pulled down the tree by hand! They destroyed the evidence. What kind of people are those?…And I heard from the locals that they had seen the people who had pulled it down.

What do they do? They tamper with the real world to destroy meaningful evidence.

The Maldives are not ‘cursed with mounting evidence of an environmental catastrophe'; they, like we, are cursed with a body of politicians and scientists who are prepared to dream up and propagate falsehoods for their own nefarious ends. This is not science, my friends, and remember that, in all likelihood, your government and your National Academy of Science (like the Royal Society in the UK) are complicit in support of those IPCC charlatans, and lying prophets such as Al Gore, and derive their public policies based on these disreputable scammers.

About these ads

2 Responses to “Sea Level Scam”


  1. 1 DennisA October 19, 2009 at 6:56 am

    An excellent appraisal of the real science on this, as anyone who cares to look will find.

    “Developed countries will need to take on immediate and binding national emissions targets, demonstrate that they can achieve low carbon growth, and transfer resources and technologies to developing countries, before developing countries take on binding national targets of their own by 2020.”

    Lord Stern May 2008

    ScientistForTruth replies

    Lord Nicholas Stern is clueless when it comes to science, and nothing he says about climate can be trusted. He spouts nonsense. He is the same Stern who produced the much-criticized Stern Review, a work speedily consigned to the dustbin of history, and almost universally condemned for its alarmism, falsehoods, fraudulent economics and appalling science.

    The Stern Review was commissioned by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, and was an “inside job” of the UK Treasury, infiltrated as it has been by eco-fascists, under the direction of Stern. The then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, lauded the Review as demonstrating that scientific evidence of global warming was “overwhelming” and its consequences “disastrous” if the world failed to act. Stern was duly granted a peerage for his services to propaganda, and Gordon Brown has continued on his messianic delusional fantasy of “saving the world”.

    Professor Stewart Franks, a hydroclimatologist and Associate Professor in Environmental Engineering at Newcastle University, described the Stern Review as “having no value at all”

    It was presented as science but clearly it’s a political report. Science is about testing hypotheses, not taking an extremist view.

    It stands not as a scientific document. The science it has used is nothing new, in fact it is known to be incorrect. The document is a political report, instigated from the very heart of the UK Government…For the Stern report to base a grossly uncertain economic analysis on top of extremely dubious climate forecasts is entirely unjustifiable.

    Lord Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer excoriated it:

    If I had to sum up the Stern report in a single word, I would say it is fraudulent…The Iraq War was Mr Blair’s idea that he was going to save the world from terrorism by going to war in Iraq…in order to do that he had to justify it and produce the dodgy dossier…He now wants to save the planet from the horrors of global warning so Nicholas Stern has provided him with another dodgy dossier.

    With regard to the economics, in scores of places the report cites the work of noted economist Dr Richard Tol, who played a key part in the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and wrote the UN Handbook on Methods for Climate Change Impact Assessment. But even Tol is scathing about Stern’s worthless report, which could be “dismissed as alarmist and incompetent”, with its doomsday prophecies that were simply “preposterous”. Tol said,

    If a student of mine were to hand in this report as a Master’s thesis, perhaps if I were in a good mood I would give him a ‘D’ for diligence; but more likely I would give him an ‘F’ for fail…There is a whole range of very basic economics mistakes that somebody who claims to be a Professor of Economics simply should not make…Stern consistently picks the most pessimistic for every choice that one can make. He overestimates through cherry-picking, he double counts particularly the risks and he underestimates what development and adaptation will do to impacts.

  2. 2 Marvin May 2, 2010 at 3:39 pm

    This was a fantastic write up and as an Australian I’m horrified to hear some sort of Australian sea level team pulled down a tree to destroy evidence. Do you have information on their institute such as name?

    The factual evidence of this article is very compelling and was a thoroughly good read. Thankyou.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Archives


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 33 other followers

%d bloggers like this: