Did The IPCC Falsify Sea Level Data

The Telegraph has an interesting article with the charge being leveled by a Swedish scientist: The IPCC falsified data showing a sea level rise from 1992-2002 according to Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden.

The IPCC falsified data showing a sea level rise from 1992-2002 according to Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. In an interview by George Murphy, Mörner cites various examples of falsification of evidence claiming sea level rises.

"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" in an area of Hong Kong that had been subsiding, or sinking.

Mörner says that the claim that salt water invasion of a fresh water aquifer indicated a sea level rise ignores the more likely cause due to draining the aquifer for the pineapple industry.

My advice from the past remains current, be very skeptical and require a very high level of proof, not conjecture, before agreeing to open your wallet. Currently the proof is that satellite data cannot find the vaunted signature of CO2 warming in the atmosphere. Conclusion, CO2 caused glow-bull warming is a myth. Read the summary paper at the link if you don't want to wade through the complete paper.

Oh, and Mörner isn't at all impressed with the computer models used:

Mörner is particularly critical of the overemphasis on computer modeling by IPCC "experts" instead of doing actual field research like geologists do.

" Again, it was a computer issue. This is the typical thing: The metereological community works with computers, simple computers. Geologists don't do that! We go out in the field and observe, and then we can try to make a model with computerization; but it's not the first thing."

The various computer models are not based on empirical data, they are based on nothing but conjecture and guesstimates. You cannot find fact when there is none. But you can verify that the CO2 signature is in the atmosphere today, since the IPCC says that the atmosphere has already warmed due to it's presence. But when you take the measurements, you come up empty handed, it simply is not there according to the scientists.

Yesterday, the Senate committee chaired by that daunting beauty of an old lady Sen Botoxer, passed out of committee a brand new tax bill that includes $100s of billions of dollars in new taxes for transfer to the loons. It's called cap and trade, an AL Gore original get rich quick scheme for the alarmists. So if you think this whole glow-bull warming isn't a problem, think again. You will pay, and pay and pay for that lapse.

BTW, the reason you are seeing former researchers coming out, is the glow-bull warming hoaxers use grant money to keep the skeptics at bay. If you don't buy into the glow-warming bull-oney, you don't get any grant money. Cute isn't it? Stalin did the same thing with scientists in the old Soviet Union.

We need answers, simple straight answers., not cap and trade hogwash.