A question of faith

What would it take to convince you that Nils-Axel Mörner’s arguments on sea levels are not scientifically credible?

10 December 2011

3:00 PM

10 December 2011

3:00 PM

What would it take to convince you that Nils-Axel Mörner’s arguments on sea levels are not scientifically credible?

If people are committed to an unscientific position, no evidence or argument will shake them out of it. Whether they subscribe to AIDS denial, excessive fear of radiation, vaccine scaremongering, homeopathy or creationism, they tend to demand impossible standards of proof from their opponents but to accept any old rubbish that supports their beliefs.

So if you are among those who reject the vast weight of scientific evidence for manmade climate change, I don’t expect this article to persuade you. Ask yourself what it would take to change your mind. If tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers, against a tiny handful supporting your position; basic physics, demonstrable in a lab; instrumental temperature records spanning 150 years and much else on these lines can’t sway you, what could?

Conversely, which claims will you not accept? Do you believe that volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than human beings? That the hockey-stick graph of global temperatures is a fake? That global warming is a conspiracy cooked up between governments and scientists? If none of the science persuades you, but you accept these groundless claims, your belief is likely to be a religious one, by which I mean unamenable to refutation.


So demonstrating in the pages of The Spectator that last week’s cover story was complete hogwash may be a waste of time for those whose minds are already made up. But I’ll do it anyway.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If someone maintains that he has overturned the entire canon of knowledge about global sea levels, derived from a massive database of readings from tidal gauges and satellites, he’d better have some powerful evidence for it, and he’d better publish it in the peer-reviewed scientific journals, where claims are assessed by people who know what they’re looking at.

But Nils-Axel Mörner’s evidence is close to nonexistent. He did publish a peer-reviewed article maintaining that sea levels in the Maldives are falling, back in 2004. But the ‘evidence’ it contained was anecdotal — a skeleton found on a reef, accounts of fishermen sailing over shallow rocks — and it was comprehensively debunked by two later articles in the same journal. They explained that his paper ‘contains a number of unqualified and unreferenced assertions’ and ignored a vast body of hard data — from tide gauges and satellites — in favour of unsubstantiated accounts. They found ‘no evidence for the fall in sea level at the Maldives as postulated by Mörner’.

Since then, he has chosen less conventional outlets for his claims, such as 21st Century Science and Technology, a magazine published by the convicted fraudster and conspiracy theorist Lyndon Larouche, and an online pamphlet co-authored with Lord Monckton. In this pamphlet, Monckton and Mörner engage in one of the most blatant distortions of evidence I’ve ever seen. They take a graph published by the University of Colorado, which shows a clear trend of global sea level rise, then they tilt it by 45 degrees until the line is flat, whereupon they announce that there’s ‘no trend’. For sheer, transparent chutzpah that takes some beating.

Mörner’s article in The Spectator demonstrates a similar carelessness with the facts. He suggests, for example, that the International Union for Quaternary Reseach (INQUA) supports his claim that ‘sea levels have been oscillating close to the present level for the last three centuries’. This has forced INQUA — not for the first time — to speak out. Its spokesman explained that ‘99 per cent of INQUA scientists don’t subscribe to this view, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he is the only one who believes this’. The evidence from ­satellites and tide gauges shows that mean ­global sea levels are now rising by 3mm a year.

Mörner has also made groundless claims in other fields. He says he possesses paranormal powers to find metal and water with his dowsing rods (but has consistently refused James Randi’s invitations to test them) and that he has discovered ‘the Hong Kong of the [ancient] Greeks’ in Sweden. The archaeologist and chair of the Swedish Sceptics Society, Martin Rundkvist, comments that if Nils-Axel Mörner is associated with a project, it’s ‘a solid guarantee for high-grade woo’.

On the one hand you have a massive body of evidence showing that global sea levels are rising, assessed by scientists and widely published in the scientific literature. On the other hand you have one debunked paper by a serial promoter of mumbo-jumbo, followed by evident falsehoods in publications with no scientific standing. It’s your choice, but if you accept Mörner’s claims about sea levels, just don’t pretend that you got there by assessing the evidence.

George Monbiot writes for the Guardian.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.

Show comments
  • Thomas Enrik

    I don’t always agree with Monbiot, but his article makes sense. Whatever you think needs to be done about climate change, the science behind it is solid.

    But how was someone who claims to have “paranormal powers to find metal and water with his dowsing rods” allowed to write an article on The Spectator? I mean, seriously?

  • Iain

    If people are committed to an unscientific position, no evidence or argument will shake them out of it. Whether they subscribe to AIDS denial, excessive fear of radiation, vaccine scaremongering, homeopathy or creationism,…

    Or GM foods, George?

  • George Monbiot


    I agree Thomas. Fair play to the Spectator for letting me rebut this stuff, but if it had put David Icke on the cover insisting that Father Christmas does in fact exist but has been abducted by 7-foot lizards, the editorial decision would have been no less eccentric.

  • Hugo Rifkind

    I’m very pleased the Spectator published this. Well done.

  • Richard B

    That, Thomas, is the real question. It’s not news that Mörner is absolutely full of it. He’s been debunked before and, like some kind of Zombie Stupid, keeps coming back for more.

    The real question is why The Spectator not only published his giant article of lies, but featured on their front cover. Either the staff at The Spectator are the kind of zealous idiots that Monbiot describes, or they are cynically chasing traffic/subscriptions. If it’s the former, they shouldn’t be journalists. If it’s the latter, they should be ashamed of themselves for peddling the kind of propaganda that does real harm to the world. Every day we delay doing something about the greatest problem mankind has ever faced will be (or, arguably, already is) another day people are displaced from their homes, go hungry or even die because of climate change.

  • Sir trev Skint MP

    Climate Change Loonies are like any other lefty, they think they can change everything from, the free markets, to democracy, to equality, to all female short-lists, the list goes on and on.

    Always wanting to change what goes on naturally. And when it comes to nature they are no different, trying to re introduce, Wolves, Eagles, Beavers etc. Socialists are not happy unless they are playing god.

    Mad as sundials the lot of ’em!

  • Claudia

    What Hugo said.

  • Catesby

    I’ll accept the science has shown that global temperatures have risen a fraction of a degree centigrade over the past century and a bit.

    My reaction is “Big deal. Doesn’t seem much.”

    certainly no reason to strangle growth, abolish the capitalist system or believe all the accompanying stuff from Monbiot and fellow warmists about boiling seas and melting icecaps and tidal waves set to drown New York, or whatever.

    As for Morner – he’s a scientist, so following Monbiot logic, we should believe him, no?

  • Simon Mason

    I’m with Hugo Rifkind and Claudia. I’m so glad that The Spectator published this.

  • Screechin

    Catesby – That’s good of you to accept it. Well done you. But the problem is not the temperature rise itself, but what that causes and signifies. Whether the temperature rise impresses you or not is immaterial.

    Furthermore, Morner being a scientist is at best debatable, but the point is that science is about evidence, not authority. You understand that right?

    Perhaps you were joking. Hard to tell here (Exhibit A: “Sir Trev Skint MP”)

  • AndyInBrum

    Not like the Speccy to be wrong on a science based topic.

    Oh wait. As a rule of thumb if the Speccy states a scientific “fact” then the opposite will be true.

  • Dominic

    ***My reaction is “Big deal. Doesn’t seem much.”***

    And your reaction is wrong, because it is a lot. How things might “seem” is not what science is built on.

    ***certainly no reason to strangle growth, abolish the capitalist system***

    Could you directly quote where Monbiot has ever expressed this desire?

    ***believe all the accompanying stuff from Monbiot and fellow warmists about boiling seas and melting icecaps and tidal waves set to drown New York, or whatever***

    You’re correct, that’s why there are science journals full of other evidence to support those claims. By “warmist” I can only presume you are referring to 99% of the scientists community who work in this field. But what do they know.

    ***As for Morner – he’s a scientist, so following Monbiot logic, we should believe him, no?***

    Correct, no. Monbiot refutes many scientist, who are often hacks in the wilderness, much like the one this article refers to. Just like any profession there is never 100% agreement, but when there is 99% sensible people should take note.

  • John Russell

    Monbiot at his best. Well done to the Spectator for publishing the article.

    If anyone wants to assess for themselves how Mörner behaves, do read this email exchange between him and John Hunter, a climate scientist studying sea level rise on Tuvalu, back in 2004: http://www.members.iinet.net.au/~johnroberthunter/www-swg/morner_emails.txt

  • Roderick

    I found my way to this essay via twitter. I can’t see how anyone can navigate to this essay from the Spectator’s home page and it does not appear in searches of Speccie website.

    It appears that The Speccie is not playing fair here and is shielding their usual readership from some uncomfortable facts. In particular the Spectator coninuing to give a platform to fringe science wrt climate whilst continuing to ignore the mainstream science.

  • Adam Nixon

    Andy In Brum: Few things are more comical than English poshies holding forth about science. Our posh schools teach many things exceedingly well, but tend to leave their pupils ignorant of anything scientific. Sadly, one thing the posh schools _do_ teach is how to proclaim an opinion confidently, even iff it is based on absolute ignorance.

  • Charles Peyton

    Goerge: you mean “no MORE eccentric”, I think?

  • Dave

    Well done for publishing this piece but why on earth was the original published. There may well be some cogent arguments against climate change disaster scenarios but as the anti-warming team seems to consist of self-evidently barking mad people like Morner and Monckton and the lovely but bizarre James Delingpole, it does become difficult to take them seriously!

    If they could find a figurehead of peer approved scientific stature, who speaks rationally and without emotion, their argument might get a hearing beyond the fringe conspiracy theorist network, but sadly, it seems they are too content with shouting from the sidelines than engaging constructively.

  • A visiting lefty

    Well. I’m much more of a reader of Monbiot than of the Spectator (to which I don’t even subscribe). I’m impressed by the comments below the line. If you spend too much time following the US debate it’s easy to form the prejudice that all conservatives are anti-science. But the evidence on this page that refutes that prejudice has cheered me up immensely.

  • eyesee

    There has been no warming for over ten years; CO2 levels have continued to increase. Solid science, but not supportive of the religion of AGW. In fact there is no science, let alone a ‘vast array’ that supports AGW. There may be climate change, but puny Man isn’t behind it. And ‘solid science’ doesn’t require a blanket ban on debate and ridicule those who point of flaws in theories. Quackery always walks like a duck.

  • Mirik


    It has risen almost 1 degree celcius. That’s not a debat, those are the facts.

    Scientists are not ‘warmists’, they are scientists. They didn’t WANT to find this. They found it anyways and have a duty to make it be known that these are the facts.

    Newton did not discover gravity, he just figured out the rules behind it. Scientists didn’t ‘discover’ global warming, it is real, it is happening, they just discovered why it was happening. And we should be thankful it’s us, at least now we can remedy it. If it was NOT us, we’d already be doomed.

  • BGB

    This is 500 words of poison and character assassination, nowhere is any attempt made to refute the arguments put forward against rising sea levels. This tells us a lot more about its author then it does global warming.

  • wysdom

    Many question why the original article was published by the Spectator. Fact is that this is a magazine that has long tolerated the ramblings of climate change denialists of many shades, from pro-nuclear denialist Andrew Kenny, to the even more obscure writers like Morner who claim their five minutes of fame by spouting aberrant nonsense.
    The real irony is that Kenny insists that those concerned about anthropogenic global warming are nothing more than “a millennial religion of rich people in rich countries”.
    What is mysterious is not why the Spectator publishes Morner, it is why an apparently serious magazine gives any space at all to utterly discredited spin from the Morner’s and Kenny’s of the world.

  • Russell Seitz

    Adam Nixon has a point about confidence based on ignorance , but the same school that gave us that font of scientific disinformation Viscount Monckton, produced his antithesis, Lord Rutherford, and plenty of today’s public school graduates end up with PhD’s

  • Christopher Chantrill

    Look, everyone gets tempted by cranks that agree with them. Look at lefties. The science on capitalism was decided two centuries ago, but they keep trying to ram their Marxes their Fabians, their Keyneses down our throats.

    No doubt 99 percent of scientists believe in man-made global warming. But then they would, wouldn’t they. Their grant money comes from governments that want to spend money on global warming. Only mad scientists can’t tell which side their bread is buttered on.

    It was the Germans that figured out how to get the scientists eating out of the government’s hands. Back in 1806 when Wilhelm von Humboldt opened the world’s first government research university. What a ride it’s been for right-thinking scientists ever since.

  • revolution

    Should normal heterosexual tax payers be forced to pay for treatment for homosexual men who indulge in abnormal sex?

  • paulus

    From a great believer in AGW this is pretty rich, the sea level rise from TOTEX satellite is down to 1.5 mm a year not something to worry about. Coral atolls also grow to keep up with sea level rise its been going on since the end of the last ice age.

  • Mender

    Christopher Chantrill:
    “But then they would, wouldn’t they. Their grant money comes from governments that want to spend money on global warming. Only mad scientists can’t tell which side their bread is buttered on.”

    Good of you you admit that climate change deniers are mad.

    Seriously though, governments don’t want to believe global warming is real, they just have to-why would they want to believe that this lovely cheap oil stuff we’re burning could make the planet uninhabitable if we use too much of it? On the other hand, some magazines catering to people like you have a very real financial interest in pandering to your ignorance.

  • Robert Howden

    This paper by Philip Woodworth proves Morner right, even though they deny it.

  • Graphite

    So we’ve got this guy Monbiot, wandering around the world, poking his nose in here, there and everywhere, for no better reason than he happens to be an expensively educated Englishman.

    I’m not denying that he’s uncovered some dodgy dealings in a few places. But, let’s face it, that’s not too difficult, given the places he’s been, it’s the doings of the human race he’s investigating and he’s been invested with a messiah complex.

    Having been proven right once or twice, he’s now, in his own mind, infallible.

    Well, mate, nobody is right all the time. Nobody.

    Not you, not me, not even my wife. Nobody.

    And from what I’ve seen of life, people who are at the peak of their powers and at the top of the totem pole in their chosen field of expertise are just about guaranteed to be absolute dimwits in other areas.

    There are bugger all Leonardo da Vincis in the world. Plenty of Leonardo di Caprios, of course. We’re infested with them.

    But your actual Renaissance man . . . it’s a waste of time looking.

    And Monbiot — you ain’t one.

  • Graphite

    Part two (a) of my rant . . .

    If this climate-change debate had been left to scientists to battle over, they could have picked it to pieces, haggled back and forth for years, and possibly stumbled on something close to the truth.

    The debates would have resembled the arguments that medieval scholars had about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, or the sort of discussions that Fiddler on the Roof’s Tevye wanted to indulge himself in.

    They’d have been happy . . . and we’d have been happy to stand aside and let them duke it out.

  • Graphite

    Part two (b) of my rant . . .

    But that didn’t happen.

    The politicians got involved, either invited in by scientists looking for extra funding and prestige or elbowing their way in because they’d sniffed out an opportunity to play the saviour.

    Egging them on, of course, were the Monbiots of this world — self-appointed know-it-alls.

    Next thing you know, we’ve got an unholy alliance of Al Gore, the parasites at the UN, greenies, one-world-government loonies, save-the-gay-whales activists, and kumbaya singers of all stripe kicking up such a fuss that otherwise sensible governments have been railroaded into levying carbon taxes and setting up emission trading schemes that will strip-mine the pockets of productive workers in productive industries.

    All because the sea may rise the thickness of a cigarette paper and the planet may be one degree warmer a hundred years from now.

    • Richard A. Fletcher

      and that is only if the models are correct, which they aren’t of course, http://bit.ly/1EiGeXW

  • Graphite

    Part two (c) of my rant . . .

    Eyeing all this are the snake-oil salesmen of the solar panel, wind turbine, electric car, alternative this, alternative that, alternative the other thing industries . . . rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of government contracts galore.

    Standing next to them are the bankers, ready to clip the ticket on its way through.

    Well, include me out.

    And get your hands out of my pocket.

  • Mac

    The Monbiot pot calling the Morner kettle black.

  • P.V. Saludad

    “So if you are among those who reject the vast weight of scientific evidence …”

    I suppose this is an improvement over the “consensus” that was said to exist. I guess climategate — which showed us some very nasty scientists, engaging in various forms of scientifc, ethical, and intellectual fraud – has spared us from having to endure more nonsense about the “consensus.” It wasn’t too long ago that we were told that only flat-earthers (such as, for example, Freeman Dyson), could possibly question AGW. So yes, I guess this is a small advance.

  • Grocersgirl

    Russell Seitz: “Adam Nixon has a point about confidence based on ignorance, but the same school that gave us that font of scientific disinformation Viscount Monckton, produced his antithesis, Lord Rutherford, and plenty of today’s public school graduates end up with PhD’s”

    I understand Monckton is an Old Harrovian. Rutherford was educated in New Zealand at a notable state secondary school, Nelson College, and only went to England after gaining his MA.

  • Maddy1

    @Graphite, I love your stuff so funny, keep it up.
    George does not tackle the obvious, for obvious reasons. We had the BBC. looking at CC. recently. The BBC headlined their programme as on “climate change”, but the discussion as content was actually about the competiton for meagre water resources not necessarily connected to CC. and mostly independent of CC. The BBC and all the usual suspects use this smearing to influence us all the time. People have busy lives and the left liker all politicians use this tactic all the time. Notice how George uses the same technique here . Nobody can deny that that the huge population of China is causing environmental degradation on a large scale. The Chinese have had to put up with this since the days of Mao in the ways white people would never have tolerated.

  • Daniel Taghioff

    It is probably worth going over the list of comments here and thinking “Which ones are ad-hominem attacks and generalisations based on assertions, and which ones discuss actual evidence” and then wonder “which type of argument is associated with which type of position”?

  • Graphite

    @Daniel Taghioff

    I guess I’m in your ad hominem attack division here, but not without justification.

    George Monbiot’s entire piece was an attack on Morner. He didn’t disguise this; he was quite open in his intent not to bother with any of the science and kicked off his piece with a crude attempt to link climate-change sceptics to a variety of nutjob beliefs.

    I’ve no idea what an AIDS denier is (I know I don’t want it), my dentist dons a protective apron when he takes an Xray (so maybe he’s excessively frightened of radiation — I’ll have a talk to him about it), I take my shots, and the other two items are whacko stuff.

    So what’s Monbiot’s point there?

    If you want some genuine, red-in-tooth-and-claw ad hominems, try reading the leaked East Anglia emails.

    If ad hominem was in the Olympics alongside boxing, Britain and the US would be favourites to fight out the gold medal, Phil Jones and Michael Mann the front-runners, with maybe my own countryman James Salinger sneaking away with the bronze. (Check out the letter-writing campaign he cooked up against a fellow scientist.)

  • Douglas

    I’m not a scientist, let alone a climate scientist but i follow the climate debate closely and try to tease the knowable facts out of the argumentative background noise. To me, it is odd that Mr. Monibot would close his argument with several paragraphs on ‘sea level rise’ without mentioning the fact that according to the ENVISAT satellite and tidal gauges, the global sea level has actually fallen since 2010 and is about at the same level as it was in 2004. The most sophisticated and newest measurement tool in existence shows very little or no rise since it was launched. Is this not relevant? This does not mean that sea levels have not risen in the last 100 years (or in the last 15,000). No doubt it will begin to rise again. But is it accelerating? Evidently not. To ignore inconvenient truths it is to invite reasonable skepticism.

  • M Kraft

    @ Graphite, Chantrill and your ilk: we have just lived through the hottest year on record,and the hottest decade on record. Try living – as I do – in the global south, where temps are awful, crops are dead in the fields, food prices are rising, the incidence of extreme weather events likewise (I was in a storm which killed eight people just two weeks back)… I’ve been reading and researching climate science for years, and the science convinces me, but my experience is nailing it home. And as for governments wanting to spend money on this, puleeeez! That’s exactly why the COP17 talks were such a bust – because they DON’T.

  • David Newsome

    I think you will find that Newton believed all manner of improbable things. Had no bearing on how good a scientist he was.

  • Yow Min Lye

    Wasn’t there once a “scientific consensus” that eugenics was the future of mankind?

  • Graphite

    @M Kraft

    Could you be a bit more specific? The global south? What the hell does that mean?

    I live in New Zealand . . . you can’t get much more globally south than that.

    As for your local weather . . . that’s what it is — local weather.

    I think you’ll find that your extreme weather was matched somewhere else by extremes in the other direction.

  • Graphite

    (part 2)

    And, guess what? There would have been large swathes of the globe where the weather was much as it has been for decades.

  • Graphite

    (part 3)

    Finally, check your sources. I understand that the past decade has been cooler, globally, than the 1990s.

    The weather is just doing what it’s always done . . . being weather.

  • Graphite


    Australia is introducing a carbon tax; the government in my country has plans for an extensive ETS.

    Those are schemes to take money from the productive workers of society.

    If you’re worried about climate change, then worry your life away. But don’t ask me to finance your dopey schemes.

  • GixxerBoy


    Apologies for the few typos in my posting – it was written in a short interval between work – but that hardly qualifies it for dumping, does it?. Or was it because what I pointed out made Monbiot obviously under-qualified, ignorant, selective and partisan? Good luck with your careers at the Guardian and the BBC.

  • henrym

    What I enjoyed about this debate is the standard of rhetoric. Also, nobody (until now) used the word “sucks”. Seriously, though, I think we’re missing the point. If only global warming was the only issue. But what about the rape of the seas, the mountains of garbage we produce, rhino poaching and destruction of the Amazon forest? Or is there no financial/political motive in these issues?

  • Russell Seitz

    Grocer’s Girl

    Sorry- I meant old Harrovian Lord Rayleigh , not the equally famousLord Rutherford

  • GixxerBoy

    Let’s try again, shall we?


    Absolutely correct. You don’t have to be a douser to accept that measured sea levels (and it’s a devilishly difficult science to calibrate) have been FALLING for two years.

    @George Monbiot

    You conflate so many things in your article it’s difficult to know where to begin exposing the rubbish and untruths. Let’s begin with the overriding concern, sea level rise. The AGW alarmists paint this as a coming Armageddon, Photshopping NYC under 20 metres of water etc. The FACT is that sea levels have been rising at a steady 3mm per annum since records began (so far as we can calibrate) and likely much longer. There is no discernible change in the rate of sea level rise despite ongoing warming, rising CO2 emissions etc, etc. You do not mention that once. And…

  • GixxerBoy

    It appears to be absolutely pointless trying to post on this. Comments just keep bouncing back. Can you please get someone competent to sort it out, Speccie?

  • GixxerBoy

    “Conversely, which claims will you not accept?…”That the hockey-stick graph of global temperatures is a fake?”

    George, we know without doubt that it is a fake. Are you seriously trying to defend it? Do you realise how crazy and partisan that makes you look? The HS has been shown to be the product of deliberate malfeasance, cherry picking and misuse of use of data, applaing statitical errors (including wrong centering of Principal Components analysis) and all held together by a measure of statistical reliance that was a) obscure, b)inappropriate in this field and, c) equated to a more conventional and reliable r-squared of 0.2 or less. I.e. no correlation at all. That you do not know this, or choose to ignore it in your arguments can only lead to the conclusion you are being deceptive or mendacious.

  • GixxerBoy

    Righto, let’s give this wheezy old apparatus another try….

    Apologies for the typos in the above.


    “That global warming is a conspiracy cooked up between governments and scientists?”

    Well, we certainly know from the emails (and even open admission) that many aspects of the way global warming is presented are well-coordinated, well-resourced, deliberately exaggerated, slanted and that both the scientific ‘results’ and the attendant policy prescriptions are indeed ‘cooked up’.

  • Richard of Moscow

    An anti-science BS merchant accuses someone else of being unscientific. Hmmm…

    CAGW is a religion, based far-from-flawless computer models, followed by pampered spoilt brats who read and write for sad idiot-rags like the Guardian.

    Monbiot needs to distance himself from the Guardian (although if he had an honest bone in his body, he would surely have done so by now) and write for a newspaper which is not full of lies aimed at educationally-subnormal pond life – then he will be seen as a harmless creature with interesting views on the environment, rather than just another swivell-eyed 60s throwback.

    • Richard A. Fletcher

      We shouldn’t forget all of of the so-called consensus situations in our nation’s history which were ultimately proven to be false,, here recounted by Michael Creighton at his Caltech lecture: “Aliens Cause Global Warming” ,|http://bit.ly/10vy0pr

  • Brian Williams

    Tens of thousands of articles by relatively few scientists peer-reviewed by people (their friends) and published by who have a vested interested in an orthodoxy and suppressing alternative views. What it would take to convince me is removing any political interference in climate science, and removing any pecuniary gain to politicians and their friends/ families (Gore, Cameron, Huhne, Obama) in pushing a particular orthodoxy.

  • Mydogsgotnonose

    Sea levels are falling quite fast as the earth cools: http://i56.tinypic.com/wsn19v.jpg

  • Hangmansknotinn

    There is no “solid” science behind global warming. Nearly every study that has been conducted into this field has been politically motivated in some way or other, and hence is utterly unreliable. So pardon me for being a little cautious.

  • terence patrick hewett

    Gob I’m too green. anag. of William Shakespeare.

  • Graphite

    Would those scientific geniuses, or George Monbiot, who love putting the boot into Christopher Monckton explain the meaning of this to me (it’s taken from the WUWT website). The quoted material is from James Hansen, who can fairly be described as the godfather of global warming . . .

    “The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-year-mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009).”

    It’s that “implausible” and “instrumentation calibration factors were introduced” that’s the intriguing bit.