Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and
Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden.
He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission
on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and
leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has
been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for
some 35 years.

I’ll save you some time. This man is the foremost sea level expert in the world. He says that sea levels are not rising. So you guys in the South Pacific can stop worrying about those absolute facts the UN has used to terrify your children.

With plenty of polar bears in the north and dry islands in the South Pacific what is a noisy, guilt ridden liberal to do?

It took me less than five minutes to discover that Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is a sea-level expert. Whether he is the foremost is up for debate. The only claim I could find for being the expert is by himself, which is rather suspicious.

You’re cherry-picking your arguments here. He is past president of INQUA, but the current president distances himself from Mörner’s claims. He has published a book on dowsing, which is rather odd for someone who insists on scientific rigour.

He may or may not be right in his claims that sea levels are dropping. I’m sure that I could find all sorts of figures to negate what he is saying, and I would have just as much credibility as you (or, I would argue, Mörner). Just because he, one so-called expert, says that sea levels are not rising doesn’t mean that we should all think, “Phew, thank goodness for that!” and forget about it. If he is wrong, and in twenty years the Maldives, Tuvalu and Kiribati have been flooded, it won’t be his problem. I genuinely hope he is right, but I’m not going to just take his word on it.

So, what is the polar bear count this year? And what was it fifty years ago? Can you put your fingers on the data and say with absolute honesty that you are right?

danthemason - 18 October 2009 08:41 PM

I’ll save you some time. This man is the foremost sea level expert in the world. He says that sea levels are not rising. So you guys in the South Pacific can stop worrying about those absolute facts the UN has used to terrify your children.

With plenty of polar bears in the north and dry islands in the South Pacific what is a noisy, guilt ridden liberal to do?

Damnit. I was hoping we’d be able to get rid of Florida for good.

Laurie Fleming - 18 October 2009 11:55 PM

So, what is the polar bear count this year? And what was it fifty years ago? Can you put your fingers on the data and say with absolute honesty that you are right?

It depends who you listen to. On the one hand we have an article which claims to use data from the World Wildlife Fund that says of 20 subpopulations only 2 are declining, 2 are increasing, 10 are stable and 6 haven’t enough data.  Then there is another article that claims there are 19 subpopulations with 8 declining, 3 stable, 1 increasing, and 7 unknowns.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba551/  vs
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/

This is why even searching articles on the web, one cannot be certain of reliable, consistent information.

Looking at raw data sources, however, some interesting facts pop out (at least to me.)

1. Of those subpopulations that are declining, ALL are close to areas of human habitation.

2. Most of the areas in question, hman activities have been on the increase in the couple decades due to search for more resources (petroleum, fish, minerals, etc.). For instance, there is a lot more activity around Hudson Bay due to increasing demands for seafood and associated products. Northern Alaska has been booming (relatively) as those oil fields production was increased 7-fold to support military activities in the M.E. And Siberia as had a lot of activity increased as Russia looks for new mineral and petroleum resources.

3. Populations that are well removed from human activities are either stable or, in a few cases, increasing. While several remote populations haven’t enough data one way or the other, NOT ONE remote subpopulation has been shown to be declining.

As such, I have to question the CONCLUSION that the reason for declining polar bear populations is strictly pointing to global warming, when there are other unaccounted variables at work.

Hundreds may see your reasoned analysis of the data. Millions have read, and seen that same data portrayed as fact; that those animals are in decline, facing extinction, because of APG. And it is laughable that APG remains only a theory, unproven. What sheep a population can become.

danthemason - 22 October 2009 08:36 AM

Hundreds may see your reasoned analysis of the data. Millions have read, and seen that same data portrayed as fact; that those animals are in decline, facing extinction, because of APG. And it is laughable that APG remains only a theory, unproven. What sheep a population can become.

Minor correction. Probably not many have seen the actual raw data I have taken the time to search out.  Millions have seen REPORTS written about the data; most often heavily biased (or worse) reports written by authors with an agenda which are, as you say, presented as established facts.

The thing that frightens me is every time in the past that science has been subjugated to the desires of politicians, bad things end up happening.

One more little thing. Scientific inquiry is not decided on a vote or survey of scientists and researchers who are funded by public monies. Science is based on repeated observation, predictions, theory and finally truth. In the global climate investigation we are still in phase one; observation.

(I never thought I’d say this) I couldn’t agree with you more.
(I knew it couldn’t last) It doesn’t sit well with an earlier quote from you: With plenty of polar bears in the north and dry islands in the South Pacific…

So your observations about global climate investigation are just that, or truth? You’ve jumped over predictions and theory?

We’ve got to say it slow and often. After all our audience has already made up their minds.

That doesn’t make sense at all in the context of the topic - would you like to try that again?

I am comfortable in my conviction. The skeptics have not advanced an agenda. The alarmist warming crowd has. I have nothing to prove. I think coal, oil and natural gas are just fine for the next century. If we impact the environment, well so do the trees. Technology will advance the human condition, turning off the lights will not.

Dan, Laurie has nothing to stand on but her insults.

  This from The American Thinker.

March 30, 2009
Liberal Authoritarianism and Earth Hour
By Rick Moran

“Stupid” as opposed to what? Believing that it makes one iota of difference to anyone, anywhere, anytime that turning off your lights for an hour does anything except make the participant feel a false sense of moral superiority not to mention an obnoxious piety about an issue that, despite claims to the contrary, is still open for scientific debate?

This is what liberals have, “A false sense of moral superiority”

Pardon me but the very idea that Earth Hour will show anybody anything, prove anything to anybody, raise the consciousness of anyone who doesn’t already have their consciousness raised on the issue, change any minds, alter the science, frighten politicians, or “help save the planet” is idiotic and bespeaks a frightening ignorance that is more dangerous than global warming itself.

I agree, “a frightening ignorance that is more dangerous than global warming itself.”

I have news for my buddies on the left; Earth Hour was “stupid” - an insult to common sense, a slap in the face to reason and logic, and a as far from “reality” as the “reality based community” has ever strayed. It was a pointless waste of time and effort and calling your opponent’s counter-protest” “stupid” was more revealing of your inner demons on this issue than you realize.

Of course, all protests are “stupid” unless liberals start them. They are the arbiters of what is worthy of protest and what isn’t. They are the judges as to whether a protest is legitimate or whether it is “stupid.” Hence, all protests not started by liberals are, by definition, illicit by nature. In fact, by trying to delegitimize protests not given the liberal seal of approval, and dismissing them as “stupid,” the left demonstrates its love of authoritarian tactics in dealing with its opponents.

Being humorless twits that many in the AGW movement have shown themselves to be, the concepts of irony and sarcasm are as alien to them as if they originated on the moon. Hence, the idea of turning one’s lights on instead of off makes the counter-protestors dangerous and not simply trying to make an attempt at humor—a somewhat lame attempt I’ll admit but a better response to global warming than the United Nations is set to announce.

It seems the UN has got it in its head that it can run the economies of the entire planet. The same folks who ran the Oil For Food program for Saddam and ended up stealing more money than in any other caper in human history are proposing to “reorder” the economies of the world and save us all from rising temperatures.

This 16 page note that will be distributed at the climate change conference in Bonn next week and will form the basis for action when the “Copenhagen Accords” replace the Kyoto treaty in 2012 is the most draconian, sovereignty-destroying, illiberal plan ever devised by the UN. Every nightmare the right has ever had about the UN will come to pass if even part of this plan is adopted.

But it is instructive as to what the AGW crowd thinks they can get away with in the future. The plan calls for a reduction by the US of 20-40% of its emissions by 2020 and 90% by 2050—an impossible goal that would destroy our economy. That result is secondary to the idea that the United Nations would have the power to regulate our energy consumption, our energy industries, and all industries that produce anything by burning fossil fuels.

As I said, a mad plan that has no chance of being ratified by the Senate—today. What the future will bring is anyone’s guess. A few more years of hysteria over AGW and it is foreseeable that people will be willing to give up anything in order that the United Nations save them. And the longer this economic crisis continues, the more likely people will be willing to give up their sovereignty. Like President Obama relying on the crisis to pass his left wing agenda items that have nothing to do with economic recovery but everything to do with “reordering” America, the world body will seek to use a crisis that they themselves manufacture in order to grab control of the world’s economy. And they will be cheered on by the very people who believe any protest not deemed by them as legitimate is by definition, invalid.

This streak of leftist authoritarianism manifests itself most noticeably in the debate over AGW. Stifling debate by threatening to try as criminals people who disagree with them, declaring an end to the scientific method by saying that the debate about AGW is “over,” spreading lies about skeptics by positing the notion that they are all being paid by oil and coal companies, attempting to ruin the careers of scientists who disagree with them, and seeking to censor scientific studies that challenge AGW orthodoxy—all point to a desire by AGW advocates to control minds by not allowing any dissent.

The fact that these tactics are generally supported by liberals is indicative of their own doubts about the efficacy of climate change and their desire to close their own minds to any information that would cause them to doubt, or otherwise alter their perception about the debate over AGW. This makes leftists not only authoritarians but stupid ones at that—a very dangerous combination that the United Nations appears to be counting on in order to make their plan a reality.

The minds of many here are already closed to the truth. To doubt their leaders would mean that they have been living a lie. They must always follow the party line.  Sad!

I didn’t insult him. He said something oblique which I didn’t understand. And, you bloody idiot, as you’ve been told before, I am not a “her”.

And why don’t you start posting arguments of your own (like Zewazir does so well), instead of cutting and pasting other’s?

If our liberal leaders manage to push through their tax and spend agenda, many Conservative leaders will be looking for another country to live and raise their children in. New Zealand is at the top of their list of possible countries. Just think of all the possibilities. 

Sorry, I thought liberals had no concern for ones sex. Could this be another contradiction? 

You’re just making stuff up again. Stop lying. Think. Make arguments.

The only contradictions are in your head. What do you have to say about global warming?