March 30, 2009
The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, writes Christopher Booker.
Last Updated: 6:31PM GMT 28 Mar 2009
If one thing more than any other is used to justify proposals that the world must spend tens of trillions of dollars on combating global warming, it is the belief that we face a disastrous rise in sea levels. The Antarctic and Greenland ice caps will melt, we are told, warming oceans will expand, and the result will be catastrophe.
Although the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only predicts a sea level rise of 59cm (17 inches) by 2100, Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth went much further, talking of 20 feet, and showing computer graphics of cities such as Shanghai and San Francisco half under water. We all know the graphic showing central London in similar plight. As for tiny island nations such as the Maldives and Tuvalu, as Prince Charles likes to tell us and the Archbishop of Canterbury was again parroting last week, they are due to vanish.
But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.
Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by
Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.
The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".
When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, he launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster. Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about. The government refused to let it be shown.
Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has if anything dropped in recent decades. The only evidence the scaremongers can cite is based on the fact that extracting groundwater for pineapple growing has allowed seawater to seep in to replace it. Meanwhile, Venice has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr Mörner.
One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".
When I spoke to Dr Mörner last week, he expressed...@
It appears the only thing that the global warming charade that is all wet is Al Gore and all those albatrosses support it.
The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the constitution, but to challenge the men who pervert it!
— Abraham Lincoln
The CBO estimates that by 2019 the national debt will rise to 82% of the U.S. economy, at a time when the massive unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare will also be taking a huge toll
for years now. Businesses are so tax-laden, they are fleeing the state, or
simply shuttering their doors. Michigan never recovered from the initial
recession, its been dead last in economic recovery for years now. Its
unemployment rate is in the double digits.
Our democratic governor has approached business in the same way the Obama
administration has proposed. Taxes and fees have increased for all. The
result is a mass exodus of business and long lines at the unemployment
office. What democrats seem to be unable to grasp is that if there is no
business, there is no tax to collect.
As a former small business-owner, I had some insight into the business
community. I was stunned by the amount of hours I would have to spend
everday- just to calculate the amount of tax I had to pay. Sales tax, FICA
tax, FUTA tax, Employee tax, Single Business Tax, and so on. One day I was
so fed up, I grabbed the earlobe of an elected official, showed him all the
forms I had to fill out, and yelled "Steam- line this stuff!"
The answer for Michigan's economic woes and the country's for that matter is
the fair tax. To fill out one form instead of 6 or 7, frees up a business
to conduct business. With no corporate income tax, businesses would flock to
Michigan like geese returning in the spring.
Under the fair tax, people get to keep their paycheck. If they could do
this instead of paying into the government welfare sheets (by paying an
exorbitant unemployment tax), they would have money to spend on local
businesses. The businesses wouldn't be laying them off- they would be
flourishing instead of folding. If people had money in their pockets,
instead of lining thepockets of fat Washington bureaucrats, they'd start
buying houses and cars again.
We desperately need Huckabee's fair tax- that's change we can believe in.
Right now in Michigan we are lucky if we have the change in our pockets.
To reply to this message, follow the link below:
If you want to see what this country is going to look like after the
liberals get hold of it, God forbid, then take a good look at Michigan.
Only Fair Tax can save this State and Nation.
Event: Independence Day Tea Party New Hampshire / Massachusetts
""The truth is — that you are the defender of liberty!""
Host: Conservative Solutions /Let's Get This Right
Start Time: Saturday, July 4 at 8:00am
End Time: Saturday, July 4 at 10:00pm
To see more details and RSVP, follow the link below:
The Facebook Team
ON CAPITOL HILL
Who will raise kids: Mom, Dad or state?
Parental rights: 67 in Congress pushing to amend Constitution
Posted: March 29, 2009
6:52 pm Eastern
By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich.
Though efforts to pass a constitutional amendment protecting parental rights have failed in the past, two U.S. legislators are preparing to reintroduce the idea this week; and this time, they say, the effort is backed by more than 60 congressional members.
Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., who introduced a parental rights amendment by himself last year, told the Agence France-Presse that he will be joined by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., on Tuesday as they renew the fight.
According to a statement released to AFP by Hoekstra's office, the amendment "would clearly outline in the U.S. Constitution that parents
"At a time when government at every level seems to encroach upon the ability of parents to choose the best for their children," Hoekstra writes on his website, "it is important to preserve parental rights into the Constitution."
Last summer Hoekstra introduced H.J.R. 97, proposing a constitutional amendment stating that the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right that cannot be infringed upon by federal, state, or international treaty law without demonstrating government interest "of the highest order." Hoekstra asserts that legitimate cases of abuse and neglect fall under the "demonstrated government interest" clause. ...@