Tuesday, June 26, 2007

IPCC Falsifying Global Warming Data?

Now let's see: we've had the fraudulent "hockey stick" graph, the foundation of the manmade global warming theory, exposed; we've had the admission that almost all of the reputed global warming took place BEFORE 1940; we've had it pointed out that Al Gore wildly overstated the IPCC's prediction of sea rise; we've seen evidence that CO2 emissions rise occurs AFTER, not BEFORE, an increase in global warming and we see scientists by the tens of thousands sign on to the thesis that any global warming that is occurring is a natural event that has happened in cycles many times before.

Now we have some more evidence of fraud committed in the cause of destroying the technologies that doubled man's lfespan and brought him prosperity over the last 100 years or so:

Swedish Scientist Accuses UN's IPCC of Falsifying Data and Destroying Evidence

Posted by Noel Sheppard on June 24, 2007,

If you listen to the global warming alarmists working for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore, sea levels across the globe are rising at a rate that will eventually doom us all.

According to Swedish paleogeophysicist Nils-Axel Mörner, who’s been studying and writing about sea levels for four decades, the scientists working for the IPCC have falsified data and destroyed evidence to incorrectly prove their point.

Mörner was recently interviewed by Gregory Murphy of Executive Intelligence Review, and began by making it clear that the sea level claims made by the IPCC are a lot of nonsense (emphasis added throughout, h/t Eduardo Ferreyra):

[W]e can see that the sea level was indeed rising, from, let us say, 1850 to 1930-40. And that rise had a rate in the order of 1 millimeter per year. Not more. 1.1 is the exact figure. And we can check that, because Holland is a subsiding area; it has been subsiding for many millions of years; and Sweden, after the last Ice Age, was uplifted. So if you balance those, there is only one solution, and it will be this figure.

That ended in 1940, and there had been no rise until 1970; and then we can come into the debate here on what is going on, and we have to go to satellite altimetry, and I will return to that. But before doing that: There’s another way of checking it, because if the radius of the Earth increases, because sea level is rising, then immediately the Earth’s rate of rotation would slow down. That is a physical law, right? You have it in figure-skating: when they rotate very fast, the arms are close to the body; and then when they increase the radius, by putting out their arms, they stop by themselves. So you can look at the rotation and the same comes up: Yes, it might be 1.1 mm per year, but absolutely not more.

1.1 mm per year? That means that if this were to continue for 1000 years, sea levels would be 1.1 meters higher. Doesn’t sound very catastrophic, does it?

Mörner then addressed what in his view was a ridiculous error by the IPCC:
Another way of looking at what is going on is the tide gauge. Tide gauging is very complicated, because it gives different answers for wherever you are in the world.

But we have to rely on geology when we interpret it. So, for example, those people in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It’s the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn’t use. And if that figure is correct, then Holland would not be subsiding, it would be uplifting. And that is just ridiculous. Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that.

But that was just the beginning of Mörner’s problems with the IPCC:

Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure it by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.

Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC's] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn't look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn't recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” which they took from the tide gauge. So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow —I said you have introduced factors from outside; it's not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don't say what really happened. And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!

That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And there you come to the point: They “know” the answer; the rest of us, we are searching for the answer. Because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations. The observations don't find it!

Pretty extraordinary, wouldn’t you agree? A "correction factor." Honestly, the way these folks manipulate data is nothing less than astounding.

Yet, Mörner wasn’t finished, as he later detailed an incident when IPCC scientists actually destroyed evidence which refuted their rising sea level claims:

This tree, which I showed in the documentary, is interesting. This is a prison island, and when people left the island, from the '50s, it was a marker for them, when they saw this tree alone out there, they said, “Ah, freedom!” They were allowed back. And there have been writings and talks about this. I knew that this tree was in that terrible position already in the 1950s. So the slightest rise, and it would have been gone. I used it in my writings and for television. You know what happened? There came an Australian sea-level team, which was for the IPCC and against me. Then the students pulled down the tree by hand! They destroyed the evidence. What kind of people are those? And we came to launch this film, “Doomsday Called Off,” right after, and the tree was still green. And I heard from the locals that they had seen the people who had pulled it down. So I put it up again, by hand, and made my TV program. I haven't told anybody else, but this was the story.

They call themselves scientists, and they're destroying evidence! A scientist should always be open for reinterpretation, but you can never destroy evidence. And they were being watched, thinking they were clever.

Think Katie, Charlie, or Brian will be interviewing Mörner any time soon?

No, I don’t either.

Labels: ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button


At 8:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You do know that this interview appeared in a Lyndon Larouche publication. Does that bother you?

At 8:59 AM, Blogger RussWilcox said...

Your comment is what's known as guilt by association; we had enough of that in the late 1940's.

At 9:29 AM, Anonymous steve said...

I'll pick up on this...How about the National Enquirer? The star? There is such thing as "consider the source"

At 11:21 AM, Blogger RussWilcox said...

This was posted on, but the original interview was conducted by Executive Intelligence Review, a Larouche publication. If someone believes that there is no such scientist or that he didn't conduct this interview, provide some evidence.

At 11:28 AM, Blogger RussWilcox said...

In 2003, Nils-Axel Mörner and his colleagues (see below) pub-
lished a well-documented paper showing that sea levels in the
Maldives have fallen substantially – fallen! – in the last 30 years.
I find it curious that we haven't heard about this.

"The Maldives in the central Indian Ocean consist of some 1,200
individual islands grouped in about 20 larger atolls," says Mörner.
In-as-much as the islands rise only three to seven feet above sea
level, they have been condemned by the IPCC to flooding in the
near future.

Mörner disagrees with this scenario. "In our study of the coastal
dynamics and the geomorphology of the shores," writes Mörner,
"we were unable to detect any traces of a recent sea level rise.
On the contrary, we found quite clear morphological indications
of a recent fall in sea level."

Mörner’s group found that sea levels stood about 60 cm higher
around A.D. 1150 than today, and more recently, about 30 cm
higher than today.

"From the shape and freshness," Mörner says, "one would assume
that the sea level fall took place in the last 50 years, or so."

In the last 50 years!

I find it difficult to understand how the IPCC could have missed
this information - unless they did it deliberately.

All they had to do was ask the locals.

"Local people report that the dhonis (local fishing boats) could pass
straight across theMaduvvare Falhus thila in the 1970s and 1980s,"
Mörner reports, "whilst they in the last 15 years have had to make
a detour around the thila, because it is now too shallow. The thila
has not grown, so it must be the sea that has fallen."

"In the IPCC scenarios," Mörner concludes, "the Maldives were
condemned to disappear in the near future." "Our documentation
of actual field evidence contradicts this hypothesis."

From "New perspectives for the future of the Maldives"
Nils-Axel Mörner, Michael Tooley, and Göran Possnert,
Global and Planetary Change, Vol. 40, Issues 1-2,
Jan 2004, pp 177-182

Nils-Axel Mörner, Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics,
Stockholm University, Sweden

Michael Tooley, Geography and Archaelogy,
University of Durham, Durham, UK

Göran Possnert, The Angstrom Laboratory,
Uppsala University, Sweden


Post a Comment

<< Home