World Leading Authority: Sea Level “Absolutely Stable”… Poor Quality Data From “Office Perps”…IPCC “False”

German-speaking readers will surely want to save the text of an interview conducted by the online Baseler Zeitung (BAZ) of Switzerland with world leading sea level expert Prof. Nils-Axel Mörner.

Photo right: Nils-Axel Mörner

Few scientists have scientifically published as much on sea level as Mörner has.

Yet because he rejects the alarmist scenarios touted by the media and alarmist IPCC scientists, the Swedish professor has long been the target of vicious attack campaigns aimed at discrediting him – yet to little effect.

Mörner, who headed of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics (P&G) Department at Stockholm University from 1991 to 2005, has studied sea level his entire career, visiting 59 countries in the process.

Sea level hijacked by an activist agenda

In the interview Mörner tells science journalist Alex Reichmuth that climate and sea level science has been completely politicized and hijacked by an activist agenda and has become a “quasi religion”.

According to the BAZ, recently Mörner has been at the Fiji Islands on multiple occasions in order “to study coastal changes and sea level rise”, and to take a first hand look at the “damage” that allegedly has occurred due to climate change over the past years.

IPCC is false

The Swedish professor tells the BAZ that he became a skeptic of alarmist climate science early on because “the IPCC always depicted the facts on the subject falsely” and “grossly exaggerated the risks of sea level rise” and that the IPCC “excessively relied on shaky computer models instead of field research.”

He tells the BAZ: “I always want to know what the facts are. That’s why I went to the Fiji Islands.”

“Very poor quality data” from “office perps”

Mörner also dismisses claims by the Swiss ProClim climate science platform who recently announced that the Fiji Islands are seeing a rapid sea level rise. According to Mörner the data were taken from poor locations. “We looked over the data, and concluded that they are of very poor quality” and that the researchers who handled the data were “office perps” who were “not specialized in coastal dynamic processes and sea level changes”.

Many of them have no clue about the real conditions.”

Sea level “absolutely stable”

Mörner tells the BAZ that sea level at the Fiji islands was in fact higher than it is today between 1550 and 1700. Coral reefs tell the story and “they don’t lie,” the Swedish professor said. He added he was not surprised by the data because “it is not the first time the IPCC has been wrong”.

Over the past 200 years: “The sea level has not changed very much. Over the past 50 to 70 years it has been absolutely stable”.

“Because they have a political agenda”

Not only is sea level rise due to climate change at the Fiji Islands exaggerated, but the same is true worldwide as a rule. When asked why are we seeing all the warnings from scientists, Mörner tells the BAZ: “Because they have a political agenda.”

Mörner warns readers that the IPCC was set up from the get-go with the foregone conclusion man was warming the globe and changing the climate: Mörner says: “And it is sticking to that like a dogma – no matter what the facts are.”

When asked if sea level rise poses a problem for the islands, Mörner answers with one simple word: “No.”

Strong evidence solar activity impacts sea level

The Swedish professor also tells the BAZ that the rates of water rushing into the ocean due to glacier melt are exaggerated and that thermal expansion of the ocean is minimal. Mörner adds:

Sea level appears to depend foremost on solar cycle and little from melting ice.”

Junk surveys produce “nonsense”

When asked by the BAZ why he became skeptical, Mörner recalls the “great anger” from an IPCC representative when he spoke at a 1991 sea level conference in the USA. He was surprised by the reaction, alluding to the fact that it is normal to have different views in science. And as the years followed, he became increasingly aware of the falsehoods made by the IPCC and the organization’s refusal to admit to them.

On the subject of publishing research results:

Publishers of scientific journals no longer accept papers that challenge the claims made by the IPCC, no matter the paper’s quality.”

In his decades long career, Mörner has authored some 650 publications, and he tells the BAZ that he has no plans to stop fighting. “No one can stop me.”

Near the end of the interview Mörner calls the claim that 97% of all climate scientists believe global warming is man-made “nonsense” and that the number comes from “unserious surveys”.

In truth the majority of scientists reject the IPCC claims. Depending on the field, it’s between 50 and 80 percent.”

Cooling over the next decades

Mörner also sees little reason to reduce CO2 emissions, and calls the belief in man-made climate change a religious movement driven by public funding.

In conclusion Mörner tells the BAZ that he thinks solar activity will likely decrease and that cooling will ensue over the coming decades.

Then it will become clear just how wrong the global warming warnings are.”

78 responses to “World Leading Authority: Sea Level “Absolutely Stable”… Poor Quality Data From “Office Perps”…IPCC “False””

  1. Bitter&twisted

    A real scientist reporting the facts, with no genuflection to political correctness.
    A brave man too.

    1. SebastianH

      A lost mind at most … using the same words as most skeptics he amounts to nothing more than someone repeating the nonsense that this particular community is broadcasting as their “truth”. He even claims to be the victim in this …

      Well, have fun with idols like him 🙂

      Meanwhile the sea level rises and rises and it won’t get colder. The imaginary coming ice age, almost as good as gravity thermal greenhouse effect 🙂

      1. Newminster

        Ah, diddums!

        You don’t like people challenging your beliefs, do you? Nobody who knows anything at all about oceanography — at the sharp end, as opposed to playing with their X-Boxes — believes in inexorable sea-level rise or the “death” of coral reefs.

        Fairy tales to frighten the children into submission. Just sit quietly in a corner and suck your thumb, Seb. Don’t listen to the nasty men.

        1. SebastianH

          I don’t like people following all kinds of conspiracy theories and letting others do the thinking for them …

          A challenge is something I am looking forward to. Wake me, when anything from the skeptic’s corner makes sense in the physical world and doesn’t defy logic.

          1. AndyG55

            Still you present NOTHING but empty mindless rhetoric.

            You live in a fantasy, zero-logic world, seb.

            ZERO-SCIENCE, ZERO-CONTENT..

            That is all you have left of your baseless farce of an AGW religion.

            You do know that there is ZERO empirical evidence that CO2 causes warming in our GRAVITY CONTROLLED convective atmosphere, …

            Don’t you !!

            Or do you continue to DENY that FACT.!

          2. yonason (from my cell phone)

            “A challenge is something I am looking forward to.” -,SebH

            HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA….

            And yet, defending his beliefs by explaining what he thinks “the science” says, and providing the data to back it up, is just a bit TOO challenging for him.

            It would have been more accurate for him to say, “A challenge is something I am looking forward to….RUNNING AWAY FROM.” And the bigger the challenge, the faster he runs.

          3. SebastianH

            Oh come on yonason, you should be aware that “the science” isn’t something obscure that needs to be dug up by someone in order to be presented to you. There are enough publications that explain the physics and mechanisms in plain English for everyone to understand. Yet you want from me that I repeat this for you? Why?

            I forgot, you regard everything that contains this kind of information fake … there is no way to convince you that what you seem to believe is incorrect.

            Below you imagine I am stuck in early adolescence, do you think your style of writing gives the impression that you are a mature person? 😉

          4. AndyG55

            If there are SO MANY of these fantasy fizzics references, why can’t you PRODUCE ONE.

            Is it that you KNOW that the mechanisms describes are an unproven, anti-science, LOAD OF BALONEY !

            STILL you cannot even support the VERY BASIS of the AGW farce religion

            There is ZERO empirical scientific proof that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

            If there was, you would have PRODUCED IT by now.

        2. Tom

          May I ask, why do you even engage this “man”? I have read without comment through a number of articles and have yet to see him make one reasoned argument on any subject related to climate or science in general. After awhile don’t you feel that you’re arguing with an unarmed opponent.

          1. Kenneth Richard

            May I ask, why do you even engage this “man”? I have read without comment through a number of articles and have yet to see him make one reasoned argument on any subject related to climate or science in general. After awhile don’t you feel that you’re arguing with an unarmed opponent.

            I think the appeal in engaging with SebastianH is that he actually believes that CO2 functions like a “blanket” in the atmosphere and thus warms the oceans, melts glaciers at their base, raises sea levels to catastrophic heights, acidifies the oceans, kills off 30,000 species per year, browns the Earth (desertification), etc., and that he is so convinced of the “rightness” of his beliefs that he thinks anyone who disagrees must be insane, stupid, mathematically challenged, a conspiracy theorist, etc. He truly cannot imagine that others could possibly not look at the world through the lens of CO2 dominance and anthropogenic forcing. We control the climate. Put simply, it’s hubris. Exposing someone who is convinced he’s the smartest guy in the room and is never wrong has a certain attraction.

      2. Republicae

        Sebastian, you must not have read some of the most recent reports from NOAA on sea levels, they’re not rising. To back that up, take a look at photographic evidence from exact locations from 100 years ago and compare them you modern photos. And if Sea Levels are rising then why are the canals in Venice, Italy dry and have been witnessing extreme low water levels for several years now? Why have the predictions of the AGW alarmists failed miserably to come to pass? Scientific predictions are only as good as the science behind them, if you put junk data in you get junk results, hardly scientific at all, it’s a bogus belief system that calls itself science and like all such systems it requires ardent blind followers to keep the fires of the faith burning without ever questioning anything no matter how utterly absurd.

        1. SebastianH

          Sebastian, you must not have read some of the most recent reports from NOAA on sea levels, they’re not rising.

          Really? I must be reading this website upside down then …
          https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

          And if Sea Levels are rising then why are the canals in Venice, Italy dry and have been witnessing extreme low water levels for several years now?

          Ever heard of tides?

          Why have the predictions of the AGW alarmists failed miserably to come to pass?

          What predictions exactly? Anything that wasn’t said by some extremist? Also, why marginalize the majority by using terms like “AGW alarmists” or are you really just arguing against a few individuals here that are indeed a bit alarmist?

          if you put junk data in you get junk results

          Then stop doing that … don’t justify your nonsense with calling science a belief system. If you can’t recognize what’s going on, then probably you are the “blind follower”, ever thought of that? Why don’t you question your own BS? Do you really think you are representing the truth? With all the opposition you get?

          1. Kenneth Richard

            Also, why marginalize the majority by using terms like “AGW alarmists” or are you really just arguing against a few individuals here that are indeed a bit alarmist?

            Do you consider the fact that you actually believe 30,000 species are going extinct every year from anthropogenic global warming, and that this is not an especially large number, an alarmist position?

            Can you provide observational support for your (non-alarmist) claim that 30,000 species are going extinct every year from AGW? Or will you acknowledge that this is just made-up alarmist propaganda that you fell for?

            http://notrickszone.com/2017/10/16/recent-co2-climate-sensitivity-estimates-continue-trending-towards-zero/#comment-1232607
            SebastianH: “Regarding extinction of species, why do you think 30,000 species lost per year is a big number? We are already at or over that rate.”

            Also, please provide observational evidence that the 200-year trend in pH decline (-0.07, or -0.000035/yr) (“ocean acidification”) is too fast for marine species to adapt to…since that’s what you believe. Do you believe this position is “alarmist”?

            http://notrickszone.com/2018/01/04/485-scientific-papers-published-in-2017-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/#comment-1246210
            SebastianH: “They [marine species] might be able to adapt, but not at the speed acidification is happening.”

          2. AndyG55

            “With all the opposition you get?”

            What opposition ??????

            Nothing from you, that is for sure, seb.

            You remain EMPTY of any counter arguments, facts or data.

          3. SebastianH

            Kenneth, why do you continue with this made up interpretation of what I wrote? I won’t suddenly answer to your nonsense if you repeat it over and over. It’s weird watching you do this while on the other side accusing opponents of misinterpriting you …

          4. Kenneth Richard

            Kenneth, why do you continue with this made up interpretation of what I wrote?

            It’s an exact quote, SebastianH. What, exactly, did you mean when you wrote the following…if it doesn’t mean what I think it means?

            http://notrickszone.com/2017/10/16/recent-co2-climate-sensitivity-estimates-continue-trending-towards-zero/#comment-1232607
            SebastianH: “Regarding extinction of species, why do you think 30,000 species lost per year is a big number? We are already at or over that rate.”

          5. AndyG55

            Quote your words exactly, is NOT making up what you said, seb

            You know you are INCAPABLE of answering any of the questions about anything

            You have presented ABSOLUTELY ZERO science to back up anything you say.

          6. dennisambler

            “Why have the predictions of the AGW alarmists failed miserably to come to pass?

            What predictions exactly? Anything that wasn’t said by some extremist?”

            Just a simple example, Arctic sea ice, with Tony Heller nowhere in sight:

            Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University predicts we could see ‘an area of less than one million square kilometres for September of this year’ 2016

            http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/arctic-could-become-ice-free-for-first-time-in-more-than-100000-years-claims-leading-scientist-a7065781.html

            “My prediction remains that the Arctic ice may well disappear, that is, have an area of less than one million square kilometres for September of this year,” he said.

            “Even if the ice doesn’t completely disappear, it is very likely that this will be a record low year. I’m convinced it will be less than 3.4 million square kilometres [the current record low].

            “I think there’s a reasonable chance it could get down to a million this year and if it doesn’t do it this year, it will do it next year.

            https://web.archive.org/web/20071209073226/http://www2.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=1aaab4cd-0ca4-4b28-8a71-f442545a9d23

            Arctic Ocean could be ice-free in summer as early as 2010

            “The frightening models we didn’t even dare to talk about before are now proving to be true,” Fortier told CanWest News Service

            According to these models, there will be no sea ice left in the summer in the Arctic Ocean somewhere between 2010 and 2015.

            “And it’s probably going to happen even faster than that,” said Fortier, who leads an international team of researchers in the Arctic looking for clues to climate change.

            https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2016/09/
            “On September 10, Arctic sea ice extent stood at 4.14 million square kilometers (1.60 million square miles).

            On August 21, 2017, ice extent stood at 5.27 million square kilometers (2.03 million square miles).

            On September 13, 2017, Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its seasonal minimum extent of 4.64 million square kilometers (1.79 million square miles), the eighth lowest in the 38-year satellite record.

            To point out out these major failings in scientific prediction is to be labelled a “denier” by such as yourself, when it is you and your clan who deny the existence of contrary evidence.

          7. SebastianH

            Quote your words exactly, is NOT making up what you said, seb

            My “words exactly” aren’t saying anything he imagines they say.

            How do you even get the impression that I might have ment 30000 species are going extinct per year because of CO2 or AGW?

            BTW: I linked to the relevant articles regarding the acceleration of the background extinction rate and names the author of the 30000 claim. Yet, this nonsense here continues.

          8. yonason (from my cell phone)

            @Kenneth Richard

            That paper SebH cited on loss of insect biomass in the European areas studied was interesting.
            http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809
            This quote from their discussion makes me wonder what relevance it has to his warmist sympathies, other than as something he thinks he can bash us with. (my emphasis)

            “In light of previously suggested driving mechanisms, our analysis renders two of the prime suspects, i.e. landscape [9, 18, 20] and climate change [15, 18, 21, 37], as UNLIKELY explanatory factors for this major decline in aerial insect biomass in the investigated protected areas.”

            Question for SebH, if you didn’t think CO2 or warming had anything to do with the imagined extinctions, why DID you even bring it up?! After all, you are a believing warmist, and the problems with warmist dogma are what this blog is about. So what exactly was your point, then? Or did you even have one?

          9. yonason (from my cell phone)

            Maybe SebH could have the courtesy to link to those articles on extinction again?

            The only one I saw was on loss of insect biomass, to which the authors explicitly did NOT attribute it to warming, as I commented to in the as yet missing post. Also, they go so far as to say that warming would likely have the opposite effect. ( la bit more in pending post)

            So, what links do you have with evidence is there for 30,000 species lost each year, and what does it have to do with “climate change?”

          10. AndyG55

            Your words exactly, say exactly what they say. !

            It is you that “imagines” they mean something else.

            Its so hard for you to keep you LIES in a row, isn’t it, poor seb.

          11. AndyG55

            “30,000 species lost each year”

            Of which seb cannot name even one, and certainly cannot provide the slightest proof it was caused by a tiny increase in atmospheric CO2

            EMPTY of all science.. the seb way.

      3. AndyG55

        Facts are not your friend, are they, seb.

        Still waiting for proof of CO2 warming in our GRAVITY CONTROLLED convective atmosphere.

        Do you have ANYTHING to offer?

      4. AndyG55
        1. SebastianH

          Clearly staying the same and/or decreasing … again, must be reading the graph upside down.

          1. AndyG55

            And if you think 2mm/year and decreasing isn’t stable, them you are again suffering a major episode of cognitive non-functionality.

          2. SebastianH

            I see, so the increase isn’t big enough for you yet. Not worth mentioning. What other things aren’t big enough to be worth mentioning yet? Co2 concentration? Acidification? Your IQ? 🙂

          3. AndyG55

            poor AGW sympathiser.

            Sea level rise slowing from a tiny 2mm/year

            ZERO proof of any CO2 warming.

            ZERO proof seb even understands basic chemistry or physics.

            ZERO proof of ANYTHING.

            Just a great EMPTY nothingmess.

          4. SebastianH

            Question: since you are such a good science guy, can you calculate the amount of forcing that would be neccessary to cause a 2 mm/year sea level rise if 50%/75%/100% of the rise is caused by thermal expansion?

            And should I repeat this question forever until you reply with an answer?

          5. AndyG55

            2mm/year and decelerating…..

            Are you PANICKING yet, seb?

      5. Henning Nielsen

        Now, Seb, you are of course describing yourself. But it’s too late you see, the cat is out of the bag, nobody follows the UN path towards a new global ecoonomic policy, nobody changes their way of life in order to kow-tow to the CAGW religion. Well, except the most ardent congregation, that is.

        Your comment is a wonderful and cheering sign of desperation. Keep it up!

        1. SebastianH

          Why would you need to change your way of life? And “no it’s you that you are describing” is a bit childish as a reply, don’t you think?

          1. AndyG55

            Yet another EMPTY child-minded comment from seb.

            ZERO-facts, ZERO science.. the seb way.

      6. yonason (from my cell phone)

        In desperation the activist chatbot calls the ad-hom subroutine yet again. It’s all he has, since there is no scientific justification for gullible warming nor any economic justification for attempting to combat the imaginary problem.
        http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/01/can_anything_good_come_from_co2.html

        1. AndyG55

          As you say, Y, the poor little AGW sympathiser has NOTHING left to offer.

          AGW is being proven to be nothing but a FAIRY-TALE,

          … and it is so ridiculous, even the Grimm Bros would be embarrassed.

        2. SebastianH

          What exactly is it what you are doing? Not “ad-hom”?

          Oh and have you seen the Tony Heller video about the GHE? The one where he goes fully nuts? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WcVGXA6Lr8)

          You were the commentator which is a fan of this guy, right? What do you think of his “science”? Should we not laugh about someone like him?

          1. AndyG55

            Come on seb, where is the video incorrect.

            State video time, and cite science that shows it is incorrect, not just your mindless scientific ignorance.

            Or remain EMPTY as always. 🙂

          2. McLovin'

            Great video. Please share more of his.

          3. AndyG55

            @ McLovin.

            Yep, TH gets right to the FACTS.

            The AGW sympathisers and collaborators can yell and scream, but they are rarely able to counter those facts with anything even slightly resembling any logical scientific arguments.

          4. yonason (from my cell phone)

            Very nice video by Tony Heller. Lubos Motl agrees, with a few corrections to his earlier work.
            https://motls.blogspot.com/2010/05/hyperventilating-on-venus.html?m=1

            Now, are you able to explain what you think is wrong with their work, or do you just want us to accept on faith your slander of them?

            As usual, I expect nothing intelligent from you in response. And no, it is not ad hom to point out how your unscientific substanceless criticism of others contributes nothing useful to the discussion.

          5. yonason (from my cell phone)

            PS – I’ve posted that material by Lubos Motl about Heller’s claims before. How many times do I have to do post it until you actually read and comprehend it?

          6. SebastianH

            AndyG55, it starts with bringing up an especially cold place to counter the average temperature increase (a classic skeptics BS tactic) and it continues with saying it is not the GHE that is warming Venus because the effect only works in scenarios like the one explained on that kids website. I stopped relistening to this guy at that point. It’s amateurish and ridiculous what he claims …

          7. AndyG55

            You again are TOTALLY UNABLE to provide anything except mindless ZERO-SCIENCE yapping

            EMPTY… as always.

          8. AndyG55

            Let’s repeat shall we

            Come on seb, where is the video incorrect.

            State video time, and cite science that shows it is incorrect, not just your mindless scientific ignorance.

            Yet all you put forward is your mindless scientific ignorance.

            Seems to be all you have to offer.

          9. SebastianH

            The video is “zero-science yapping”, I am just skeptical about what you skeptics say/claim/do.

          10. AndyG55

            You have proven that you are TOTALLY UNABLE to counter one single thing in the video.

            TOTALLY EMPTY, as expected from you.

          11. AndyG55

            I repeat, because seb is ether very hard of reading, or a just total empty space when it come to actual scientific argument.

            seb, where is the video incorrect.

            State video time, and cite science that shows it is incorrect.

      7. Bitter&twisted

        Professor Mörner has something like 400+ publications, Sebastian.
        This is not something you can dismiss with an offhand ad hom.
        Anyway what makes you think you know more about sea level change, apart from your dogmatic arrogance?

        1. SebastianH

          Why would I dismiss that? If a reputation like that is a sign of “being right” for you, then why do you think that anything from scientists with just as many publications aren’t right? So apparently the number of publications plays no role here, it’s just that someone said something that you like to hear, isn’t it?

          Do you know more or as much about sea level as him? Can you read graphs?

          1. AndyG55

            Still no counter FACTS from the AGW sympathiser

            Why are your posts ALWAYS so EMPTY, seb

            Is it that you have NOTHING of value to present ?

      8. tom0mason

        Seb,

        It is heartwarming to see you used your usual scientific skepticism, and your much revered trained disinterested logic to look at his claims before coming to your conclusion.

        /sarc-off 😊

  2. TP

    Sebastian are you just plain stupid?
    Even NASA knows that the sea level does NOT rise

    https://sealevel.nasa.gov

    1. Kenneth Richard

      Sea level does indeed rise (and fall). It just does so independently of CO2 concentrations as a driver.

      That’s why, in the past, Northern Hemisphere temperatures naturally rose at rates of 2 degrees C per decade and sea levels rose 5 meters per century while CO2 stayed constant.

      http://notrickszone.com/2017/04/13/new-paper-northern-hemisphere-temperatures-rose-4-5c-within-a-few-decades-14700-years-ago/
      “Northern Hemisphere temperatures increased by 4–5°C in just a few decades [Lea et al., 2003; Buizert et al., 2014], coinciding with a 12–22 m sea level rise in less than 340 years”

      1. Kenneth Richard

        Also, across the planet there is more land area above sea level today than there was in the 1980s. In the regions of the world where sea levels are rising, much of it has to do with subsidence, or the land sinking (i.e., New Orleans, U.S.).

        http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/01/new-papers-confirm-sea-levels-arent-rising-fast-enough-coastal-land-area-growing-not-shrinking

      2. SebastianH

        The good old “event y didn’t cause x in the past, why should event y cause x today?” argument. Becomes especially strange when event y didn’t happen before in the recent history of this planet…

        Fuel used to drive cars, no electricity can do it to. Since electricity didn’t do it in the past (actually it has, but let’s ignore that for now), it can’t be the reason why cars without an ICE are able to drive …

        1. Kenneth Richard

          The good old “event y didn’t cause x in the past, why should event y cause x today?” argument.

          No, it’s the “Please answer the question, SebastianH, argument”:

          1. What was the causal mechanism for the explosive glacier melt contribution to sea level rise during the 1920-1950 period, when anthropogenic CO2 emissions were flat and low?

          http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Holocene-Cooling-Glacier-Melt-Contribution-Sea-Level-Gregory-2013.jpg

          2. Why was the rate of sea level rise higher during the 1900-1950 period (~2 mm/yr, Holgate, 2007; Jevrejeva et al., 2008) than it has been during the 1958-2014 period (1.42 mm/yr, Frederiske et al., 2018) given the anthropogenic CO2 emissions rates during the 1958-2014 period?

          http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Sea-Level-Rise-and-Rates-1900-2002-Jevrejeva-2008.jpg

          Also, what do you think the reason is that there is more land above sea level today than there was in the 1980s? In other words, why aren’t sea levels rising fast enough?

          http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/01/new-papers-confirm-sea-levels-arent-rising-fast-enough-coastal-land-area-growing-not-shrinking

          Would it be possible for you to actually provide an answer to these three questions rather than making up your own summary of what the argument is here?

          event y [anthropogenic CO2 emissions rise) didn’t happen before in the recent history of this planet…

          All three of the questions above are in reference to “event y”. So you should be able to answer them.

          Fuel used to drive cars, no electricity can do it to. Since electricity didn’t do it in the past (actually it has, but let’s ignore that for now), it can’t be the reason why cars without an ICE are able to drive …

          Your disingenuous attempts to concoct an argument that you could attribute to those who disagree with you are getting worse and worse.

          1. yonason (from my cell phone)

            You ask SebH scholarly questions which he evades and gives activist “answers” to redirect away from the facts in order to emphasize his preferred fantasy. He routinely mistakes asking him to defend his thesis with “homework,” which he obviously detests, probably because he isn’t any good at it,

            When we point out what’s wrong with his arguments, he attacks us in a childish way, often pretending that we are the ones with his problem. I don’t know his actual age, but my guess is he is emotionally stuck in early adolescence. It’s a common characteristic of activists, like Bernie Sanders for one.
            https://theindependentthinker2016-files-wordpress-com.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/theindependentthinker2016.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/4.jpg?w=760

            Evicted from a commune for laziness. Now THAT’S a REAL hippy! Probably wasn’t fond of homework, either?

            NOTE TO SebH – I can’t comment on your “science,” because it’s non-existent. All I am left with is your pretentious behavior. I can only comment on what you show of yourself – someone I don’t know and who can’t intelligently defend his own positions, but who wants me to believe him rather than those I do know about and who can defend their work.

            It seems you have a vastly over-inflated sense of yourself.

          2. SebastianH

            And there we go again … the endless repetition of pointless homework questions.

            @yonason:
            I don’t want you to believe me, I want you to question your own belief. After all you guys claim to be skeptical. You are not the least bit skeptical, you are following a cult movement of some conspiracy theorists.

          3. AndyG55

            Still the hilarious EVASION of presenting ANYTHING to back up your anti-science yapping.

            You really are looking completely EMPTY on the science , aren’t you sen.

        2. tom0mason

          Yes seb, you’ve applied a very ‘special’ version of critical thinking there.

  3. AndyG55
  4. AndyG55

    OT, but about oceans

    Over 51% of ocean pixels are at or BELOW NORMAL

    https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/PaintImage32_shadow.png

  5. AndyG55

    Totally OT.

    Things people send me. For a laugh. 🙂

    https://s19.postimg.org/vvh6cffhv/US-_Korean_trade_deal.jpg

  6. tom0mason

    This site, with Pierre Gosselin, and Kenneth Richard must be very close to target now, as there is much criticism occurring on other sites, especially on this topic.

    When your over the target the flak can be intense.

    Congratulations! You are beginning to get people actually thinking instead of accepting.

    1. tom0mason

      Oops that should be —

      When you’re over the target the flak can be intense.

    2. yonason (from my cell phone)

      Maybe we can affectionately refer to NTZ as “Flak Bait?”

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9NCvNNGQyx4

      Here’s hoping it is at least as successful.

      1. tom0mason

        Good idea yonason, but no need to hope science is not on the side of the cAGW advocates.

        In years to come people will fall about laughing at how so many people were easily taken in by the notion of CO2 controlling global temperatures and climate.

        1. yonason (from my cell phone)

          I can hear them now…

          “CO2…

          Global climate control knob…

          ahaha HAHAHAHAHA!”

  7. FrankTrades

    Google Sea Level NOAA Battery-graph shows no trend change back to 1850-linear. Show us where AGW kind kicks in. Hint: It doesn’t.
    http://linkis.com/noaa.gov/WREJm

  8. WORLD Leading Authority : Climate and Sea Level Science Is A “Quasi Religion” Hijacked By An Activist Agenda | Climatism

    […] NoTricksZone By P Gosselin on 4. February 2018 (Climatism bolds & links added) […]

  9. yonason (from my cell phone)

    I used to be a luke-warm believer in warmism, until I came across John Daly’s excellent material on the subject. Here is just one e.g.
    https://www.john-daly.com/ges/msl-rept.htm

    Another.
    https://www.john-daly.com/tar-2000/ch-5.htm

    After realizing the warmists had sea levels wrong, I began asking what else they were mistaken about. As I subsequently discovered, the answer to that question is “everything.”

  10. tom0mason

    Oh dear some islands are growing not being inundated with rising sea-levels.
    The IPCC’s post child is not in danger — Measurement of the Tuvalu group of island show land area has expanded.
    http://joannenova.com.au/2018/02/climate-change-creates-free-real-estate-in-tuvalu-climate-refugees-can-all-go-home/

  11. Trillions of Dollars Wasted on a False Alarm and Fraud – CO2 is Life

    […] The problem is, data doesn’t support NOAA’s claim, nor do the experts. […]

  12. Trillions of Dollars Wasted on a False Alarm and Fraud – Gaia Gazette

    […] The problem is, data doesn’t support NOAA’s claim, nor do the experts. […]

  13. Energy & Environmental Newsletter: February 19, 2018 - Master Resource

    […] World Leading Authority: Sea Level “Absolutely Stable” […]

  14. Energy And Environmental Newsletter – February 19th 2018 | PA Pundits - International

    […] World Leading Authority: Sea Level “Absolutely Stable” […]