X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week. If you receive it, you’ll also find your subscriber number at the top of our weekly highlights email.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050. If you’ve only just subscribed, you may not yet have been issued with a subscriber number. In this case you can use the temporary web ID number, included in your email order confirmation.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

If you have any difficulties creating an account or logging in please take a look at our FAQs page.

Features

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.

[Alt-Text]


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.

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close