Vincent Gray reckons it's time to feel sorry for warmists, since "their most cherished beliefs are under threat," poor dears.
The "Globe" is not "Warming", alas, and all they can say about is that "There is a warming trend."
And:
The sea level is not rising.
No wonder the warmists are getting more shrill. They've been out in force, notes Gray, to combat a recent Australian study in the Pacific that confirms that, as the chart shows, "since about 2001 there has been no change in sea level whatsoever for any of the islands studied, including Tuvalu which every global warmer knows is sinking as an act of religious faith... the most accurate recent figures show that Tuvalu, and 11 other Pacific Islands, are not sinking. The sea level is almost constant."
Read Dr Gray's article for more, including more on the "the steady retreat from the peer review system which is supposedly sponsored by the IPCC, provided they can control it, but abandoned as soon as they wish to evade unexpected criticism."
As Australian scientist David Evans points out, ""On global warming, public policy is where the science was in 1998. Due to new evidence, science has since moved off in a different direction."
For more evidence on this score keep an eye on the two anti-industrial "emissions trading schemes" proposed by both Labour and National, neither of whom are resiling from schemes that will destroy the parts of the economy that Alan Bollard hasn't already, despite the science having already passed them by.
UPDATE: By the way, if you'd like to see how poorly the predictions of NASA's James Hansen, warmist-in-chief, are panning out, take a look here.
2 comments:
It's an interesting study, the sea ice level, however it's also extremely preliminary time to be inferring results from it. On the scale of the last 5 years the warming has not been dramatic, so you'd expect the same thing with the results from a sea level study over that length of time, too.
You'll note in the comments of that link you post about the purported "failure" of Hansen's 1988 model to predict the weather record are multiple people pointing out the problems in it. Accepted reviews largely agree that the "scenario B" is quite close, despite the differences in the areas which cannot be predicted by the model (eg, volcanic eruptions).
You should be extremely critical when dealing with articles released by people like Vincent Gray - they frequently will not cite references or cite discredited papers.
Actually, to correct myself that's a different study to the one I was thinking of.
But investigating, it's even worse than that - the paper Gray cites doesn't even contain the graph at the top of this blog post. Who knows where it came from.
If you go to the SEAFRAME site. Here's what the data actually says (emphasis mine):
There are significant regional variations in sea-level trends around Australia. The greatest recorded change with the SEAFRAME equipment is at Groote Eylandt in the Gulf of Carpentaria (+32.2 mm/yr), while the average around Australia is 12.1 mm/yr. Changes recorded in Tasmania are 6.5 and 4.4 mm/year at the Burnie and Spring Bay stations respectively. Many decades of data are required before the short-term variation stops masking the long-term trends.
Post a Comment