New Paper By Renowned Sea Level Expert Nils-Axel Mörner, Calls AGW A “New Religion” Built On “False Premises.”

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

Renowned sea level expert and geoscience professor Nils-Axel Mörner recently published a paper in the Journal of Religious Studies, Buddhism and Living titled: “The New Religion of Global Warming and its Misconception in Science“.

Moerner-paper

Obviously the retired professor from Sweden believes that today’s climate science is best discussed in a forum reserved for faith a religion.

Exaggerated by a factor of three

As the pictured cover abstract above shows, Mörner concludes that AGW is a “new religion” built on “false premises” and that it violates physical laws. He adds that “the calculated temperature changes from 102 climate models lie above measured values by a factor of three“.

 Bild in Originalgröße anzeigen  Few scientists have published as much on the subjects of sea level rise, paleo-geophysics and geodynamics as Nils-Axel Mörner has. He is also a co-founder of the Prague-based Independent Committee on Geoethics.

AGW “an illusion”

In a recent article Mörner also called CO2-driven global warming “an illusion” and that scientists “who insist that present climate changes are the function of CO2-driven global warming” place themselves in the “shameful box of anti-science“.

Photo: Nils-Axel Mörner

 

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

19 responses to “New Paper By Renowned Sea Level Expert Nils-Axel Mörner, Calls AGW A “New Religion” Built On “False Premises.””

  1. Oliver K. Manuel

    Thank you, Pierre, for this encouraging indication that seventy-years (1945-2015) of lock-step, “consensus science” will fail!

    I may even submit the following paper to Cresco for a wider readership.

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy.pdf

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  2. John F. Hultquist

    I hope these sorts of statements can get a wider audience. How that gets done, I don’t know.
    In a related story, the WSJ asked “12 prominent thinkers” to write essays for a special section titled “What to Expect in 2016.” Most could not keep to the time frame – 2016. Three, including Jeffey Sachs, included climate in their essays. His was the most useless and had zero to do with 2016. (He is also one of the writers of Scientific American articles that prompted me to not re-subscribe.)
    Another writer claims “climate change” can be a classic opportunity to unite countries, such as China and the US, in the manner nations united to counter the USSR in the 1970s. A third person, writing about financial risks in 2016, mentioned “climate volatility.” I think he meant “weather” because his background is markets and trading, and weather can be important overnight to traders. I’ll give him a pass.
    In the non-editorial part of the WSJ the folks that write are not constrained in their essays of this type. News reports are also written with what the author deems fits the story. The “editorial page” honchos are quite skeptical of the global warming and other progressive issues.
    Finally, the point: these, so called, prominent thinkers got a free pass to promote their views to millions of readers, and the Journal’s readers include many influential folks.
    I anticipate a few rebuttals and letters to the editor over the next week. I’ve written a few times in the past but I’m not prominent and don’t get printed.

    1. sod

      ” Three, including Jeffey Sachs, included climate in their essays. His was the most useless and had zero to do with 2016.”

      The reports can be read online. Sachs is extremely critical of the WSJ, so i would think that it is seen as a good sign, that they would also ask him for an opinion.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/the-wall-street-journal-a_b_8804864.html

      If you really think that what he wrote has zero connection to 2016, you must have missed the climate conference. There will be significant changes in the energy sector. And the article by Sachs takes an extremely balanced view, asking for nuclear and fossile fuels.

    2. DirkH

      WSJ is Murdoch, who is member of CFR, the gerontocratic wannabe world dictators who created the UN – which made eco-scares, amongst them Warmunism, their central strategy to subjugate the world – after their idea of becoming the only nuclear fighting force failed abysmally in the 60ies after the Katanga massacre.

      Unsurprisingly, the WSJ’s coverage of Warmunism is entirely on the Globalist party line; example:
      http://www.wsj.com/articles/final-draft-of-global-climate-change-deal-is-complete-1449906731

      Forget the WSJ. They’re ordinary suckers for warmunism.

  3. sod

    Mörner is just repeating some false claims that he made in the past. He is in clear contradiction to reality, for example on sea level rise.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils-Axel_M%C3%B6rner

    But my first question would be a simple one: does that journal really exist? I cannot find another article and this one says “volume 1, issue 1”.

    1. JasonH

      Wikipedia, as a citation? Seriously?

      1. GW

        if you think that’s bad, look at the citations in Morner’s paper.

        1. DirkH

          A Tu Quoque argument like you brought does not DEFEND against the attack, it CONFIRMS the position of the attacker.

          Congrats, you just confirmed that the wikipedia is a pile of lies.

          1. sod

            “A Tu Quoque argument like you brought does not DEFEND against the attack, it CONFIRMS the position of the attacker.”

            No, it does not. It shows your hypocrisy.

            He is basically only citing himself.

            And that was exactly the purpose of my wikipedia link. To show, that he has said similar nonsense in the past.

          2. GW

            no it doesn’t. it argues that Morner’s citations are worse than Wikipedia, thus that Wikipedia is good, relatively speaking, which has nothing whatsoever to do with “tu quoque”. Congratulations. You have lost.

    2. AndyG55

      Ah… the WC at work again.

      (WC = William Connelly” Wiki’s chief climate mis-informer)

      On climate, absolutely NOTHING in Wikipedia can be trusted, because of the maleficence and lies of this one person.

    3. GW

      Also, he seems to have forgotten a little thing called feedbacks, or does he not believe in them?

  4. Climate Change Chronicle

    Jacob Bronowski explains in 3 mins
    why the pursuit of science, can never
    lead to absolute knowledge. Those who
    do pretend to have such certainty,
    risk dangerous consequences.
    http://viewpure.com/wXwj4jMnWZg

    This is what we are seeing today
    with these outrageous claims made
    by Sea Level Alarmists. More power
    to the likes of Dr. Morner, who tells
    it as it is, based on the known facts.
    Were he alive today, I am sure that the
    late Dr. Bronowski would have fulminated
    against the certainty of the Climate Alarmists !

  5. Keine neuen globalen Wärmerekorde im Jahr 2015 ! 2m-Daten auf Rang sechs – Satellitendaten auf Rang drei ! | wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung
  6. Global Warming - Religious Studies or Science

    […] […]

  7. Denis Ables

    The alarmists treat climate science like a religion, but it’s actually a political/power issue – certainly not science insofar as liberal believers.

  8. Dan Pangburn

    The applicable ramification of photosynthesis is that CO2 is necessary for the initial step for all life on the planet and always has been. For life on land as we know it to have evolved there had to have been substantial CO2 in the atmosphere for more than 542 million years. If CO2 made the planet warmer it would have been doing it cumulatively for 542 million years. But average global temperature (AGT) has gone up and down over the eon. The only way this could consistently result is if CO2 has no effect on temperature and temperature change is caused by something else. Documented in a peer reviewed paper at Energy & Environment, vol. 26, no. 5, 841-845.

    Further discussion of the compelling evidence CO2 has no effect on AGT and identification of what has caused AGT change for at least the last 300 years are at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com Only one input is needed or used and it is publicly available. The match is better than 97% since before 1900.

  9. GW

    Calling something a “heresy” is what religionists do to the rational, not the other way round. Oops.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close