Hacked email accounts reveal scientists were lying about global warming

[Makalakumu]

Well, they can change Wikipedia entries, but can they change the books that were published by the American Meteorological Society back then? Nope.

Bill, you're a genius, I just had an epiphany from this. You've just identified the electronic memory hole. I suddenly saw Winston Smith editing vast quantities of e-material, purging thoughtcrime. So much easier then burning. Crazy stuff.

All of you guys need to download these documents. It's crazy. There are lines of computer codes in here and discussion of the techs the CRU hired as they attempt to hide unwanted data and fake others. The documents and the code for their models regarding how they are pulling off the scam are all here. This is huge...and again, I'm speechless.

Wow!

 

[Makalakumu]

In related news, we have no idea how gravity works. It could be false.

Also, the existence of the atom is a theory, so far not completely proven by science. Maybe it isn't there.

And finally, since it's the anniversary, Darwin's musings on natural selection and evolution are based solely on hypothesis founded on observation and a fossil record.

I don't say any of this to be shmuckish. I'm quite serious. Science cannot completely prove anything. You will never have complete and utter scientific agreement on anything - even evolution. I'm not sure what sort of evidence folks seem to be waiting for.

Hyperbole aside, an issue like climate change is different and I'm sure you realize it. Considering the e-mails and documents released, how can you trust any of the research and data coming from groups involved in these missives?

That's why I am urging everyone go and read them for themselves. Do not let the MSM tell you what to think about this. I've got the whole batch and I've been pouring through it in my spare time, so it's not hard to get first hand experience in this debate. The bottom line is that the MSM is already trying to spin this thing to show the poor scientists as the real victims and the hackers as the villains.

Meanwhile they talk about the persecution of other scientists, the manipulation of the peer review process, the "fixing" of data, the hiding of data, and the fabrication of data as simply being taken out of context. It's really funny. The pro climate change sites do cartwheels trying to explain what the "real" context was, while people just keep posting more and more damning e-mails and documents taken from the batch. All of these guys have outed themselves as the real shills.

Don't take my word for it. Read for yourselves. Don't let the talking heads fill your head with garbage to tell you what to think. Use your brain and trust your eyes to read what is really there. You have the power to discern, people. Have the humility to eat some crow. I've got lessons from early in my career where I bought the whole thing hook line and sinker. Don't worry about it, we're all going to eat a lot of crow when the bigger picture comes to public view. We'll all be standing there with a big fricken bird in our mouths pointing fingers at each other and laughing at how stupid we've been.

Then we're going to get really mad, grab our pitchforks and put a stop to this Malthusian madness.

 

[JDenver]

You're arguing that global warming exists. I agree, it does.

If you're arguing that global warming was caused by humans, I don't agree that the evidence is so clear-cut.

And I really mind arguments that do not just try to argue facts, but attempt to belittle - ie, if you don't agree with me, you must be stupid, really stupid. Like the people who believe that up is down, Santa Claus exists, and so on. I know that science cannot prove or disprove global warming was caused by humans. I agree. So I say we don't know what we don't know. Let's stop pretending that we do. Let's not blindly spend trillions of US dollars (and no, other countries won't be asked to pony up on the order that we are) to pay for things that don't fix anything - even assuming that they could. Don't take money out of my pocket to pay for things that no one knows address a problem that even exists, or that will fix it if it does.

1. It needed to be posted as I did because, unlike yourself, some folks don't realize that science is incapable of proving anything. Read the posts. Folks seem to want iron clad, 100% scientific consensus.

2. I agree with you on most of what you say. However, I think the tipping point has been reached. I'd rather do something than stall and stall, study and study, and 150 years from now the world is in the muck. Frankly, I don't see the danger in doing something. I disagree with the big oil companies who really are the ones pulling the strings of doubt, who argue that we don't yet know anything. I don't trust them, they have a clear agenda.

Anyhow, great thread...good talking points.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

1. It needed to be posted as I did because, unlike yourself, some folks don't realize that science is incapable of proving anything. Read the posts. Folks seem to want iron clad, 100% scientific consensus.

I agree, there is never 100% consensus.

2. I agree with you on most of what you say. However, I think the tipping point has been reached. I'd rather do something than stall and stall, study and study, and 150 years from now the world is in the muck. Frankly, I don't see the danger in doing something. I disagree with the big oil companies who really are the ones pulling the strings of doubt, who argue that we don't yet know anything. I don't trust them, they have a clear agenda.

I agree that everybody has an agenda - including the global warming proponents and the oil companies, etc.

Tipping point? Well, about what? That global warming exists? Sure. That man caused or contributed significantly to it? I'm not there yet. And the most important bit - that we can do anything about it no matter what we try? I'm not even close to that one.

The 'danger in doing something' to me is largely that I fear how much it will cost me personally and our fragile economy in general. People sure seem to be in a big hurry to spend other people's money, but since I'm still employed and I earn a reasonable income, I'm the one on the hook for all this feel-good crap being proposed. It's my paycheck that will take the hit. Forgive me for giving a crap about that, but I do.

Anyhow, great thread...good talking points.

As I said earlier, I don't think this recent revelation changes the fact that global warming exists, but it does change our understanding of what 'consensus' that it is man-caused might be, and I don't think for the better.

My sincere hope at this point is that the current cap-and-trade legislation in Congress collapses to the ground in utter ruin. I'll be quite glad of that.

 

[Brother John]

Follow the MONEY trail and see where the lines intersect.

Your Brother
John

 

[Makalakumu]

1. It needed to be posted as I did because, unlike yourself, some folks don't realize that science is incapable of proving anything. Read the posts. Folks seem to want iron clad, 100% scientific consensus.

Does global warming exist? Are humans causing it? We don't know. We need to go back and look at the evidence. We need to investigate. How much was faked? How much was manipulated? How much contrary research was suppressed? As a scientist, I certainly realize that science never proves anything, however, that isn't the issue here.

Apparently, we have some very disturbing information that top scientists who lead a huge research center, have been caught red handed doing some unethical things that have the potential to shift the entire debate toward an outcome that may or may not be true. Science cannot occur in an environment in which dishonesty exists. That is the issue.

The compromise is that both sides call for an investigation. We need to see how for this conspiracy reaches before we can say what may or may not exist in our world.

2. I agree with you on most of what you say. However, I think the tipping point has been reached. I'd rather do something than stall and stall, study and study, and 150 years from now the world is in the muck. Frankly, I don't see the danger in doing something. I disagree with the big oil companies who really are the ones pulling the strings of doubt, who argue that we don't yet know anything. I don't trust them, they have a clear agenda.

The Big Oil companies donate large sums of money to climate change research. This isn't the 90s where skeptics at the helm attempted to run the theory into the ground. Things have changed. Big Oil supports cap and trade. They support a carbon tax. Someone play the Twilight Zone music.

I agree, they have an agenda.

 

[fireman00]

Climate change has been occuring for hundreds of thousands of years, for example the last ice age which started about 110,000 years ago and ended about 10,000 years ago... guaranteed it wasn't started because of autos or coal plants.... the change in climate is a natural process.

The problem is that these environmental scientists LIED, flat out lied about thier findiings in order to promote their agenda. Al Gore and his cronies lied, lied, lied in order to push thier agenda.

After the U.K's top court found the 9 major deceptions which gave them cause say the movie should not be shown to school children as it was one sided. This should have given the liars reason to change their story and come out with the truth.

Tell the truth, say that we should make changes in our habits in order to clean up the enviornment if fine - and is something we should be done. Don't lie and say that NYC will be under 20 feet of water because I drive an Xterra.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Here's what I'm talking about:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8369236.stm

Glaciers: If the world's mountain glaciers and icecaps melt, sea levels will rise by an estimated 0.5m
Thermal expansion: The expansion of warming oceans was the main factor contributing to sea level rise, in the 20th Century, and currently accounts for more than half of the observed rise in sea levels
Ice sheets: These vast reserves contain billions of tonnes of frozen water - if the largest of them (the East Antarctic Ice Sheet) melts, the global sea level will rise by an estimated 64m

Ooh, an 'estimated' 64 meters, eh? That sounds horrible, doesn't it? Oh my God, we'll all be under water!!! Something must be done, you horrible global warming deniers!!!

Oh, but wait...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

Values for predicted sea level rise over the course of the next century typically range from 90 to 880 mm, with a central value of 480 mm. Based on an analog to the deglaciation of North America at 9,000 years before present, some scientists predict sea level rise of 1.3 metres in the next century.[9][10] However, models of glacial flow in the smaller present-day ice sheets show that a probable maximum value for sea level rise in the next century is 800 millimetres, based on limitations on how quickly ice can flow below the equilibrium line altitude and to the sea.[11]

Well, now, which is it? 480 millimeters, 800 millimeters, or 1.3 meters? And in any case, where's that '64 meters' that the BBC news was just talking about TODAY?

Well, it turns out that yes, if ALL the ice on the Eastern Ice Shelf in Antarctica were to melt TODAY, the oceans would rise quite a bit. 64 meters? Well, who knows? Will it happen that ALL the ice melts TODAY? I'm guessing not.

So here we have it. It's not a 'lie' exactly. But it's also not really the truth now, is it? And it is alarmist claptrap. Designed to get people stirred up and going 'harrumph' and insisting that 'something must be done'.

To hell with that noise. It's over. Global warming alarmists have lost their credibility - not that they ever had any with me.

 

[Sukerkin]

To add to the discourse, here is the message board for a science programme on BBC Radio 4:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbradio4/F2766778?thread=7093295

 

[Bill Mattocks]

To add to the discourse, here is the message board for a science programme on BBC Radio 4:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbradio4/F2766778?thread=7093295

It's a replica of discussions going on everywhere at the moment. I do enjoy reading the back-and-forth between the 'warmers' and the 'deniers' though.

The 'deniers' claim that these emails show that AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is rather more seriously in doubt than it was previously. The 'warmers' refuse to argue this. Instead, they point out that the 'fact that the earth is getting warmer is well-established'. Well, yes. The earth is getting warmer. But that's not what the 'deniers' are saying. They're saying that whether it is getting warmer or not, the case for mankind having caused it is weak and now exposed as somewhat weaker than previously thought.

I do enjoy such debates with the polar-bear huggers and the melting-polar-icecap crybabies. Yes, those things are happening. Yes, it is alarming how quickly they're happening. And yes, it may be possible that man's activities have something to do with that. I agree! But I do not think it has been proven that man caused this, and I tend to doubt that the trillions of our tax money they intend to spend to 'fix' it will do anything of the kind.

The global climate is changing, and there is precious little we can do about it except adapt. So let's get busy adapting.

 

[crushing]

The global climate is changing, and there is precious little we can do about it except adapt. So let's get busy adapting.

There has been climate change on earth for nearly 5.5 billion years, is it not about time the earth picked a climate and stuck with it?

More seriously, I'm concerned that a powerful group of people will think the earth should have a certain climate and try things to force it into that climate without completely understanding the consequences of their actions. Oh wait. . .

 

[Bill Mattocks]

There has been climate change on earth for nearly 5.5 billion years, is it not about time the earth picked a climate and stuck with it?

More seriously, I'm concerned that a powerful group of people will think the earth should have a certain climate and try things to force it into that climate without completely understanding the consequences of their actions. Oh wait. . .

I agree. Further to that, I am always somewhat amused by those who are in favor of 'natural' things.

Such as artificially keeping species alive that would otherwise go extinct. Yes, some of them go extinct due to man's actions, but some do not, and we frankly don't always know which is which. But the tree-huggers appear to want a 'steady state' where nothing changes; no more extinctions.

Same for those who want to control pests, etc, in a 'natural' way, such as by introducing competing or antagonistic species instead of using chemicals or other 'artificial' means of controlling them. Works well, for example kudzu and Africanized bees and chinese carp.

It was not that long ago that earth experienced a global ice age that apparently winnowed the entire human race down to just a few thousand individuals; we very nearly went extinct ourselves. We are now more capable of dealing with radical climate changes, but instead of thinking about that, we try instead to change the climate itself. Let's see, shall I put on a sweater before going out, or shall I warm the earth so I don't need one; or vice-versa; instead of keeping ourselves cool, let's cool the earth.

We are intelligent, tool-using creatures that can adapt to changing environments better than most species. If global warming is coming and cannot be stopped, then it would appear to me to be a better solution to prepare to deal with that.

 

[girlbug2]

To my mind, the only merit in debating whether global warming is being caused by humans is, to decide the question of whether or not we should be doing something about it.

If it is a natural process, then all the effects around us that we see are part of that natural process. It means that Nature is taking its course in changing not only the face of our planet, but also the changing and removal of many of the species on the planet. It may seem heartless of me to say it, but if a species is supposed to die, then let it die. That's how natural selection works. So perhaps then, polar bears cannot adapt and are destined for extinction...who are we to try to stop it? Why should we be messing with the biological niches being set up, altered, wiped out and recreated by this ancient process?

If OTOH, global warming is caused or influenced by humans, then we do have a moral imperative to do something about it, but ONLY if we can be truly effective in applying our "cure". That raises the next question, of how can we be sure our "cure" really will work, or even that it will help somewhat. Remember, our stupidity supposedly caused the problem in the first place...perhaps it's better to back off and leave it alone, than to muck things up further with our collective "wisdom" (note Bill's examples in the above post, with the africanized honey bees and the carp).

So if someday there really is a consensus among climatologists that global warming is man-caused, then surely our answer should be to simply stop doing whatever is determined to be the cause. Not to throw money at a quick fix, but cease emissions. Period. Let the Earth heal itself in time. Ah, but I know that that's unrealistic, naiive of me, to expect. Politicians will convince us to simply throw money at the problem, nothing will be solved, but rather, new problems created by our further interference. That is the scenario which deniers are trying to avoid, I think, and the agenda behind the push of the warmers. "Let's forcibly fund our solution at taxpayer expense, get money into the pockets of the correct people, put more power into the hands of certain parties to further our political goals..." No thanks. The debate ends there as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

To my mind, the only merit in debating whether global warming is being caused by humans is, to decide the question of whether or not we should be doing something about it.

To my way of thinking, a valid question would also be whether or not we *can* do anything about it. With the models in use as 'cooked' as they appear to be, I do not think that is a given. A monstrous amount of money being pledged to change something that may have no effect - or not the effect desired. Remember, they're asking us to attempt to tinker with the global climate here. That thought alone should give people pause.

If it is a natural process, then all the effects around us that we see are part of that natural process. It means that Nature is taking its course in changing not only the face of our planet, but also the changing and removal of many of the species on the planet. It may seem heartless of me to say it, but if a species is supposed to die, then let it die. That's how natural selection works. So perhaps then, polar bears cannot adapt and are destined for extinction...who are we to try to stop it? Why should we be messing with the biological niches being set up, altered, wiped out and recreated by this ancient process?

In the sense that polar bears are cool (no pun intended) and we'd like to have them around for future generations to enjoy, I get it. In the sense you mentioned, I get that too.

However, humans are natural. What we do, all of it from building high-rise skyscrapers to living in caves, is natural. How could it be otherwise? That we use tools, that we alter our environments (not climate, that's different), that we create compounds not seen before on earth - all natural - and rejecting that means rejecting humans as a species. We are doing what evolution selected us to do.

On the other hand, in many ways we are post-evolutionary. We allow humans to live who would not otherwise live. My own poor vision and diabetes and bad teeth would have had me quite dead by now, and in no way could our planet support anything near the current human population by hunting/gathering and basic agriculture.

If OTOH, global warming is caused or influenced by humans, then we do have a moral imperative to do something about it, but ONLY if we can be truly effective in applying our "cure".

I kind of agree, but I also kind of don't think this is a moral issue. Our ancestors may (or may not) have eaten the mastodons into extinction. This is a problem? This should not have happened? And what, we should feel guilty about it now? Not attacking your statements, just a general observation here.

That raises the next question, of how can we be sure our "cure" really will work, or even that it will help somewhat. Remember, our stupidity supposedly caused the problem in the first place...perhaps it's better to back off and leave it alone, than to muck things up further with our collective "wisdom" (note Bill's examples in the above post, with the africanized honey bees and the carp).

Bingo. It seems to me to be the height of hubris to presume that we have the ability to wreck the planet - or the ability to fix it. And it smacks of that hand-wringing 'but we have to do something' mantra of the loony left. Doing 'something' for the sake of doing anything is about as dumb as I can imagine.

So if someday there really is a consensus among climatologists that global warming is man-caused, then surely our answer should be to simply stop doing whatever is determined to be the cause. Not to throw money at a quick fix, but cease emissions. Period. Let the Earth heal itself in time. Ah, but I know that that's unrealistic, naiive of me, to expect. Politicians will convince us to simply throw money at the problem, nothing will be solved, but rather, new problems created by our further interference. That is the scenario which deniers are trying to avoid, I think, and the agenda behind the push of the warmers. "Let's forcibly fund our solution at taxpayer expense, get money into the pockets of the correct people, put more power into the hands of certain parties to further our political goals..." No thanks. The debate ends there as far as I'm concerned.

I think not crapping where we eat is a good thing. Learning and applying proper waste management is a good thing. Not putting poisons into our air, water and land is a good thing. Being good stewards in general is a good thing. And most of those things can and are being done; I do not mind further efforts in this area. Those are things that if they do no real good, at least they do no harm, and they do not cost that much comparatively. Learning to be less destructive of our environment in general; great and I'm all for it.

Trying to change the climate by draconian measures that will bankrupt our economies, destroy our industrial bases, and have no idea of the outcome? Bad idea. Bad science, and bad politics. I am against it.

 

[Makalakumu]

In my opinion, "climate change" has nothing to do with actual climate or science any more. What we are dealing with, goes deeper. You can go to the Oracle of Google and start clicking your way through links in the CFR, Bliderberg, Bank of International Settlements, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, all sorts of internationalist/globalist organizations...look specifically for Maurice Strong, Club of Rome, carbon taxes and world government.

When I have time, I'll write a more properly sourced article, here's a synopsis, however.

The Central Banks of this world control everything through the issuance of a debt based fiat currency. The problem with this model of control is that eventually the currency debases to a point where it's worthless. We are reaching this point as we speak. When this happens, chaos obviously ensues because the economy that supports people no longer functions. Several times in history, liberty has sprouted from chaos, as the central bankers have lost control.

We now live in a global world with an established international finance structure that effectively controls the economy of the world and allows a parasitic banking elite to flourish off the labor of others. In the early 90s members of the UN began talking about how they were going to vertically integrate these financial systems into a single global entity that had the ability to do what they were doing now, but had no way of completely collapsing like the current system.

In particular, meetings by the Club of Rome discussed how various threats could be manipulated on a global scale in order to bring the nations together to form this global finance structure (that is all the term "world government" really means anyway). One of the things that was discussed was the fact that the Cold War could no longer be used to manipulate people and a new "threat" had to discovered. In another meeting, it was decided upon that global environment issues would become the new "threat" and that a new "Gaia" religion would be formed around said issues and the dogma would be slowly taught to the people of the world until it was time to put in the actual structure for the new global financial system.

As the Duke of Wellington indicated 200 years ago, the battle would be won in the school yard. I remember going to school and being completely indoctrinated into the new environmental zeitgiest. I finished High School in 1995 and I can tell you from experience, that the training was in full swing by then. The text books all spoke about how humans were changing the planet and that we were putting civilization at risk and that something needed to be done. On the television, program after program stressed the same messages that were trundled out in the schools. It turns out that the textbooks and the programs were all founded by foundations connected to the globalist groups.

Meanwhile, real environmental issues were pretty much ignored. As part of my Eagle Scout project, I cleaned up a trout stream and attempted to take on the industries bordering my project because they were dumping chemicals directly into the water. I went to local government meetings and spoke at length about what I was doing and what I was witnessing and was basically told to "bugger off" and go be a good boy. What they were doing was legal and they weren't going to stop just because some idealistic Boy Scout gave a damn about the floura and fauna and human health down stream. Thus enters my existence as a politically active individual.

Anyway, if we fast forward to 2005, I had just finished my Masters degree in Curriculum and Instruction with special emphasis on science. From the deep research that I did, it became apparent that all of the curriculum in schools was being directed from the top down by a handful of foundations. The textbook publishers that public schools were allowed to use, offered books with the same content and different window dressing. All of the science books I reviewed highlighted global environmental issues, taught the accepted position of the science, and pointed the students toward internationalist solutions that were being performed by various groups under the UN umbrella. Al Gore's movie pretty much summed it up and put the cherry on top.

The end result of this is that now we have a public that is convinced that the science is in, that "global warming" is happening and that humans are causing it. Ideas that were test marketed in the early 2000s are now being trundled out in the form of multi-thousand page bills that haven't been read. Ideas like "cap and trade" and the "carbon tax" are touted as the only real solution to this man-made global environmental terror. The popular view of humans espoused everywhere in the media is summed up here in this sixty second movie.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x53k8k_humans-cool-cartoon_fun

The message, humans are bad, they need to be controlled or the earth will die.

Cap and trade and the carbon tax will lead to the new global financial structure. The carbon tax is ultimately a tax on the carbon cycle. Everything that humans do, including procreating, and breathing could be taxed and the proceeds would flow to the new international finance oligarchs. Cap and trade will create a system of credits that are based off of the evil carbon and meant to control it. A new form of global currency will be based off of the issuance and trade of these credits. When people do "green" things, they will be paid in these credits. When they do "bad" things, they will have to pay these credits AND be taxed. This new system allows the global finance oligarchs to control the system in even more draconian ways then the debt based fiat currency ever allowed.

I can see people paying for all goods in carbon credits. I can see people being issued a card and every action having a carbon price tag attached. I can see carbon credits being leveraged into a new kind of banking system where people accrue a "carbon debt" and are basically slaves of that debt until they die. People will be born with carbon debt. That's what all of this is pointing toward and the people constructing the system are quite candid about it. "Global warming" isn't about the science, it's a geopolitical tool that's being used to push society in a particular direction.

This is neo-feudalism, folks. Check it out for yourselves. These e-mails are just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Interesting...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=googlenews_wsj



When it is finally revealed that this whole issue of anthropogenic global warming is one big canard, a fake, a fraud, and utterly without merit...I am going to have myself a good long laugh at the expense of the bleeding hearts. I'll buy two SUV's and strap one to each foot. I'll spray cans of aerosols into the air just because. Hahahahaha.

Bill,

Global Warming and cooling does happen. The time of 400 BC to just before 400 AD grain was easily grown in areas northern Europe that are covered in snow most of the year. (* History Channel - Little Ice Age Big Chill *)

Most of the measurements recently are being compared to the dark ages (* which were dark because they were cold and damp *) the valley recorded in the middle 19th century that lead to books like Frankenstien and Dracula being written. (* Who said global warming or cooling in this case does not effect society. *)

That being said, humans have done a lot to cut down the natual cooling elements such as rain forests. But, to change the thermal mass of the ocean by 1 deg and not change the air by a lot more would require the heat source to come from another source then solar load on the water. It would have to some from underneath. A source that most humans have no contol over nor effect on for how the core spins and how the magma and pressure is released.

Vehicles today produce very little CO, if any, the poison that would kill people, as this is why their are emission components and sensors to make sure those components are working and a light coming on your dash when it is not working to the defined specificaiton.

Larger sources were power companies burning sulfur coal and many state agencies and even the EPA have stepped up in the last couple of years to address this.

But there are still loop holes. Such as 24 average for emissions, so if you have something to burn that is above the average you burn it at night when less people are likely to see or smell it and that short couple of hour peak is above the target, but the 24 hour average is still below the target.

The loop holes are there for technology and cost, sometimes the technology is not there, and this is the best way to control, other times the technology might be there but so cost prohibitive that anyone who tried to implement them would be out of business.

My point is that I have no data for and no data against global warming. But I have seen the LA air get better, and other quality imrpovements of air. But the large scale effects are most likely coming from sources with large scale impact, such as core movement and Magnetic North moving, and or Solar Storms, not your car. But, I like clean air, and not passing out if I run my car for a few minutes in the garage.



I support your desire to buy the SUV's, (* I coudl get you a discount on a Hybrid SUV if you want. *)

 

[Rich Parsons]

Here's what I'm talking about:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8369236.stm

Ooh, an 'estimated' 64 meters, eh? That sounds horrible, doesn't it? Oh my God, we'll all be under water!!! Something must be done, you horrible global warming deniers!!!

Oh, but wait...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

Well, now, which is it? 480 millimeters, 800 millimeters, or 1.3 meters? And in any case, where's that '64 meters' that the BBC news was just talking about TODAY?

Well, it turns out that yes, if ALL the ice on the Eastern Ice Shelf in Antarctica were to melt TODAY, the oceans would rise quite a bit. 64 meters? Well, who knows? Will it happen that ALL the ice melts TODAY? I'm guessing not.

So here we have it. It's not a 'lie' exactly. But it's also not really the truth now, is it? And it is alarmist claptrap. Designed to get people stirred up and going 'harrumph' and insisting that 'something must be done'.

To hell with that noise. It's over. Global warming alarmists have lost their credibility - not that they ever had any with me.

Bill, I did the math a few years ago, what most people forget is that ICE or solid water displaces more volume then it does in liquid form. Once you account for the decrease in the volume displacement just for state change the numbers are not quite so bad. So the 400 millimeter is about the closest I saw for the numbers I ran. Ice estimates and volume of ice has changed as well, so this could allow for some variation.

I also remember that if there was a 1 deg rise in the temperature of the oceans all costal cities (* circa late 1970's *) would be under water.

People make claims to get attention or leave out key data so their numbers are scarier. In the end, they just make people numb to the issue and if there is a real problem you get this bipolar split of faith on yes it is or no it is not.