Rising Sea Levels "The Greatest Lie Ever Told"

[k2skier]

Sediment shifting, tides, ....all have an impact you will see. The sea is rising at 1mm per year, which can't been seen with the naked eye.

if you look at the graph I posted from NOAA it shows that a few areas have dropped in sea level, while the majority have risen. An eyeball view is hardly scientific or accurate.

 

[KittenKoder]

Sediment shifting, tides, ....all have an impact you will see. The sea is rising at 1mm per year, which can't been seen with the naked eye.

if you look at the graph I posted from NOAA it shows that a few areas have dropped in sea level, while the majority have risen. An eyeball view is hardly scientific or accurate.

The piers have been around for more than 30 years. Most still have their original support beams. Seattle is moving 1 inch to the west each year (approx.) and logic would have it, the piers should be lower, but they are not ... explain that. Oh, and the Sound's shelf doesn't shift as much as those on the open ocean.

 

[Sinatra]

From the Article:

"One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".

When I spoke to Dr Mörner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an "expert reviewer" on the IPCC's last two reports, he was "astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one". Yet the results of all this "deliberate ignorance" and reliance on rigged computer models have become the most powerful single driver of the entire warmist hysteria."

Right on.

Of course the reality deniars will simply say, "Oh you people are crazy - the water levels are rising - why look right here. And then they point to the very sources of information Morner has completely discredited.

They don't appear to understand that simply saying it is so, doesn't actually make it so.

The real data says otherwise.

 

[manu1959]

doesn't water evaporate faster when it is hotter.......

 

[Sinatra]

doesn't water evaporate faster when it is hotter.......

Careful - you will confuse the poor global warmers into outright self-mutilation!

Water only evaporates faster when Al Gore states it is convenient for it to do so...

 

[KittenKoder]

doesn't water evaporate faster when it is hotter.......

Careful - you will confuse the poor global warmers into outright self-mutilation!

Water only evaporates faster when Al Gore states it is convenient for it to do so...

Don't give them any more ideas ... next we'll have a world wise drought so they can charge triple for tap water in a bottle!

 

[Old Rocks]

From the Article:

"One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".

When I spoke to Dr Mörner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an "expert reviewer" on the IPCC's last two reports, he was "astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one". Yet the results of all this "deliberate ignorance" and reliance on rigged computer models have become the most powerful single driver of the entire warmist hysteria."

Right on.

Of course the reality deniars will simply say, "Oh you people are crazy - the water levels are rising - why look right here. And then they point to the very sources of information Morner has completely discredited.

They don't appear to understand that simply saying it is so, doesn't actually make it so.

The real data says otherwise.

No, that is not what the real data says. One old loopy fellow claims that every other scientist in his field in wrong, and you believe him.

 

[KittenKoder]

From the Article:

"One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".

When I spoke to Dr Mörner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an "expert reviewer" on the IPCC's last two reports, he was "astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one". Yet the results of all this "deliberate ignorance" and reliance on rigged computer models have become the most powerful single driver of the entire warmist hysteria."

Right on.

Of course the reality deniars will simply say, "Oh you people are crazy - the water levels are rising - why look right here. And then they point to the very sources of information Morner has completely discredited.

They don't appear to understand that simply saying it is so, doesn't actually make it so.

The real data says otherwise.

No, that is not what the real data says. One old loopy fellow claims that every other scientist in his field in wrong, and you believe him.

At least the one "loopy" fellow isn't an American Idol contestant wanna-be like your "scientists".

 

[RetiredGySgt]

From the Article:

"One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".

When I spoke to Dr Mörner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an "expert reviewer" on the IPCC's last two reports, he was "astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one". Yet the results of all this "deliberate ignorance" and reliance on rigged computer models have become the most powerful single driver of the entire warmist hysteria."

Right on.

Of course the reality deniars will simply say, "Oh you people are crazy - the water levels are rising - why look right here. And then they point to the very sources of information Morner has completely discredited.

They don't appear to understand that simply saying it is so, doesn't actually make it so.

The real data says otherwise.

No, that is not what the real data says. One old loopy fellow claims that every other scientist in his field in wrong, and you believe him.

First you claim no scientist say it, now you claim the scientist in question, who happens to be an EXPERT on the subject matter is somehow mentally deficient. Which is it? Is he a scientist or not?

The FACTS are if the seas were rising we would KNOW it cause our shore lines, our sea ports and our water fronts would be effected, BUT amazingly they are NOT. I live about 8 miles from the Atlantic Ocean, no reports of rising sea level AT ALL. Someone else pointed out to your DUMB ASS that in Seattle even a small rise would wipe out the water front and THAT has not happened. In the Netherlands a rising sea would cause the dikes they built to reclaim land to be swamped, again no such event. NO REPORTS from anywhere of rising sea levels except in the phony reports by discredited scientists.

 

[Old Rocks]

I am looking at the pier supports right now, from my window ... looks like there is something wrong here, perhaps our city is floating higher each year because in spite of all the sea level rising and our city sliding into the sound more each year, the water beating parts of the support beams goes much higher than the current water level ... strange.

Not at all strange. Some answers here from the U of W.

http://cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/moteetalslr579.pdf

 

[Sinatra]

I am looking at the pier supports right now, from my window ... looks like there is something wrong here, perhaps our city is floating higher each year because in spite of all the sea level rising and our city sliding into the sound more each year, the water beating parts of the support beams goes much higher than the current water level ... strange.

Not at all strange. Some answers here from the U of W.

http://cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/moteetalslr579.pdf

AH-HA!

I knew someone would respond with this very "study".

With all due respect, this was nothing more than an IPCC circle-jerk - the kind that is legion throughout universities and their environmental science departments. This is a grad-student shuck up - nothing more, perhaps even less.

I know Tom Ackerman personally, who heads the JISAO (if he is still there) - the entity that funded this little burp of a paper. Let me tell you - the JISAO is among the most left-leaning organizations you will ever find - even by UW standards they are considered a group of loons. Loveable loons, but loons nevertheless. (Sorry Tom - but you know this is true!)

This study borrows heavily from the IPCC projections that the previous post already dismissed quite credibly - there were no tidal experts on the IPCC group that made the water level projections. NONE. So what we have here is bad false science creating more bad false science.

This paper even admits to its own shortcomings - note the always present overuse of the terms "projected", "estimate" and "calculation" that one finds strewn throughout these IPCC study - spawns. There is even a paragraph openly stating that the four primary factors of their study were not well quantified - and going on to say these projections may or may not happen in one or one hundred years - that it was all dependent upon the mysterious influences of anthropogenic global warming...-ahem-.

This is the kind of tripe that passes for study in departments such as environmental science - departments that now see massive funding form global sources hell-bent on getting their global warming religion mandated to the masses.

And here is a nice little follow up to this study - note that Spencer Reeder is now a policy strategist for the Washington State Department of Ecology - and he is openly plugging the Go-Green industry in his comments. THAT is the core of this entire missive - it has always been about economic creation.


Puget Sound may rise six inches by 2050 - The Daily of the University of Washington

You are but a pawn in that plan - and you are legion.

Dance little monkey - dance, as the organ grinders of global warming take the coin you create and dress you in that ridiculous suit of liberal collectivism.

 

[k2skier]

Right on.

Of course the reality deniars will simply say, "Oh you people are crazy - the water levels are rising - why look right here. And then they point to the very sources of information Morner has completely discredited.

They don't appear to understand that simply saying it is so, doesn't actually make it so.

The real data says otherwise.

No, that is not what the real data says. One old loopy fellow claims that every other scientist in his field in wrong, and you believe him.

First you claim no scientist say it, now you claim the scientist in question, who happens to be an EXPERT on the subject matter is somehow mentally deficient. Which is it? Is he a scientist or not?

The FACTS are if the seas were rising we would KNOW it cause our shore lines, our sea ports and our water fronts would be effected, BUT amazingly they are NOT. I live about 8 miles from the Atlantic Ocean, no reports of rising sea level AT ALL. Someone else pointed out to your DUMB ASS that in Seattle even a small rise would wipe out the water front and THAT has not happened. In the Netherlands a rising sea would cause the dikes they built to reclaim land to be swamped, again no such event. NO REPORTS from anywhere of rising sea levels except in the phony reports by discredited scientists.

Not at 1mm per year, it's not detected visually, get a grip and quit trying to prove the sky is green.

 

[KittenKoder]

No, that is not what the real data says. One old loopy fellow claims that every other scientist in his field in wrong, and you believe him.

First you claim no scientist say it, now you claim the scientist in question, who happens to be an EXPERT on the subject matter is somehow mentally deficient. Which is it? Is he a scientist or not?

The FACTS are if the seas were rising we would KNOW it cause our shore lines, our sea ports and our water fronts would be effected, BUT amazingly they are NOT. I live about 8 miles from the Atlantic Ocean, no reports of rising sea level AT ALL. Someone else pointed out to your DUMB ASS that in Seattle even a small rise would wipe out the water front and THAT has not happened. In the Netherlands a rising sea would cause the dikes they built to reclaim land to be swamped, again no such event. NO REPORTS from anywhere of rising sea levels except in the phony reports by discredited scientists.

Not at 1mm per year, it's not detected visually, get a grip and quit trying to prove the sky is green.

Um ... there are ways to observe it. Look at old structures from 50 years ago that are in the water, just off the shores. You won't see a difference, in many instances you will see the water stain level is higher than the current water level. So it is observable if you are smart enough to look.

 

[Old Rocks]

Right on.

Of course the reality deniars will simply say, "Oh you people are crazy - the water levels are rising - why look right here. And then they point to the very sources of information Morner has completely discredited.

They don't appear to understand that simply saying it is so, doesn't actually make it so.

The real data says otherwise.

No, that is not what the real data says. One old loopy fellow claims that every other scientist in his field in wrong, and you believe him.

First you claim no scientist say it, now you claim the scientist in question, who happens to be an EXPERT on the subject matter is somehow mentally deficient. Which is it? Is he a scientist or not?

The FACTS are if the seas were rising we would KNOW it cause our shore lines, our sea ports and our water fronts would be effected, BUT amazingly they are NOT. I live about 8 miles from the Atlantic Ocean, no reports of rising sea level AT ALL. Someone else pointed out to your DUMB ASS that in Seattle even a small rise would wipe out the water front and THAT has not happened. In the Netherlands a rising sea would cause the dikes they built to reclaim land to be swamped, again no such event. NO REPORTS from anywhere of rising sea levels except in the phony reports by discredited scientists.

As ussual, you are speaking from ignorance.

20th Century Sea-Level Rise on the US Atlantic Coast: Greater Than the Global Average


2008 Joint Meeting of The Geological Society of America, Soil Science Society of America, American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies with the Gulf Coast Section of SEPM
Paper No. 282-10
Presentation Time: 10:15 AM-10:30 AM

20th Century Sea-Level Rise on the US Atlantic Coast: Greater Than the Global Average
ENGELHART, Simon, Department of Earth and Environmental Science, Univerity of Pennsylvania, 240 South 33rd Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, simoneng@sas.upenn.edu, ANDERSON, Clive, Department of Probability and Statistics, University of Sheffield, Hicks Building, Sheffield, S3 7RH, United Kingdom, DOUGLAS, Bruce C., Laboratory for Coastal Research, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199, HILL, David, Department of Civil Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, HORTON, Benjamin, Department of Earth and Environmental Science, Univ of Pennsylvania, 240 South 33rd Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, PELTIER, W. Richard, Physics, University of Toronto, 60 St George Street, Toronto, ON M5S 1A7, Canada, VAN DE PLASSCHE, Orson, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1085, Amsterdam, 1081 HV, Netherlands, SHENNAN, Ian, Sea Level Research Unit, Department of Geography, Durham University, Durham, DH1 3LE, United Kingdom, THIELER, E. Robert, Coastal and Marine Geology Program, US Geological Survey, 384 Woods Hole Road, Woods Hole, MA 02543, and TÖRNQVIST, Torbjörn E., Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Tulane University, 6823 St. Charles Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70118-5698
We have assembled a database of late Holocene (last ~4000 a BP) basal sea level index points (SLI) based on saltmarsh deposits from the Atlantic Coast of the United States of America. We have standardized these SLI both by relating their elevation to a geodetic datum (NAVD88) and by developing reference water levels (RWL) that relate the sea level indicators to the tidal frame.

This validation results in 21 sites with three or more basal SLI from Maine to South Carolina. Using this dataset, we can subdivide the US Atlantic Coast into three zones of differing modern day subsidence. The first zone from Maine to Boston shows rates of subsidence less than 0.3 mm yr-1. The second zone from Barnstable to the Outer Banks shows rates of 0.3 – 0.6 mm yr-1 and the third zone from Southport to Beaufort shows a return to rates less than 0.3 mm yr-1.

Evidence obtained by decontaminating the tide gauge record of the Atlantic Coast of the United States of America with this geological dataset, documents the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century. Utilizing the nine reliable, long term (> 50 years) tide gauges where we have associated geological data, we highlight a 20th century rate of sea level rise of c. 2 mm yr-1. This is higher than most previous global estimates derived from geophysical models, tide gauge analysis and global positioning systems although is in agreement with a number of studies concentrating solely on the US East Coast. Our results suggest that 20th century sea level rise on the US Atlantic Coast was greater than the global average of 1.8 mm yr-1.

 

[Old Rocks]

I am looking at the pier supports right now, from my window ... looks like there is something wrong here, perhaps our city is floating higher each year because in spite of all the sea level rising and our city sliding into the sound more each year, the water beating parts of the support beams goes much higher than the current water level ... strange.

Not at all strange. Some answers here from the U of W.

http://cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/moteetalslr579.pdf

AH-HA!

I knew someone would respond with this very "study".

With all due respect, this was nothing more than an IPCC circle-jerk - the kind that is legion throughout universities and their environmental science departments. This is a grad-student shuck up - nothing more, perhaps even less.

I know Tom Ackerman personally, who heads the JISAO (if he is still there) - the entity that funded this little burp of a paper. Let me tell you - the JISAO is among the most left-leaning organizations you will ever find - even by UW standards they are considered a group of loons. Loveable loons, but loons nevertheless. (Sorry Tom - but you know this is true!)

This study borrows heavily from the IPCC projections that the previous post already dismissed quite credibly - there were no tidal experts on the IPCC group that made the water level projections. NONE. So what we have here is bad false science creating more bad false science.

This paper even admits to its own shortcomings - note the always present overuse of the terms "projected", "estimate" and "calculation" that one finds strewn throughout these IPCC study - spawns. There is even a paragraph openly stating that the four primary factors of their study were not well quantified - and going on to say these projections may or may not happen in one or one hundred years - that it was all dependent upon the mysterious influences of anthropogenic global warming...-ahem-.

This is the kind of tripe that passes for study in departments such as environmental science - departments that now see massive funding form global sources hell-bent on getting their global warming religion mandated to the masses.

And here is a nice little follow up to this study - note that Spencer Reeder is now a policy strategist for the Washington State Department of Ecology - and he is openly plugging the Go-Green industry in his comments. THAT is the core of this entire missive - it has always been about economic creation.


Puget Sound may rise six inches by 2050 - The Daily of the University of Washington

You are but a pawn in that plan - and you are legion.

Dance little monkey - dance, as the organ grinders of global warming take the coin you create and dress you in that ridiculous suit of liberal collectivism.

LOL. You are one funny asshole. So we are all supposed to ignore real scientists with real data and listen to your yapping? You obviously did not read the article. That is even funnier. However, we know where you are coming from, all politics and no science at all.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Not at all strange. Some answers here from the U of W.

http://cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/moteetalslr579.pdf

AH-HA!

I knew someone would respond with this very "study".

With all due respect, this was nothing more than an IPCC circle-jerk - the kind that is legion throughout universities and their environmental science departments. This is a grad-student shuck up - nothing more, perhaps even less.

I know Tom Ackerman personally, who heads the JISAO (if he is still there) - the entity that funded this little burp of a paper. Let me tell you - the JISAO is among the most left-leaning organizations you will ever find - even by UW standards they are considered a group of loons. Loveable loons, but loons nevertheless. (Sorry Tom - but you know this is true!)

This study borrows heavily from the IPCC projections that the previous post already dismissed quite credibly - there were no tidal experts on the IPCC group that made the water level projections. NONE. So what we have here is bad false science creating more bad false science.

This paper even admits to its own shortcomings - note the always present overuse of the terms "projected", "estimate" and "calculation" that one finds strewn throughout these IPCC study - spawns. There is even a paragraph openly stating that the four primary factors of their study were not well quantified - and going on to say these projections may or may not happen in one or one hundred years - that it was all dependent upon the mysterious influences of anthropogenic global warming...-ahem-.

This is the kind of tripe that passes for study in departments such as environmental science - departments that now see massive funding form global sources hell-bent on getting their global warming religion mandated to the masses.

And here is a nice little follow up to this study - note that Spencer Reeder is now a policy strategist for the Washington State Department of Ecology - and he is openly plugging the Go-Green industry in his comments. THAT is the core of this entire missive - it has always been about economic creation.


Puget Sound may rise six inches by 2050 - The Daily of the University of Washington

You are but a pawn in that plan - and you are legion.

Dance little monkey - dance, as the organ grinders of global warming take the coin you create and dress you in that ridiculous suit of liberal collectivism.

LOL. You are one funny asshole. So we are all supposed to ignore real scientists with real data and listen to your yapping? You obviously did not read the article. That is even funnier. However, we know where you are coming from, all politics and no science at all.

There you go again, ARE YOU CONTENDING that the author of this study is NOT a REAL scientist? You may want to check your facts, he is a world renowned EXPERT on the matter at hand.

 

[Old Rocks]

AH-HA!

I knew someone would respond with this very "study".

With all due respect, this was nothing more than an IPCC circle-jerk - the kind that is legion throughout universities and their environmental science departments. This is a grad-student shuck up - nothing more, perhaps even less.

I know Tom Ackerman personally, who heads the JISAO (if he is still there) - the entity that funded this little burp of a paper. Let me tell you - the JISAO is among the most left-leaning organizations you will ever find - even by UW standards they are considered a group of loons. Loveable loons, but loons nevertheless. (Sorry Tom - but you know this is true!)

This study borrows heavily from the IPCC projections that the previous post already dismissed quite credibly - there were no tidal experts on the IPCC group that made the water level projections. NONE. So what we have here is bad false science creating more bad false science.

This paper even admits to its own shortcomings - note the always present overuse of the terms "projected", "estimate" and "calculation" that one finds strewn throughout these IPCC study - spawns. There is even a paragraph openly stating that the four primary factors of their study were not well quantified - and going on to say these projections may or may not happen in one or one hundred years - that it was all dependent upon the mysterious influences of anthropogenic global warming...-ahem-.

This is the kind of tripe that passes for study in departments such as environmental science - departments that now see massive funding form global sources hell-bent on getting their global warming religion mandated to the masses.

And here is a nice little follow up to this study - note that Spencer Reeder is now a policy strategist for the Washington State Department of Ecology - and he is openly plugging the Go-Green industry in his comments. THAT is the core of this entire missive - it has always been about economic creation.


Puget Sound may rise six inches by 2050 - The Daily of the University of Washington

You are but a pawn in that plan - and you are legion.

Dance little monkey - dance, as the organ grinders of global warming take the coin you create and dress you in that ridiculous suit of liberal collectivism.

LOL. You are one funny asshole. So we are all supposed to ignore real scientists with real data and listen to your yapping? You obviously did not read the article. That is even funnier. However, we know where you are coming from, all politics and no science at all.

There you go again, ARE YOU CONTENDING that the author of this study is NOT a REAL scientist? You may want to check your facts, he is a world renowned EXPERT on the matter at hand.

The above was about a paper that compared the rate of uplift in the Northwest corner of Washington State with the sea level rise. It essentially confirmed Kitten's observation that she could see no evidence of sea level rise in the Puget Sound. In fact, it also showed where the rate of uplift exceeded the rate of sea level rise in the Olympic Peninsula. Of course, when the inevitable subduction quake releases the energy that is presently bowing that area upward, the sea level rise will be very evident. But for Seattle, it is not evident at present.

 

[Sinatra]

AH-HA!

I knew someone would respond with this very "study".

With all due respect, this was nothing more than an IPCC circle-jerk - the kind that is legion throughout universities and their environmental science departments. This is a grad-student shuck up - nothing more, perhaps even less.

I know Tom Ackerman personally, who heads the JISAO (if he is still there) - the entity that funded this little burp of a paper. Let me tell you - the JISAO is among the most left-leaning organizations you will ever find - even by UW standards they are considered a group of loons. Loveable loons, but loons nevertheless. (Sorry Tom - but you know this is true!)

This study borrows heavily from the IPCC projections that the previous post already dismissed quite credibly - there were no tidal experts on the IPCC group that made the water level projections. NONE. So what we have here is bad false science creating more bad false science.

This paper even admits to its own shortcomings - note the always present overuse of the terms "projected", "estimate" and "calculation" that one finds strewn throughout these IPCC study - spawns. There is even a paragraph openly stating that the four primary factors of their study were not well quantified - and going on to say these projections may or may not happen in one or one hundred years - that it was all dependent upon the mysterious influences of anthropogenic global warming...-ahem-.

This is the kind of tripe that passes for study in departments such as environmental science - departments that now see massive funding form global sources hell-bent on getting their global warming religion mandated to the masses.

And here is a nice little follow up to this study - note that Spencer Reeder is now a policy strategist for the Washington State Department of Ecology - and he is openly plugging the Go-Green industry in his comments. THAT is the core of this entire missive - it has always been about economic creation.


Puget Sound may rise six inches by 2050 - The Daily of the University of Washington

You are but a pawn in that plan - and you are legion.

Dance little monkey - dance, as the organ grinders of global warming take the coin you create and dress you in that ridiculous suit of liberal collectivism.

LOL. You are one funny asshole. So we are all supposed to ignore real scientists with real data and listen to your yapping? You obviously did not read the article. That is even funnier. However, we know where you are coming from, all politics and no science at all.

There you go again, ARE YOU CONTENDING that the author of this study is NOT a REAL scientist? You may want to check your facts, he is a world renowned EXPERT on the matter at hand.

Exactly - Old Rocks appears to cite studies completely out of context to how those studies even originated, and then utterly ignores other scientists who far more completley lay out a counter-arguement to Old Rocks' need to swallow the ever growing appendage of the Global Warming mantra - and swallow it he does, without nary a gag reflex to boot.

The study he utilizes here specifically took vast sea level information directly from the projections of the IPCC - projections that have already been proven false or at the very least, over-reaching. It is also a study that states that the seas "might rise as much as very little or as much as very much..."

Yeah - ok. Sounds like what the seas have and will continue to do regardless of whether man is running around talking about it or not.

To call such examples science is ludicrous - nearly as ludicrous as Old Rock's quickly diminishing credibility on the subject.

Remember, he pronounced CO2 as the primary greenhouse gas - when even a high school level student would know it is far and away water vapor...

 

[HUGGY]

If the water levels were truly rising, then Seattle would already be in the water. Look it up, our city is shifting into the water an inch a year almost, if the water level was rising even close enough to measure our waterfront would already be gone.

It frightens me to think I share the highways and streets with your dumb ass.

Who knows when you will snap and start thinking green means stop and red means go.

Christ. Where do you people come from?

 

[Sinatra]

LOL. You are one funny asshole. So we are all supposed to ignore real scientists with real data and listen to your yapping? You obviously did not read the article. That is even funnier. However, we know where you are coming from, all politics and no science at all.

There you go again, ARE YOU CONTENDING that the author of this study is NOT a REAL scientist? You may want to check your facts, he is a world renowned EXPERT on the matter at hand.

Exactly - Old Rocks appears to cite studies completely out of context to how those studies even originated, and then utterly ignores other scientists who far more completley lay out a counter-arguement to Old Rocks' need to swallow the ever growing appendage of the Global Warming mantra - and swallow it he does, without nary a gag reflex to boot.

The study he utilizes here specifically took vast sea level information directly from the projections of the IPCC - projections that have already been proven false or at the very least, over-reaching. It is also a study that states that the seas "might rise as much as very little or as much as very much..."

Yeah - ok. Sounds like what the seas have and will continue to do regardless of whether man is running around talking about it or not.

To call such examples science is ludicrous - nearly as ludicrous as Old Rock's quickly diminishing credibility on the subject.

Remember, he pronounced CO2 as the primary greenhouse gas - when even a high school level student would know it is far and away water vapor...

,,,