Tag: Effects of global warming

Nothing to see here!

They are at it again. This is the science these people use, and while I must admit that it is quite an ingenious trick, it’s plain bullshit. Read along.

The University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group decided in May to add 0.3 millimeters — or about the thickness of a fingernail — every year to its actual measurements of sea levels, sparking criticism from experts who called it an attempt to exaggerate the effects of global warming.

“Gatekeepers of our sea level data are manufacturing a fictitious sea level rise that is not occurring,” said James M. Taylor, a lawyer who focuses on environmental issues for the Heartland Institute.

Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements because land masses, still rebounding from the ice age, are rising and increasing the amount of water that oceans can hold.

“We have to account for the fact that the ocean basins are actually getting slightly bigger… water volume is expanding,” he said, a phenomenon they call glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA).

What a joke! Shouldn’t they instead be pointing out that nature seems to be itself dealing with the water level problem? It’s about as valid a conclusion as their ridiculous claim that they get to add a rise in ocean levels even when none is there, by of all things claiming that land is sponging upwards as an after effect of the ice age. Seriously, do they want me to believe that the entire planet was covered by ice in the last ice age? Because unless that was the case, I am sure they have a larger portion of the planet where land doesn’t need to bounce back that they could then quickly point towards and show actual sea level rises, right? Even a child should be able to see through this nonsense.

“If we correct our data to remove [the effect of rising land], it actually does cause the rate of sea level (a.k.a. ocean water volume change) rise to be bigger,” Nerem wrote. The adjustment is trivial, and not worth public attention, he added.

Really? Why? Since when is a correction that seems so counter intuitive something that only those members of the clergy are supposed to know about? WTF? Is this science or something else? Again, why is an ice age that affected just a portion of the northern hemisphere causing land all over the planet to now rise and cancel out their claims out a rise in ocean levels?

“For the layperson, this correction is a non-issue and certainly not newsworthy… [The] effect is tiny — only 1 inch over 100 years, whereas we expect sea level to rise 2-4 feet.”

To me it stands out like a dead body in the middle of a prom dance. But then again, I pay attention.

But Taylor said that the correction seemed bigger when compared with actual sea level increases. “We’ve seen only 7 inches of sea level rise in the past century and it hasn’t sped up this century. Compared to that, this would add nearly 20 percent to the sea level rise. That’s not insignificant,” he told FoxNews.com.

Exactly. So the response of those tacking on non-existent rises using ridiculous contrived excuses is what then?

Nerem said that the research center is considering compromising on the adjustment.

WTF? Compromise? This isn’t science at all then! There is no compromise in science just like there is no crying in baseball. When you are right, and try as they might nobody can dispute your finding/observation as they repeat your analysis and experiments, you r hypothesis becomes law and thus validates your findings. Or, if you are wrong, they find discrepancies and holes, discredit your work, and you are done and need to go back to the drawing board to start over. There is no compromise. These people need to be laughed at.

Exactly! Ocean levels are not disputable. It’s what you measure at the coast.

Seriously, if this isn’t obvious to people then we are in trouble. What’s next? They are going to tell us that both cold weather and warm weather are because of global warming? Oh wait. They already did that.

UPDATE: If you thought this was the only problem for these guys, well then check this revelation out:

The world’s foremost authority on climate change used a Greenpeace campaigner to help write one of its key reports, which critics say made misleading claims about renewable energy, The Independent has learnt.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), set up by the UN in 1988 to advise governments on the science behind global warming, issued a report last month suggesting renewable sources could provide 77 per cent of the world’s energy supply by 2050. But in supporting documents released this week, it emerged that the claim was based on a real-terms decline in worldwide energy consumption over the next 40 years – and that the lead author of the section concerned was an employee of Greenpeace. Not only that, but the modelling scenario used was the most optimistic of the 164 investigated by the IPCC.

Critics said the decision to highlight the 77 per cent figure showed a bias within the IPCC against promoting potentially carbon-neutral energies such as nuclear fuel. One climate change sceptic said it showed the body was not truly independent and relied too heavily on green groups for its evidence.

The allegations are particularly damaging as they represent the second controversy to hit the IPPC in a matter of years. In 2009, a tranche of emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit were leaked two weeks before the crucial Copenhagen climate summit. Climate change sceptics said they showed scientists manipulating data to talk up the threat of global warming, as well as trying to suppress their critics.

Lovely! In case you didn’t know it they are having some kind of meeting over this bullshit cult’s plans again, and as usual, it went nowhere.

And then we have this revelation, which in light of some people defending this circle jerk on another recent post is quite funny:

One of the disturbing practices revealed by the great cache of emails out of the University of East Anglia — the so-called Climategate emails — was the attempted shortcutting or corruption of the oh-so precious peer-review process. The emails contained clear declarations of how the grand viziers of climate science would lean on journals and reporters to make sure certain critics did not get the validation, the laying on of peer-reviewed hands, so critical to full participation in the great climate debate. This was most succinctly expressed by the beautiful quote from Dr. Phil Jones of East Anglia that, “We will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what peer-review literature is.”

Much of what the world bizarrely allows to be called climate “science” is a closet-game, an in-group referring to and reinforcing its own members. The insiders keep out those seen as interlopers and critics, vilify dissenters and labour to maintain a proprietary hold on the entire vast subject. It has been described very precisely as a “climate-assessment oligarchy.” Less examined, or certainly less known to the general public, is how this in-group loops around itself. How the outside advocates buttress the inside scientists, and even — this is particularly noxious — how the outside advocates, the non-scientists, themselves become inside authorities.

It’s the perfect propaganda circle. Advocates find themselves in government offices, or on panels appointed by politicians disposed towards the hyper-alarmism of global warming. On the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) boards and panels, like seeks out like. And when the IPCC issues one of its state-of-the-global-warming-world reports, legions of environmentalists, and their maddeningly sympathetic and uninquisitive friends in most of the press, shout out the latest dire warnings as if they were coming from the very mouth of Disinterested Science itself.

A must read for those that want to understand what’s really going on.

Of course, as Hal already has pointed out in the first comment: climate change “science” is as settled and proven as gravity! So it is us non believers that are the dumb heretics that need to be mocked. Great one Hal!