16 December 2013

More fun with bizarre warmist rant

Is it a product of education? I'm 39 years old and I'm guessing almost every warmist is younger than me...sounds like it anyway. I voted Green when I was young too.
I guess today's generation had the hyper-left wing indoctrination in school, particularly about climate change.
I imagine these comments are copyright NBC, but by linking to the article it should get me out of trouble. Here's the article:
Here's the comment from StrengthInNumbers (a suitably Hitler Youth style of name); I couldn't think of a comment that was more wrong, and out of touch with reality. (Click image to enlarge and scroll through images.)

My reply (as Stylo):



  1. Re: sea-level acceleration

    "The global average sea-level rise from 1880 to 2009 is about 210 mm. The linear trend from 1900 to 2009 is 1.7 ± 0.2 mm year−1 and since 1961 is 1.9 ± 0.4 mm year−1. There is considerable variability in the rate of rise during the twentieth century but there has been a statistically significant acceleration since 1880 and 1900 of 0.009 ± 0.003 mm year−2 and 0.009 ± 0.004 mm year−2, respectively."

    "Sea-Level Rise from the Late 19th to the Early 21st Century," John A. Church and Neil J. White,Surveys in Geophysics, September 2011, Volume 32, Issue 4-5, pp 585-602.
    data file: http://www.psmsl.org/products/reconstructions/church.php

    1. Thanks for that comment David, only just noticed it.

      It's hard to keep track of sea level rise. Depends how you measure it. SOme say there's no sea level rise at all in the last 50 years. (e.g. Nils Axel Morner)

    2. So if one scientist anywhere says something you like, that's good enough for you?

      Funny, but a large number of scientists think you *can* measure sea level fairly accurately, especially, these days, with satellites. Is there something about that methodology you disagree with?

  2. A lot of tide gauges show no sea level rise. Some show a lot depending on land subsidence. I notice that they had to lower their estimate for the rate of ice loss in Greenland from the GRACE satellite telemetry. One problem for both ice loss and sea level rise, as measured by satellite, is adjusting for isostatic rebound -- it's so arbitrary.

  3. You didn't answer the question. Why is Morner a more credible scientist than all the others who disagree with him?

  4. Morner is credible enough. The point is not the credibility of Morner or anyone else, otherwise it's a battle of Appeal to Authority. Unfortunately the facts of sea level rise are open to at least some subjective interpretation -- the adjustments you make and so on -- and therefore bias can come in, whether consciously recognised or not.

    If you have a link to those who disagree with Morner, would be appreciated (unless it's behind a paywall, then forget it). To be honest I haven't explored these alternate points of view on sea level rise. Even then I'm confident that no recent (say last 100 years) sea level rise acceleration can be conclusively proven by any paper.

    1. To be honest I haven't explored these alternate points of view on sea level rise.

      Wow. Just wow.

      You aren't even a CONVINCING denier -- just one of the ignorant ones, who even admits to their ignorance.

      You just aren't worth paying attention to. Goodbye.

  5. Hi David, I figured we were getting toward the end of our conversation here. Anyhow, I appreciate the effort you made to come back and debate me here. Farewell and Happy New Year.