Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner : Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Bicycles Can End Bad Weather
- “Gender-responsive climate action”
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
Recent Comments
- dm on “Gender-responsive climate action”
- Francis Barnett on “Gender-responsive climate action”
- czechlist on “Gender-responsive climate action”
- Jehzsa on “Gender-responsive climate action”
- Peter Carroll on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- arn on HUD Climate Advisor
- spren on HUD Climate Advisor
- conrad ziefle on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Tel on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Petit_Barde on Ellen Flees To The UK
That is one source of my background material! I came away with the thoughts there is not enough evidence to claim more than that sea levels change with the long term ocean atmosphere weather patterns, which some mistakenly claim that portions of those patterns are climate. If you want to observe real sea level changes just look at the historic records over the last 120 thousand years. Of course those records are regional phenomena but they do give a general idea of the extent of change relative to the adjoining land. Long term smoothed records are more pleasing to the eye than all the mixed signals that are shown with higher resolution data. The end results are the same, it is just how much you want to wade through to find the simple answer.
INQUA has a strong view on climate change
http://www.edf.org/documents/3868_morner_exposed.pdf
It is clear that the above subtitled graphic uses the term “was” and not “is”. I have no clue wahat you mean by a “INQUA has a strong view of climate change”. Maybe you can expalin what you meant.
Sundance,
The link supplies says; “INQUA, which is an umbrella organization for hundreds of researchers knowledgeable about past climate, does not subscribe to Mörner’s position on climate change. Nearly all of these researchers agree that humans are modifying Earth’s climate, a position diametrically opposed to Dr. Mörner’s point of view.”
Yes they do. – They are upset that he references his former position with their organization, or that he does not agree with theri position –
“Further, INQUA, which is an umbrella organization for hundreds of researchers knowledgeable about past climate, does not subscribe to Mörner’s position on climate change. Nearly all of these researchers agree that humans are modifying Earth’s climate, a position diametrically opposed to Dr. Mörner’s point of view.”
What does this, or you have to say about Morner’s position on sea level rise? to which Morner says:
“So all this
talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer
modeling, not from observations. The observations don’t
find it!
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.”
There is a possible exaggeration here and he seems to be a self promoter. However in many other situation the IPCC has done similar to what is being described here. There is the issue of Polar bears and the guy from Alaska. The Hurricane issue. Glaciergate. To name a few minor things.
“That will not be in the IPCC report if we have to change the meaning of Peer Review”. I saw that floating around somewhere!
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner – well that is his personal opinion. He has never published any supporting science.
Interesting to note that he has written a number things claiming to provide theoretical support for the paranormal act of dowsing, but declined James Randi’s offer of a million dollars and a controlled experiment to prove it.
Being a real sceptic, I think I’ll accept the published research to the contrary.