tomclarke wrote:Simon -
Here is an open access version of the comment on Morner:
http://www.imedea.uib.es/goifis/OTROS/V ... e_2007.pdf
Also, Morner commented on the comment. Interesting but not very substantial and I can't find open access version yet.
At around the same time Morner wrote a paper claiming that sea level around Maldives used to be higher than now and is currently not increasing.
This also attracted a "we think you are very wrong" comment from a (different) group of people. Morner also wrote a comment on their comment.
I have these PDFs but can't find open copies.
You would have thought, would you not, that whether or not sea level has been rising the last 20 years ought to be a matter of public record - and determinable beyond doubt.
Best wishes, Tom
The paper has this to say about the Mormer paper:
Mörner gives no details for the source of the data or processing strategy he used to produce Fig. 2, other than to say it is based on “raw data”. Because the details of the analysis are not presented in his paper, we are left to speculate on how this result could have been obtained,
Now Tom,
The warmist faction does this all the time with nary a complaint from you. It would seem that there is a lot of bad science going on all around. The results may be robust one way or the other but with hidden "data massaging" methods the general public or even critics have no way to tell.
You should really spend some time at Climate Audit (the archives are excellent). They have one complaint after another about "data unavailable" and "methods unavailable". They have taken to reverse engineering (a slow process) in order to see if results are "robust". That is how they finally busted Mann et. al. on the hockey stick. Not quite Mann et. Al yet ;-) but they are getting there.
And then there is Surfacestations.org showing how crappy the best surface station network in the world (USA) is.
As you admit, what is going on is not science. It is a political fight.
Under those conditions I'm sticking with "do nothing" as the best reasonable position given the costs of "allowable" CO2 mitigation methods. And that is another point of serious contention. Using trees for CO2 sequestration is not allowable. Why? Only shutting down coal fired electrical generators in the US and Europe/UK is allowed. To be replaced by high cost/intermittent methods like PV solar and wind.
And of course you are familiar with the tragedies caused by the move to ethanol/biofuels. And why hasn't that been rescinded in the US? Well the alcohol guys are paying good money for results from Congress. And one sure way to tell that alcohol fuel is a scam is that the US Congress hasn't rescinded the high tariff on imported alcohol. Which tariff is the only thing making US alcohol profitable.
On top of all the above China and India are exempt from CO2 regulation meaning that if the USA went to zero fossil fuels it would only make a couple of tenths of a degree C difference even if the warmists are correct.
If the problem was really as serious as the warmists say they would be screaming for nukes and removing impediments to quick construction. However, the political costs (possibility of nuclear weapons) are reconed to be too high. So there you have it. The possibility of nuclear war is more dangerous than the possibility of climate change. Well I do agree there.
I ain't buying it. Any of it.