Free Bang Bros Full Length

The Funeral

The Kyoto Funeral

A cornerstone of the Kyoto agreement is based on flawed calculations, incorrect data, and excessive and arbitrary selection of climate records, as revealed by a new scientific study.

This year has been a nightmare for supporters of the Kyoto Treaty. After Canada ratified the treaty in late 2002 - despite strong opposition from many political scientists and Canadians - the environmentalists had every reason to believe that few climate experts would dare to publicly oppose Kyoto's science, and that Russia would ratify the protocol quickly and immediately become international law.

Instead, as demonstrated by the World Climate Change Conference held in Moscow, was exactly the opposite. The growing number of scientists who deny the scientific basis, have been made public - increasingly often - their protests to the media, as that new and groundbreaking studies continue to appear in scientific journals, shaking the foundations of the crumbling building in Kyoto.

of all new published studies that could have a lasting impact on climate science was published on 28 October, in the prestigious British scientific community, Energy and Environment, which explains how one of the cornerstones of Kyoto Accord is based on flawed calculations, incorrect data and choice biased and arbitrary climate records.

The authors of scientific studies, Steve McIntyre, Toronto statistical analyst, and professor at the University of Guelph, Ontario, Ross McKitrick, got the original set of data and information used Michael Mann of the University of Virginia, to support the notion that the rising temperatures of the 20th century was unprecedented in the last millennium. A detailed audit information used by Mann revealed numerous errors in the data. After correcting the error and have updated the source records, McKitrick and McIntyre used the same methodology used by Mann to show that the original ending was totally wrong.

Mann's original version resulted in the famous graph of "hockey stick" that purported to show 900 years of relative temperature stability in the world (the handle of the bat), followed by a sharp rise (the face bat) during the Siglo 20 (see graph in Figure 1). The corrected version of the last 1000 years actually contradicts the view promoted by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change United Nations), and removes the foundation for the belief that Century 20 was unique among the millennium, and the more all hot.

Figure 1: The chart was published by Mann as the IPCC report

To understand the significance of the announcement of McIntyre / McKitrick, it is important to consider how that in the past has changed our understanding of long-term climate history of Earth. In its "Assessment Report" of 1990 and 1995, the IPCC clearly identified two major weather events of the last millennium, as confirmed by thousands of scientific studies of geologists in the Quaternary Period published in the last 100 years - a "Medieval Warm Period" (PCM) from about 800 to 1300 AD Christian, who was almost 2 ° C warmer than today and a period of much colder known as "Little Ice Age" (LIA) from the 1300 to 1900.

The effects of these events were felt around the world with compelling evidence in both PCM and the LIA periods in Europe, North America, Africa, the Caribbean, Peru, the tropics of Bolivia, and even China, Japan and Australia. As part of our output LIA, scientists agreed that there was a gradual warming over the 20th century, although the reasons for this warming led to an angry dispute whether those responsible were the greenhouse gases or changes in solar activity and cycles .

In recent years, the case of solar variations, as the leading climate models and their changes, it became much stronger - to the dismay of the proponents of Kyoto. After all, if long before the emission of greenhouse gases produced by man is again significant, temperatures were considerably higher than today, there is little reason to believe that Today's temperatures are a bit unnatural. If temperatures in the late Precambrian were only 1.5 º C to 2 º C higher than now, and the atmosphere having a concentration of between 6,000 and 2,000 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide, it is quite logical to think that CO2 is a greenhouse gas as important as claimed by the IPCC, and that a doubling of concentrations (from 370 to 650 ppm) could lead to a "runaway greenhouse effect" and cause disasters on Earth. There was no such effect in the Precambrian, there will not be in 100,000 years. But the more pressing question for scientists today is the problem of where to put the horse and carriage:

What came first?

Does it increase provoked CO2 increased the temperature? Or, as many scientists believe (and have shown), the temperature rise - for reasons not well established, but attributed the Sun - caused the increase of CO2? In many scientific studies, the increase in CO2 is "delayed" between 200 and 400 years after the temperature rise!

The almost exclusive influence of solar activity on Earth's climate is especially true, given that long-term records of solar cycles suggest that both the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period were closely correlated with solar activity, and Sun's energy output has been increasing during the light 0.6 ° C warming over the last 100 years. The promoters of the induced warming hypothesis of anthropogenic greenhouse gases desperate need of a "smoking gun" to promote the urgent need to implement the Kyoto Protocol.

this 'smoking gun' in a manner which was very convenient for Mann, Bradley and Hughes in his study of 1998 (hereinafter referred to as "MBH98" ) where they reduced the PCM and PEH to events that did not exist outside of Europe, and developed their famous "hockey stick." Mann's study concluded by saying, "Our results suggest that the last part of the 20th century is anomalous in the context of at least the last millennium, The 90's were the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year, with a moderate level of confidence. "

course Kyoto fans were delighted. Despite going against most of the scientific literature, and the fact that the study MBH98 was only one of the thousands of possible constructions of the temperatures of the millennium, the advocates of warming hypothesis anthropogenic greenhouse gases began to promote the results of Mann as the definitive history of global temperatures. Within a year, the hockey stick became the new orthodoxy, appearing in all the official documentation of the world. See corrected chart of the climatic history of the last millennium in the figure below:

Figure 2: temperatures according to "The Hockey Stick" (red) and actual temperatures of the last millennium (blue), according to review and update made by McIntyre and McKitrick.

However, the scientific review process that must follow all the scientific studies before publication failed to study the case of MBH98 . The temperature data prior to 1900 were not directly measured, as was done after that year, when they started using thermometer readings from weather stations on land. Instead, pre-1900 temperatures were calculated based on measurements "proxy" , ie studies of natural phenomena as the growth of tree rings or coral, or lake sediments and ocean floor, indicating the temperature at certain periods of history.

Therefore, mixing the two different types of data together without significant overlap to reach dramatic conclusions, did not offer any guarantee and must have been seriously challenged by Authors of the study. Chris de Freitas of the School of Geography and Environmental Sciences, University of Auckland, New Zealand, sums it up well; "The 'hockey stick" Mann is nothing more than a mathematical construct vigorously promoted by the 2001 Report IPCC, to affirm the notion that the change of century temperatures 20 were unprecedented. "

Scientists Dr. Willie Soon and Dr. Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard Institute for Astrophysics, joined in March this year to criticism of "hockey stick" of Mann, when they said they had shown that after careful analysis of 240 studies 'proxy', that both the PCM and the LIA had been a truly global climatic phenomenon extension, not restricted to Europe and North America. The results of Soon and Baliunas study coupled with the McIntyre / McKitrick published this week, could end the debate forever, permanently burying Kyoto Protocol and the absurd hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming .

carefully examining the information and data from MBH98, and computational methods, McIntyre and McKitrick found serious errors as temperature indices computed from them are quoting McIntyre, "unreliable and can not be used for comparisons between the current climate and of previous centuries." Mann's claims that "temperatures in the latter half of the 20th century were unprecedented," and confident assertions by the IPCC and Environment Canada that the 90 "were probably the decade hot , and "1998 was the warmest of the millennium," lack any scientific basis.

Among the many errors in the study Mann, some are glaring, others just careless because, apparently, transcription errors (eg, assignment of measurements to the wrong years, 'filled' tables with identical numbers for different 'proxy' in different years, etc.. ) In many cases, we used outdated information sources that have been revised since then by the original investigators. As an example of its many 'truncation errors' of Central England temperatures given by Mann was arrested without explanation in 1730, even though the data are available until 1659, thus hiding a major cold period of Century 17. Similarly, data from Central Europe are truncated in 1550, instead of 25 years earlier, for which data are available, the effect is to remove the data series to more heat.

Of course, anyone with an understanding of climate history really believe there was a dramatic spike in temperature in the middle of the Little Ice Age. However, the data and methodology used by Mann really support that notion, completely contradicting his argument that there was simply a gradual cooling between 1000 and 1900.

Correcting and updating database 'proxy' used by Mann and his coauthors, and then repeating the methodology of Mann, McIntyre and McKitrick showed that the MBH98 study actually shows that the trend of temperatures in the late 20 in the northern hemisphere is not exceptional when compared with previous centuries. In doing so, they demonstrated that the so-called "rigorous review" the 2001 IPCC report failed miserably, giving highly flawed work central prominence in the 2001 IPCC report.

As a result, governments around the world are now taking some of the most costly ever faced decisions based on the full acceptance of a report IPCC we know now that is basically wrong.

Eduardo Ferreyra President of FAEC
Science Foundation Ecology Argentina

Should I Wait For Psp2

Al Gore and the Nobel Peace Prize: one to know one

Al Gore and the Nobel Peace Prize: one to know one

Editorial Digital Freedom
13 October 2007

is no doubt that Al Gore and the IPCC deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, for a long time ago that the award has specialized in empty gestures, pompous, hypocritical, no demonstrable relationship to peace.

Al Gore and the IPCC certainly deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. Not because they did nothing for peace, naturally. The same press release from the Norwegian committee responsible for granting is in huge trouble justification. The prize was awarded to them for "their efforts to create and disseminate greater knowledge about climate change due to man's hand, and place the foundations for the measures needed to counteract." From there to the peace, a long way, taking the Norwegians claiming that the weather could lead to large-scale migration and greater competition for resources, would increase the risk of violent conflict. Unprovable too conditional.

But despite this, no doubt deserved, for a long time ago that the award has specialized in empty gestures, pompous, hypocritical, no demonstrable relationship to peace. A bias that suffers from its beginnings as a shows that being awarded to Neville Chamberlain but not Winston Churchill. or never received the Rey Juan Carlos I, capable of leading a peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy. Unfortunately, but that has been exacerbated over the years. The ideal candidates for the committee are not those who have actually done something for peace, but like-minded people with ideas that can adopt as their own. By that standard

complacent, Al Gore and the IPCC were perfect candidates. Its possible merits without any relation to peace, but the grant allows the committee members as people become highly concerned about the environment and in line with the obsessions of international liberals, which seems to be all that interested in a time now.

So, Al Gore and the IPCC will be in the perfect company Rigoberta Menchu, which was given the award for turning his life into a symbol of the struggle for indigenous people, a biography proved false from beginning to end, as many of the assertions in Al Gore, that central contradicting the IPCC or the UN organization itself, whose conclusions are cooked by politicians and not scientists, and which have been "removed" many eminent for its increasing politicization.

does not matter the deep hypocrisy of Al Gore, allowing you to have among its highly polluting mining properties or your household spends more electricity, that which urges us to save if you do not want to face the apocalypse "that the average American family of 20, nor the extra income arising from their cross, exemplified with nearly half a million euros to be pocketed by a pair of conferences on the Canaries. For more he tried, could not compete in this field, with winners such as Kofi Annan, head of the corrupt Oil for Food program and the father of Kojo.

However, despite being a concession perfectly consistent with the philosophy that usually these awards are granted, it should be noted that this award brings the Norwegian Nobel Committee for Peace in uncharted waters. From now on, may be granted to individuals and institutions that have contributed to peace and prevent conflicts that have never taken place and may never happen and whose efforts, in fact, may have nothing to do with the causes giving rise to these hypothetical wars. You have to tip my hat to such a waste of imagination.

Posted by: Eduardo Ferreyra
Myths and Scams

How Do I Put A Salon Sink At Home

Science sham ", or: The Kyoto Scam Warming

"science show", or: The Kyoto Scam Warming

Just a study of Chinese scientists who predict a sharp cooling for the next 20 years (Zhen-Shan, L. and Xian, S, 2007), but this news hits the mainstream media: only global terror instilled by the latest report from the UN-IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel Climate Change) - presumably because the warming C02 punished flood our ears.

No one can prove that climate change due to anthropogenic effects. The UN is only based on guesswork and computer simulations, but that's not science, is a scientific simulation is politically tinged speculative money and beliefs.


TO BREATHE pollute more

climate change disinformation and manipulation of propaganda that gives the UN are ubiquitous. The annual human C02 is 6000 million tonnes, which is at 1,500 because half is absorbed by vegetation and oceans and the other half comes from farming and ranching. Breathing annually emit about 2,500 million tonnes and there are 750,000 million total in the atmosphere (Essex & MacKitrick, 2003), making it impossible for the human C02 can produce climate change.

The C02 and water vapor (the major greenhouse factor) act as plastic or glass in a greenhouse, trapping heat leaving the earth by solar radiation infrarroja.El greenhouse effect is good and natural, gives prosperity as Arrenhius said, its discoverer and confirmed Budyko, another authority.

The temperature rise in a century has been 0, 6, and only half is due to C02 according to the experts of the UN (IPCC report 2001). The only daytime maximums have increased 0.2 degrees in a century (Esterling et al, 1997). The current C02 is 380 ppm (parts per million), an amount that we had in the Carboniferous without Bush and nothing happened. In the Cambrian we had 7,000 ppm and at the time of the dinosaur-ments 3,000 and 6,000 ppm (Scotese, 2001, Berner 2001) and no contaminated or the average temperature then spent just 22 º C. In our breath we have 50,000 ppm and no one dies. In addition, the measured C02 preindustrial bad as Wagner and Van Hoff reported, so the actual increase is still lower than that stipulated: only 40-50 ppm.

say that with 540 ppm coming catastrophe, but that we share and the large industrial cities and still alive. 70,000 years ago there was an increase of 16 ° C in Greenland (Dansagaar-Oeschger event 19) and nothing happened and no contaminated. How can we ourselves have caused a disaster for only half a degree (0.3 º C real C02) and 18 cm rise in sea level?. This is Science Fiction. Kyoto only this rebate.

Dr. William Ruddiman, University of Virginia, said that the C02 is good because it slows down the ice and says that the current warming started thousands of years. The C02 does not increase the temperature, as evidenced in the C02 40-70 up and the temperature fell 0.3 ° due to solar cycles (Murray Mitchell Jr., 1976).

thousand years ago used to grow grapes in the south of England in the MWP called: there was a warm up before the mini ice age of the Maunder Minimum in 1650, which is what will happen now with the minimum Gleissberg of 2020 so the IPCC is not hysteria no scientific basis. This shows that the current warming is not the highest in recent centuries: a logic swing, cyclical and natural, which anticipates a cooling phase, the opposite of what we sell.

Sea level has risen only 18 cm in a century according to the UN (6 cm real as Wadhams & Munk, 2003) and the cataclysm that tell the models that will happen in 100 years-if true-up of 55 or 88 ridiculous centimeters, according to the IPCC. The UN asked suspiciously 200,000 million dollars annually to prevent the apocalypse.

The NERC English Institute which is lined with warming, calls dóalres 9 trillion. NERC from the Stern Review which proclaimed Blair, announcing a major disaster. But Nicholas Stern is interested source, a member of the UN, World Bank Vice President, in addition to the NERC has received 20 million pounds to save us from global warming.

Kyoto is a market that moves U.S. $ 200,000 million by 2012 and that Spain is going to cost 19,000 million euros, according to Price Waterhouse Coopers audit. We are less polluting and more NAMOS pay because of bad business that made Narbonne and Bacon. Behind the unprovable Kyoto scenario, not fine eg CO2 from cars, there are mainly money, business and politics because now science is politicized and scientists live on government grants and institutions.


BULO THE CONSENSUS: 18,000 SKEPTICS

Most of the world's scientists reject the hypothesis that the C02 has warmed the atmosphere, 18,000 reject the so-called Oregon Petition, 1997 (can be found here www.oism.org), pressure-loss by Frederick Seitz, a former member UN-IPCC there and former president of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, who quit the IPCC, as the hurricane expert Dr. Landsea, by the corruption he encountered there.

Kyoto also strongly rejected the call Leipzig Declaration, 1995 signed up to the famous scientist Sir Fred Hoyle, creator of two of the most famous theories on the origin of the uni-verse and life (panspermia), who announced together with his colleague Chandra Wikramasinghe astrophysicist world authority, that we are approaching an imminent glaciation (Campos, Calor Glacial, 2005). Dr. Victor

Bokova, the AARI (Institute of Arctic and Antarctic Research), the world's leading and only predicted the tsunami of Indian advertising, based on the Weather Index Vanghenheim-Girs we approach an age of ice would start in 2010 peaking in 2090. (Campos, 2005).

In 2006 Dr. Kabhibullo Abdusamatov, head of the Russian Space Station (Russian NASA) who rejects the thesis of Kyoto, says exactly the same: "At 9 or 6 years will start a mini ice age." Many solar scientists as Solanky or Soon and Baliunas, Harvard University, make identical forecasts. Theodor

Landscheidt, the only hit with the arrival of El Niño, also warned in the 90 on a mini-ice age, as we approach the minimum Gleissberg 2030. Hence comes the cold waves that sweep across the world for three years. According to Suess solar cycle of 180 years, also plays cooling, since the Dalton minimum period of the nineteenth century has been exhausted. But the IPCC always ninguneo solar cycles.

Scientists predict a cooling and at the same time criticize Kyoto are legion, heads-two Fred Singer, John MacKitrik, Steven MacIntyre, Frederick Seitz and Richard Lindzen, the most eminent meteorological go U.S.. Dr. Zbigniew Jaworoski, former chairman of UNSCEAR, United Nations Scientific Committee for the Effects of Atomic Radiation, says "Western civilization will be swept away by ice" (Campos, 2005).

Hundreds of experts from around the world consider the danger of glaciation scenario as Robert Essenhigh, the Oregon State University, who says he will arrive in 5 or 50 years, Robert Gagosian and William Curry of the world's leading oceanographic institute (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution), the Pentagon report in 2004, experts in the Gulf Stream and Bryden, Wadhams and Marotzke, English officials as Millán Millán and dancing ("The Day After Tomorrow could happen," he said), Peter Clark , Howard Conway, Gerald Dickens, Gerard Bond, John Gribbin, Laurence Hecht, Jack Sauers etc ...

say that the incompetent Bush or Exxon-Mobil paid to these scientists. but where is the campaign of those authors whom the media completely silent? Calentólogos say and members of the IPCC, as Piltz and Pielke, who studies censure Bush, but is just the opposite: the IPCC who ruthlessly purges all dissent. Dr. Roy Spencer and many others criticize the IPCC Science and censor their studies anticalentamiento. (Bethell, 2006)


FUNDAMENTALISM MATHEMATICAL

Experts from the UN-IPCC are only 2,500 and all models, ie only based on computerized simulations made by computer to 100 years to scare or counterfeit graphics as the famous hockey stick of Mann and Bradley (members of the IPCC), where they removed me-dieval warming for the current look older. Nature had to ask pardon in 2004 by this chicanery. Most of the authors of the IPCC are bureaucrats and scientists, as Pachauri Qin lords organization, and all scientists in solar cycles and paleoclimate are censored, as all mentioned in this article.

The creator of the IPCC was Bert R. Bolin, a fan of computer simulations that made his career by speculating on human action on climate change, based on studies of Roger Revelle, the Guru of Al Gore, a paranoid obsessed with the danger of C02, which is even highly beneficial, because helps the growth of plants (Maier-Reimar, Hesselman, Climate Dynamics, 1987)

why Dr. Michael Crichton warns that carbon fundamentalism and mathematical State of Fear (2005) that would put a stamp on warming computer models as snuff packages such as:

- "SIMULATION BY COMPUTER, COULD BE WRONG AND NOT ACCOMPLISHED"

specialists solar cycles are those who say that an ice age or cooling comes they have no place in the UN: Soon, Baliunas, Landscheidt, Jawarowski, Lindzen, Michaels, etc. .. or most Abdusamatov Russians, Kondratyev, Bokova Masnich, Bashkirtesev ... The Russian Academy of Sciences has rejected the thesis of the UN, because temperatures as -40 º last year etc. .. do not argue.

That consensus that there is a canard: so there is the same politicized corruption reports made by the UN on Iraq's weapons (Bethell, 2006). Turned out it was all a lie. Now is the same. The press draws on false and manipulated reports of the UN and get the feeling that there is consensus. Is that if only half a degree warming in a century is said to be natural, no more funds and the business of Kyoto where to buy and sell the C02 in a grotesque market of 200,000 million dollars until 2012. Reports of AIDS from UNAIDS are also exaggerated and manipulated. The corruption of the UN has been denounced by Eric Frattini in a book titled.


THE LIES OF POLES AND GLACIERS

So what is said there are a legion of scientists agree is absolutely false. There is a war between multinational renewable energy (which are the oil companies: they are not "hippies": British Petroleum, Shell, Sharp, Siemens, Acciona, Enron etc ...) and gas against those of cheap coal to gain market pie. That is the origin of the phobia against C02 coal and electricity. The conferences of Al Gore, for example, pays action to promote renewable energy-solar wind. (See http://www.todosolar.com). Greenpeace is a shareholder in Shell.

Contrary to the daily crush us, Antarctica and Greenland is cold in general (Doran, 2002, Johanessen, 2005) although there are parts that are thawed by natural causes and most gla-stable Ciara (Braithwaite , 2002) or grow, as the largest (Lambert, Logan, Naruse ...). Remember that the last two glaciations were produced by melting of the Arctic, which cut the Gulf Stream, which warms the Northern Hemisphere.

The Aletsch Alpine retracted and in the nineteenth century and thaws Kilimanjaro to deforestation (Khas et al, 2004). West Himalayan glaciers are increasing, according Fowland (2006), who blames everything on the heating in a report commissioned and paid by the IPCC, which is a member, an example of the reports and conclusions of the UN, in which no informed person should believe.

By Luis Carlos Campos
English journalist,
Author of book: Heat glacial

Source: www.mitosyfraudes.org

Posted by: Carlos A.
Ortiz Former Professor - Researcher
Faculty of Economics, U.Na.M, is

5 Wks Low Soft Cervix Pregnancy

say that sea level is a complete fraud grows

say that sea level is a complete fraud grows

Dr . Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of department of Paelogeofísica and Geodynamics at Stockholm University in Sweden. He has been president (1999-2003) of INQUA, Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of Sea Level Project in the Maldives. Dr. Mörner has spent 35 years studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas. He was interviewed by the weekly Executive Intelligence Review Intelligence on 6 June 2007.

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner

EIR: I would start with a brief overview of its antecedent, and some of the commissions and research groups in which he worked.

Mörner: am a specialist in sea level. There are many good sea-level technicians in the world, but put it this way: There is none that I've won. I did my thesis in 1969, largely devoted to the problem of sea level. I have since released most of the new theories, 70, 80 and 90.

was I who first realized the problem of the gravitational potential of the surface, a theory that changes over time. I was the one who studied the Earth's rotation, and how to redistribute the mass of the oceans. And so on. And then I was president of INQUA, an international fraternal association, the Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution from 1999 to 2003. And to do something intelligent there, we launched an international research program on the Maldives because it is the peak for-there are so many interacting variables there, so it was interesting, and there were people who said that the Maldives-a 1200 smaller islands, were doomed to disappear in 50 years, when more than 100. So it was a very important target.

Then I had my own Research Institute at the University of Stockholm that was dedicated to something known as paleogeofísica and geodynamics. It is primarily a research institute, but many students came and had many doctoral thesis in our university, and a large number of professors and research scientists came to learn about sea level. Working in this field, I think there is a point on the Earth where there is no state. In the far northern Greenland and Antarctica, and across the Earth, and much in their costs. So I have primary data from so many places, I'm talking about, not from ignorance but on the contrary, I know what I'm talking about.

And I have interaction with other branches of science, it is important to see the problems are not with one eye, but from many different perspectives. Sometimes you dig up something very important in any study geodesic read than any other geologist. And you have to have the time and the courage to venture into the great questions, and I think I have done that. The last ten years, so, of course, everything has been discussion about the sea level, they say we're drowning, in the early 90's, I was in Washington giving a speech on a study of mine on how the sea \u200b\u200blevel was not growing, as saying. That was widely echoed around the world.

EIR: what is the true state of sea level rise?

Mörner: It has to do this in several ways. That's what I did in many different studies, so that we can concentrate here on the short story. One way is to look at the big picture, to try to find the essence of it is happening. And entocnes we can see that the level had actually been increasing, say from 1850 to 1930-40. And the rise was in the rate of 1 millimeter per year. Not anymore. 1.1 mm is the exact figure. And we can see that, because Holland is a subsiding area, has been sinking for several million years, and Sweden, after the last Ice Age, was raised. So, if you swing it, there is one solu-tion, and is that figure.

That ended in 1940, and there was no increase in the level until 1970, and there we enter the debate about what is happening, and we have to go to satellite altimetry, and come back to that later. But before doing that: There is another way to check it because if the radius of the earth the rise, because sea level is rising, then immediately the rate of rotation of the Earth would slow down. That's physics, right? One can see in skating: when they rotate very fast, the arms are attached to the body, and when the skaters increase the radius, extending their arms, they reduce the speed of rotation. So you can look at the rotation and the same applies: Yes, it might be 1 millimeter per year, but absolutely nothing else. Could be less because there are other factors that affect Earth, but certainly could not be more. Absolutely not! Again, it is a matter of physics.

So we have this issue of 1 millimeter per year until 1939, observed, and have a record of the earth's rotation. Then we proceed with these two data. Sea levels rise and fall, but there is no trend there, it was not until 1930, and then the sea level fell. There is no trend, absolutely no trend.

Another way to see what is happening is the measurement of the level of the tides. The measurement of the ma-areas is a very complicated issue, because it gives different measurements according to the place in the world where they are measured. But to interpret the geology has to rely on .. So, for example, the gene in the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change), chose Hong Kong, which has six tide mediators, and they chose to register only one of them, which gives rise 2.3 mm per year. All geologists know that Hong Kong is an area of \u200b\u200bsinking, or subsidence. Is the compaction of sediments, and is the only record that should not be used. And if that is correct, then Holland would not be sinking, would rise.

And that's just ridiculous. Even ignorance is an excuse for such a claim. So tidal measurements are to be taken very, very carefully. Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water and only the coasts but across the ocean. And with the satellites are measured. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of sea level] was a straight line, with variations along that line, but there is no trend. Absolutely none. We can see these peaks, a rapid rise but six months down again. But absolutely no trend, and have a sea level rise, you need a trend.

Then in 2003, the same set of data in their publication [IPCC], on its website, was a straight line-suddenly changed and showed a strong increase of 2.3 millimeters per year, the same measurement of tides in Hong Kong. So that it was not measured but a number intro-duced from outside. I would accuse him of this in the Academy of Sciences in Moscow, I said, "You have introduced factors from out, not a measurement. Seems to have been measured from satellites, but you do not say what actually happened. "And they said [the IPCC]," We had to do because otherwise we would not have a trend! "That's terrible

! In fact, it is a falsification of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And here we come to the point: They "know" responses, the rest of us are bus-cating the answers. Because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from their models computer, not the comments. The observations do not see anything!

I have been the expert reviewer for the IPCC, both in 2000 as the years past. The first time I read it, I was exceptionally surprised. First of all, it had 22 authors, but none of them-none-were specialists in sea level. They were given this mission because they had promised to answer the thing "right." Again, it was a matter of computers. This is the typical thing: The meteorological community works with computers, simple computers, not observations.

Geologists do not! We go to the field and observe, and then we can try to make a computer model, but not the principal.

So we're well. Then we went to the Maldives. I drew a drop in sea level in the 70's, and the fishermen told us, "Yes, they are right, because we remember"-things in their shipping routes have changed, things have changed in their ports. I worked in the lagoon, I drilled into the sea, I drilled in lakes, and I looked at the morphology of the beaches, many dif-ferent environments.

always the same: around 1970 the sea dropped 20 centimeters, for reasons involving probably evaporation or something else. No change in the volume or something, was something quick. The new level, which has remained stable, has not changed in the last 35 years. One can trace it very, very carefully. The answer here is no rise in sea level.

Another famous site are the islands of Tuvalu, which is supposed to disappear soon because we have too much carbon dioxide in the air. Here we have a tide gauge, a record variographic since 1978, in ways that are 30 years. And once again, if you look there, there is no trend, no increase of the level. So, where do they get that the increase in Tuvalu Island?

Dr. Morner was chairman of the Committee on Changes in Sea Level and Coastal Evolution (INQUA) International Union for Quaternary Research (1999-2003) . His ivesigaciones proved that the catastrophic predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), based on computer models of climate change effects are "nonsense."

Then you know that Japanese industry had a pineapple that drew much fresh water inland, and those islands have very little fresh water available for precipitation, rain. So if one gets too much, it destroys the store of water, and you risk making a salt water entering the store, which is not good. So much fresh water extracted and entered saltwater. And of course, local people are angry. But it was much easier to say, "No, no! It is the sea level is rising! It has nothing to do with the extraction of fresh water. "And there we have it. This is a local industry that does not work. We have

Vanuatu, and also in the Pacific, north of New Zealand and Fiji is the island of Tegua. They said they had to evacuate because the sea level was rising. But again, looking at the tide gauge: There is no indication that sea level is rising! If anything, one could say that perhaps the tide is ebbing a bit, but absolutely: no growth.

Once again, where does it have taken? They have taken their inspiration, their hopes, their computer models, not observations. What is truly terrible. We have Venice. Venice is well known because that area is tectonic, because the delta is slowly sinking.

The pace has been constant over time. A sea level rise immediately clarify the flood. And it would be so simple registration. And if you look at the record of 300 years in the Century 20 was going up and down, around the rate of subsidence. In 1970, one should see an acceleration, but instead, raising the level almost over. So it has been the opposite.

If you go around the globe, you do not see anywhere promotions. But they need the sea level rise, because if there is an increased level there is a mortal threat. They also say there is nothing good that can result from sea level rise, only problems, coastal problems. If you have a temperature rise, if it is a problem in one place, is beneficial in another. But sea level is the "villain", and therefore have spoken much about it. But the truth is that no information of observations, only computer models.

EIR: I saw the documentary "Judgement Day Cancelled" (Doomsday Called off) in which you were part of it. And you were showing the physical tide in the Maldives, the tree that was there, and if there been a rise in sea level that tree would be gone. And the way in which the coral had grown up on the beach at two different levels, showing two different levels level rise. The way you presented it was the way that geologists do a survey of the area to put things in context.

Mörner: tell you another thing: When I arrived in the Maldives, to our great surprise, one morning we went to an island and said, "This is strange, the storm level has declined, not been increments -graph has declined. "And then I started to check the level all over and I asked others in the group: "Do you see something on the beach?"

And after a while they also discovered. And we have investigated, and we are sure of it, I said we can not leave the Maldives and say that sea level is rising, it is not respectful to people. I have to say on television in the Maldives. So we set a very nice TV for the Maldives, but was banned by the government! Because they thought they would lose money .. They accuse the West of emitting carbon dioxide and therefore have to pay for the damage and flooding. So who wanted the flood stage was kept alive.

This tree, which I showed in the documentary, is interesting. This is an island prison, and when people left the island, from the 50's, was a mark for them, when they saw this tree alone out there on the beach, they say, "Ah, freedom!" They were allowed to return . And there were letters and conversations about it. I knew this tree was eb that terrible position already in the 50's. So the slightest rise and had disappeared. I used it for my writings and for television. Do you know what happened? Australian team came a sea levels, working for the IPCC and against me. Students brought down tree with his bare hands! They destroyed the evidence. What kind of people is this? And came to film the documentary "Judgement Day Cancelled," immediately afterwards, and the tree was still green. And I heard people saying that they had seen who had shot down the tree. So I picked him up and put it back in place, and I did my show for TV. I have not told anyone else, but that is history.

A famous tree in the Maldives shows no evidence of having been swept by rising sea levels, as had been predicted by global warming scammers. A group of Australian fans of global warming came and knocked down the tree, destroying the evidence that his "theory" is false.

They call themselves scientists, and they're destroying evidence! A scientist should always be open to reinterpretation, but you can never destroy evidence. And they were being watched, thought they were very clever.

EIR: How does the IPCC get these small island nations so concerned about that tomorrow will be flooded?

Mörner: Because get support, make money, so that idea is to attract money from the industrialized countries. They believe that if the story does not hold lose money. So they love this story. But locals in the Maldives, would be terrible to raise children, why should they go to school, if in 50 years all disappear? The only bear that remains is to learn to swim.

EIR: To take your example of Tuvalu, seems more a matter of how water is managed so that a bottom-up level of the sea.

Mörner: Yes, it's always better to blame anything else. They can wash their hands and say, "It's not our fault. Is the United States, they're emitting too much CO2.

EIR: What is laughable, this idea that CO2 is driving global warming.

Mörner: fact, that's another thing. And as in "State of Fear," by Michael Crichton, when he speaks of the ice. Where is melting the ice? Some alpine glaciers are retreating, others are advancing. Ice indeed the Antarctic is not melting, all records from Antarctica show an expansion of the ice. Greenland is indeed the black horse, the Arctic may be melting, but no matter, because the ice is floating and has no effect on sea level. A glacier like Kilimanjaro, which is important in Ecuador, is declining due to deforestation only. At the foot of Kilimanjaro was a rain forest, the forest had been damp, it came the snow, the snow turned into ice. Now they cut the trees in the forest and moisture rather than heat is now, the heat melts the ice, and no more snow to replenish the ice. So a simple thing, but has nothing to do with temperature.

is the bad behavior of the people around him. Again, it's like Tuvalu: We say it is the deforestation that is the case. But instead they say: "No, no, it's global warming!"

EIR: here in recent days, a group of people making a PowerPoint presentation on melting glaciers , and how this is raising sea levels and creating all kinds of problems.

Mörner: The only place that has that potential is Greenland, and Greenland is not melting, Greenland West Bay Drive is melting, but it has been doing for over 200 years at least, and the rate of melting decreased in the last 50 to 100 years. So it's another fake.

But more importantly, in 5000 years, the entire northern hemisphere has experienced a warming. Warm the Holocene Optimum was 2.5 degrees warmer than now. And yet, there are no problems with the Antarctic or Greenland, still, no increase in sea level.

EIR: These scary story being used for political purposes.

Mörner: Yes Again, this is for me the line of demarcation between the community of meteorologists and us: they work with computer models, we geologists work with observations and the observations do not conform to these virtual environments. So, what do you change-laugh? We can not change the observations, we have to change demanera scenarios false!

Instead of doing this, they will provide an endless amount of money to the side which is in agree-do with the IPCC. The European community has gone far in this matter: If you want a grant for a research project in climatology, is written in the document that must be focused on global warming. All the rest of us, we can never receive a penny because we are not fulfilling the basic requirement. That's really bad because then you start to ask what is the answer they want to get. That's what you do dictatorships, autocratic-stances. They are demanding that scientists produce what they want.

EIR: Science is increasingly moving in that direction, including nuclear energy "is like playing computer games. It's like the design of the Audi, which was done by computer, but not tested in reality, and then ended up turning. They did not care about the principles physical.

Mörner: many scientists are afraid. If they say the weather is not changing, they lose their research grants. And many people can not afford that, they become silent, only a few of us speak, because we think we have to do it for the honesty of science.

EIR: In one of his "papers" scientists you mentioned how the expansion of sea level changed the rota-tion of the Earth in different ways, that was a real eye opener.

Mörner: Yes, but it is exceptionally difficult to publish these studies. The journal editors say, "Oh, this is not the IPCC." Well, fortunately it is not! But one can not say that.

EIR: What she told me the other day, about 22 authors who were from Austria?

Mörner: Three of them were from Austria, where there is no cost! The others were not specialists. So when I became president of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, we did a research project, and we take it for discussion in five international matches. And all the sea level specialists agreed with this figure, that in 100 years we could have a sea level rise of 10 centimeters, with an uncertainty of about 10 cm, and that's not much.

In recent years, I've improved, considering also that we are entering a cold phase in 40 years that gives up 5 inches, plus or minus a few centimeters. This work is our best estimate. But that is very, very different from the statements of the IPCC. Ours is just a continuation of the pattern of sea level going back in time. Then one has absolute maximum, as when we had all the ice in the polar ice caps disappearing occurred they were too far south in latitude after the Ice Age.

could not be more melting after the Ice Age. Hsta reached 10 millimeters per year-that was the super maximum: one meter in 100 years. Hudson Bay, is melted in a very short period: it was at 12 mm per year. But they are so unusually large that we could not be ever so close to it, but yet people have been saying, 1 meter, 3 meters. It is not possible! These are figures that are so large that only when the polar caps were vanishing, we had that kind of growth rate.

These figures are quite extreme. This frame is determined by the maximum rate, maximum, and we must be very, well below it. We are building on the observations, in the past, present, and then predicting the future, with the best information of the "grounded" we can get, not computers.

EIR: What people are talking about is not something related only to the erosion of coastlines, and opposed to sea level rise?

Mörner: Yes, and I have beautiful pictures of it. If it has a coastline with some stability in sea level, waves make a balanced type profile . So that transport to the sea and carrying to the beach. If the sea rises a little, yes, attacks, but the attack is not strong. On the other hand, if the sea goes down, is eating the old equilibrium level. There is a much larger redistribution of sand.

We had an island where there was heavy erosion, everything was falling into the sea, trees, everything. But when he saw what had happened: the sand that had gone there, if sea level had risen, that sand would have been transported higher up the beach before. But it is being located below the old beach level. We can see the previous beach and is 20 or 30 cm the beach today. So that this erosion is caused by falling sea level, and not because the sea level has risen. And it is much more common that erosion is caused by a fall in sea level by a rise in it.

Interview Dr. Nils - Axel Mörner
June 22, 2007 - EIR Economics 33

Posted by Eduardo Ferreyra President of FAEC

Science Foundation Ecology Argentina
Originally Published On:
http://www.mitosyfraudes. org/Calen7/MornerEstudio.html