Rehabilitating Carbon Dioxide: Lavoisier Group 2007 Workshop

The Lavoisier Group 2007 workshop was held at the Victoria Hotel, Little Collins Street, Melbourne from 29 – 30 June.

Presentations from the workshop ‘Rehabilitating Carbon Dioxide’ will be added to the site as they become available and include:

Professor Bob Carter on ‘The Myth of Dangerous Human-
Caused Climate Change’ @

Dr David Evans on ‘My Life with The AGO and Other Reflections’ @

43 Responses to Rehabilitating Carbon Dioxide: Lavoisier Group 2007 Workshop

  1. Ender July 6, 2007 at 9:40 pm #

    I thought I would start with Hammer2007. Who is this person and why he committing the same mistakes as Angstrom in 2007 when far better data is available. He takes no account of the fact that the Earths atmosphere consists of layers, no account of absorption spreading with lower pressure and no account of the upper atmosphere having almost no water vapour.

    For the correct explanation this at Rabett Run with his demolishing of Lubos who has almost identical wrong ideas.

  2. Sid Reynolds July 6, 2007 at 10:28 pm #

    Well, the above post by Ender indicates that the Reality Deniers are still denying reality.

  3. Woody July 7, 2007 at 12:36 am #

    Oh, Sid, it’s a shame that those who support global warming hysteria think that calling skeptics names is a better substitute for substance. Just make your argument or prove where the skeptics are wrong.

  4. melaleuca July 7, 2007 at 1:34 am #

    Woody says:

    “it’s a shame that those who support global warming hysteria think that calling skeptics names is a better substitute for substance”

    Huh? Are you the same sleaze who called me a “global warming deceiver” on the other thread?

    Bob Carter’s unique version of climate science is appropriately dispatched by Tim Lambert here:

  5. Paul Biggs July 7, 2007 at 2:01 am #

    A couple of interesting papers in Science mag this week. The BBC have a write up on one:

    DNA reveals Greenland’s lush past

    Studies suggest that even during the last interglacial (116,000-130,000 years ago), when temperatures were thought to be 5C warmer than today, the ice persevered, keeping the delicate samples entombed and free from contamination and decay.

    At the time the ice is estimated to have been between 1,000 and 1,500m thick.

    “If our data is correct, then this means that the southern Greenland ice cap is more stable than previously thought,” said Professor Willerslev. “This may have implications for how the ice sheets respond to global warming.”

    ….the current picture indicates that while some regions are thinning, others are apparently getting thicker.

    Science 6 July 2007:
    Vol. 317. no. 5834, pp. 28 – 29
    DOI: 10.1126/science.317.5834.28a

    News of the Week

    Another Global Warming Icon Comes Under Attack
    Richard A. Kerr

    A recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change overstates how well climate modelers have gauged the impact of some factors affecting global warming in the 20th century, outside experts say.

    subscription required to view the full article, so I’d best not post it all due to copyright.

    ..the group of three atmospheric scientists– Charlson; Stephen Schwartz of the Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York; and Henning Rodhe of Stockholm University, Sweden–says the close match between models and the actual warming is deceptive. The match “conveys a lot more confidence [in the models] than
    can be supported in actuality,” says Schwartz.

  6. Paul Biggs July 7, 2007 at 2:26 am #

    Ender – what an amusing, non-authoritive character ‘bait and switch’ Rabett is:

  7. Luke July 7, 2007 at 6:23 am #

    Strange that Paul has left out the implication from the Greenland study:

    “We know the sea level was higher in past” .. .. [5-6m] .. .. “and we know [that the extra water] had to come from the ice sheets,” says David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey. Many scientists think that this water probably came from Greenland, a hypothesis that was strengthened by Otto-Bliesner’s 2006 study.

    But if Willerslev’s dates are correct, and the Greenland ice cap extended all the way to southern Greenland during the last interglacial period, then the sea-level rise could not have come from melting ice in Greenland, at least not in its entirety. “If it wasn’t Greenland then it had to be Antarctica,” says Vaughan.

    Eric Wolf, also at the British Antarctic Survey says this may mean scientists have underestimated the stability of Greenland’s ice sheet.

    “It may mean that we have been too dramatic about what is happening to Greenland,” he told New Scientist. “But the flipside is that if this is true, then we have not been dramatic enough about what is happening to Antarctica.”

    and also strangely omitted from Schwartz story

    “”I don’t want certain interests to claim that modelers are dishonest,” says Kiehl. “That’s not what’s going on. Given the range of uncertainty, they are trying to get the best fit [to observations] with their model.” That’s simply a useful step toward using a model for predicting future warming.

    IPCC modelers say they never meant to suggest they have a better handle on uncertainty than they do. They don’t agree on how aerosols came to narrow the apparent range of uncertainty, but they do agree that 20th-century simulations are not IPCC’s best measure of uncertainty. “I’m quite pleased with how we’re treating the uncertainties,” says Gabriele Hegerl of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, one of two coordinating lead authors on the relevant IPCC chapter, “but it’s difficult to communicate” how they arrived at their best uncertainty estimates.

    Hegerl points out that numerical and graphical error ranges in the IPCC report that are attached to the warming predicted for 2100 are more on the order expected by Schwartz and his colleagues. Those error bars are based on “a much more complete analysis of uncertainty” than the success of 20th-century simulations, she notes. It would seem, as noted previously (Science, 8 June, p. 1412), IPCC could improve its communication of climate science.”

    hmmmm .. ..

  8. Schiller Thurkettle July 7, 2007 at 10:10 am #


    Many thanks for the links to the papers by Evans and Carter! Marvelous reading!

    These are excellent excerpts which challenge the faith-based statements of the gorebal warmingers:

    The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change

    R M Carter

    The issue now is no longer climate change as such, the reality of which will always be with us. Rather, the issues are, first, the failure of the free press to inform the public about the true facts of human-caused climate change and of the dangers posed by natural climate change. And, second, the vested interests held by many of the groups of warming alarmists. These interests include not only the obvious commercial ones, but also the many scientists and science managers who have discounted or remained silent about the huge uncertainties of the human-caused global warming hypothesis because it suited them to do so. Public opinion will soon demand an explanation as to why experienced editors and hardened investigative journalists, worldwide, have melted before the blowtorch of self-induced guilt, political correctness and special interest expediency that marks the sophisms of global warming alarmists.

    My Life With the AGO and Other Reflections

    Dr David Evans

    First. Yes, carbon is still a greenhouse gas. That evidence did not change, but you cannot reliably extrapolate what happens in a glass container in a laboratory to the real atmosphere, which has many feedbacks, clouds, and an ocean with dissolved carbon dioxide underneath it.

    Second. We now know that from 1940 to 1975 the earth cooled while atmospheric carbon increased. That 35 year non-correlation might be explained by global dimming, which was only discovered around 2000. Or it might not. Oddly enough, solar effects would predict a cooling over those same years.

    Third. The temporal resolution of the ice core data improved, that is, the time between data points decreased. By 2003 we knew that in past global warmings, the temperature started increasing about 800 years before the atmospheric carbon concentrations started rising. Causality does not run in the direction we had assumed in 1999 – it runs the opposite way!

  9. Ender July 7, 2007 at 10:53 am #

    Paul – “Ender – what an amusing, non-authoritive character ‘bait and switch’ Rabett is:”

    Since when did a mining engineer become an authority on climate change. McIntyre is less of an authority that I am.

    Schiller – “These are excellent excerpts which challenge the faith-based statements of the gorebal warmingers:”

    I suppose they are as works of fiction however they are so far off the actual science that it beggers belief that anyone who has studied the actual science can have such wrong conclusions.

    First: I cannot believe that you are still saying this – I have been away for a year or so and I am STILL coming up against this one. Do you think that if you repeat it enough it will be true. CO2 does not behave like a gas in a container and that is exactly why AGW was not considered a problem for so long. If Angstrom and his graduate student had done the experiment properly then maybe the AGW debate would have happened 20 years ago and now we would be well on the way to a low carbon future.

    Second you and I both know that is from aerosols. And so what if it took to 2000 for the explanations to surface. You think science works with all the answers for all the problems in any theory fully worked out at the start? Plenty of theories are accepted with gaping holes that are filled in after with later research.

    Third – the temporal resolution of the ice cores does not say what caused the increase in the first place and in some cases the temporal resolution is not that clear.

  10. Luke July 7, 2007 at 11:01 am #

    If Schiller thinks it’s great stuff you’d normally reject on instinct alone. I’m surprised that Schillsbo even thinks any of what he’s posted is new.

    OK let’s have a look at the papers anyway – he clasps crucifix, garlic and bible close. Shot of whisky first.

    Did Bob Carter actually cite Beck and Jaworowski? OMG !!!! And what was Jaworowski’s journal – “Executive Intelligence Review” – eeek – a LaRouche publication – hehehehehe – insane laughter – come on where’s the camera – this is great comedy.

    I stopped reading at that point. (ROTWL) ROTWalls laughing. Why bother to do proof reading for these guys.

    Anyway it’s all good fun – plenty of pseudo scientific politico-fodder for the converted – none of their stuff ever gets published.

    And David Evans – a whinging computer programmer with an unvalidated carbon model complaining about another field’s models. The AGO isn’t a serious science outfit – it’s a political wing of the government to fiddle the books. And hilariously after having helped knick the nation’s trees from farmers now raving on. Great stuff. Some may see the irony.

    Somehow I think peer review of the papers may have been internal.

    Meanwhile back in the real world.. ..

    It’s been a bad few days for solar

    following on from

    Solar activity peaked between 1985 and 1987. Since then, trends in solar irradiance, sunspot number and cosmic-ray intensity have all been in the opposite direction to that required to explain global warming.

    A second quote, puts it into a little more perspective

    [Solar effects] might have acted to cool the climate in recent decades, but been overwhelmed. If so, the climate could be more sensitive to greenhouse gases than is generally thought, and future temperature increases might be greater than expected if a countervailing solar effect comes to an end.

    Was that more sensitive than generally thought?

  11. SJT July 7, 2007 at 1:31 pm #


    once again a deathly silence on matters of substance from the peanut gallery.

  12. Eli Rabett July 7, 2007 at 2:10 pm #

    Eli was very clear that the picture he posted (the original post starts about halfway down at Assault on Mt. St. Hansen) was one of the first sites in the US Climate Reference Network, being set up by Tom Karl as a way of checking the US Historical Climate Network. That Steve decided to throw a hissy. True, the Rabett did post a picture of a USHCN site, the one at Colorado State University in Ft. Collins, CO associated with the Colorado State Climatology Office.

    Anyone interested can read both posts.

  13. gavin July 7, 2007 at 2:28 pm #

    I bet Schiller makes no guess as to what Evan’s compatriots at the AGO are saying privately these days.

    SJT: We can bet this mob will make a lot out of current studies suggesting Greenland kept a slab of ice despite once growing trees.

    Folks: Our Canberra Times news today had a grand must see! pic of a mysterious looking horizontal ice? formation hanging on to mountainous peaks. The article by Alok Jha was credited to the Guardian.

    Woody: The simple evidence of rising seas in our time frame with a peak 8-10, 000 years ago is all I need to be certain it will happen again in the near future if we don’t understand its terrestrial causes. Life and climate are intermixed.

    Any fool who can’t see that evidence is likely to be the first person to heap crap on science and models in hope nothing ever changes hey.

    Truly dynamic people will do more than party Schiller.

  14. SJT July 7, 2007 at 2:37 pm #

    Can we ever get idiots like Carter to SPEAK TO THE POINT!

    When he makes points like this

    “In any case, and irrespective of these uncertainties, all estimates of carbon dioxide levels during the recent past are very
    low by the standards of earlier geological history, for planetary carbon dioxide values have declined from around 1000 ppm in the early Cenozoic, 60 million years ago (Lowenstein and
    Demicco, 2006) (Figure 3). It is therefore crystal clear that there is nothing inherently unusual, nor necessarily dangerous, about the ‘extra’ carbon dioxide that is currently being contributed to the atmosphere by human activity, which anyway amounts annually to only about three per cent of the natural flux. Together with oxygen, carbon dioxide is a staff of life for earth’s biosphere
    because the metabolism of plants depends upon its absorption.
    Increasing carbon dioxide in the range of about 200 – 1000 ppm has repeatedly been shown to be beneficial for plant growth, and to increase plants’ efficiency of water use (Eamus, 1996; Saxe, Ellsworth and Heath, 1998; Robinson et al, 1998). Prima facie, therefore, there is no reason to assume that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels of 500 – 1000 ppm are dangerous, or that such
    levels would have dramatically adverse ecological effects.
    Rather, increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide over this range is mostly beneficial (Idso, 2001; and many papers listed at the web site CO2 Science)”

    I really do dispair. He completely ignores the points made by the IPCC and goes off on some harebrained discourse that is completely irrelevent.

    Of course the historical record shows all kinds of previous CO2 levels, climates and climate changes. This didn’t all happen due to acts of god, it all happened for reasons. The climate change that is happening now is likewise happening for a reason, and the reason has been found to be the rise in CO2.

    For gods sake Carter, so much irrelevent waffle for no purpose at all, other than to reassure the LaVoisiers they are right to spoil the results of scientific research.

  15. Sid Reynolds July 7, 2007 at 2:40 pm #

    Woody, I agree, and do get browned off by the AGWarmers calling people who disagree with their theory by names; Deniers being the harshest.

    Hence having a bit of fun, and doing a bit of name calling in reverse!

    AGWarmers do deny reality….So let’s call them Reality Deniers.

    I did like David Evans comments (p6) about the Wright Bros. and Galileo. And what a gem of reality..”For excellent reasons, we have much more confidence in independent observations than in theories.’

  16. Ender July 7, 2007 at 2:52 pm #

    Sid – “Well, the above post by Ender indicates that the Reality Deniers are still denying reality.”

    So Sid your entire contribution is to make up a name? How scientific of you. Sill it is about the same level as the ‘papers’ that have been listed so I guess it is consistent.

    In the immortal words of Mythbuster Adam “I deny your reality and substitute my own”

  17. SJT July 7, 2007 at 11:34 pm #

    What is that I hear, crickets chirping? No debate at all over the solar fizzle?

  18. Jennifer July 8, 2007 at 10:48 am #

    for a great picture of a Pinata – unbroken

    and the rabbit manages a connection back to Bob Carter.

    I had a good laugh. thanks, Eli.

  19. Ender July 8, 2007 at 11:32 am #

    SJT – “What is that I hear, crickets chirping? No debate at all over the solar fizzle?”

    No debate – however I am sure the next time it comes up the usual crowd will start up with “Its the solar variability” and forget this ever happened.

  20. Sid Reynolds July 8, 2007 at 2:22 pm #

    Ender that quote above is sobering. The real issue is to search out and find where reality really rests.

    H L Mencken’s quote is also worth considering.. “The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.”

    Regarding David Evan’s comments on the AGO, I downloaded a rather shonky bit of work from that Office about 12 months ago, which verifies much of what David has said.
    Titled “Climate Change Science, Q&A “, it is the usual mix of fact and fiction. It even has a Forward by the Federal Minister for the Environment supporting what his ‘Sir Humphrey Appleby’ has put up to him. The usual fables and distortions are dished out, incl. on page 4,….yep. you’ve got it….! ‘The Hockey Stick’!!
    The screed then goes on to give credit to the science quoted to those arch paragons of climate science, the IPCC; the CSIRO and the BoM.
    Sadly this shonky stuff is being used in our schools.

    The above document also promotes the usual dire predictions of rising sea levels and here it is noted that one of the world’s leading experts on sea level changes states that claims of sea level rises is a total fraud.
    Dr. Nils-Axel Morner is head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department of Stockholm University in Sweden. He is past president of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution. He is also leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Morner has been studying the sea level and it’s effects on coastal areas for some 35 years. For an interesting interview with Dr. Morner.-

  21. Luke July 8, 2007 at 5:45 pm #

    Bolsh Sid – as usual you’re wrong again. The 4AR has confirmed the ol’ Hockey Stick.


    the 4AR isn’t saying there’s any sea level rise in the Maldives. Sid – I know you don’t read the source so it’s always fun to do you like a dinner. Mate you are 100% wrong. The 4AR doesn’t even mention it. WRONG Sid.

  22. gavin July 8, 2007 at 5:54 pm #

    Luke piped me however IMO that Morner link is cr.. too, no mention of ice impacts for starters

  23. Sid Reynolds July 8, 2007 at 6:54 pm #

    Well, Luke and Gavin, I know you don’t like it, but here is yet another expert exposing the IPCC’s doctoring of graphs and satellite data to achieve the “trend” they need to keep themselves in business.
    If a Public Corporation committed such fraud, it’s Directors would face criminal charges.

    And what about the bit about the Australian AGWarmers removing the tree in the Maldives!!

  24. Luke July 8, 2007 at 7:25 pm #

    Expert – where’s the journal publications Siddles. Where’s the serious critique of the 4AR – you’ve offered up yet another drivelling whinging essay with a hand scratched graph. “Criminal charges” – try not wanking so hard. I’d be really worried about your scumbag denialist mates if you’re going to play that game.

    I heard that Morner “planted the tree” – read Warwick Hughes and apologise. I suggest it’s simply creeps like you proliferating made up stories. Any serious evidence? Of course not but it’s a great yarn.

  25. Sid Reynolds July 8, 2007 at 8:07 pm #

    Here is one of the worlds most eminent experts on sea levels. A contributor to the IPCC. He caught the IPCC out fiddling the data. C’mon Luke..
    Admit it…And stop squirming.

  26. Luke July 8, 2007 at 8:20 pm #

    Sid – nice deflect but put up ! You never do.

    So you reckon John Church doesn’t know his subject eh? Come on Sid I just want to hear you say it. And more recent independent publications saying that indeed sea level is trending high or higher than predictions.

  27. gavin July 8, 2007 at 8:25 pm #

    Pass Sid a fresh ice block

    see if he catches on before its all gone

  28. Luke July 8, 2007 at 8:29 pm #

    And strangely in the whole of chapter 5 “Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level” out of 240 references we have no mention of Mörner. Who’s a bit sour Sid.

  29. Sid Reynolds July 8, 2007 at 10:17 pm #

    Luke and Gavin are thrashing about trying to defend their friends in the IPCC. Morner, like so many true and ethical climate experts has fallen sour of the IPCC because he and they won’t play it’s little games. He was an expert reviewer for the IPCC in 2000 and last year; they were caught out falsifying data sets. They admitted it saying it was necessary to get their “trend”. They “knew” the answer they wanted, and they ‘massaged’
    the data set to get it.
    As Morner commented re the sea-level section of the Report. “They had 22 authors and none of them-none-were sea-level specialists. They were given their mission, because they promised to answer the right thing.

    Jennifer, you might consider inviting Morner to give a guest posting on this blog.
    It would be interesting to see him take these lightweights on.

  30. Luke July 8, 2007 at 10:51 pm #

    Well if you’re going to invite experts – invite the IPCC chapter lead author too Siddles.

    Morner’s sour Sid as for whatever reasons been he’s left out of the 240+ papers list. So many OTHERS !!

    Sid – I know you won’t respond – but in one sentence what does the latest IPCC chapter on sea level rise say about the Maldives? Threshold test of credibility for you.

  31. Ian Beale July 9, 2007 at 8:22 am #

    The following is from “The Later Roman Engineers” in “The Ancient Engineers” by L. Sprague de Camp (1963)

    Now the great intellectual movement of the classical world under the Principate was towards supernaturalism; that is, religion, mysticism and magic. There was nothing new about these. All went back to primitive times. Mystery cults had flourished in Greece from -500 on and probably earlier if the record were complete.

    But, under Rome, those who exploited the human love of the marvelous and fear of the unknown made striking advances in methods, just as metal workers learned to make brass and glaziers to make windowpanes. They found that it added to their following and advanced their power, glory, and wealth to flourish a body of sacred writings wherewith to confound the heathen; to promise lavish rewards and punishments after death, in order to right the injustices of earthly life; to set up a tightly knit, far-flung, conspiratorial organization; to expound a verbose and seemingly logical body of spiritual doctrine; to impose a fixed code of morals and tabus – some reasonable and some purely arbitrary – on their followers; and , most of all, to incite a fanatical hatred of rival groups, and a grim determination to win the world to one’s own faith.

    All these procedures were inventions, just as much as Heron’s toy steam engine. With these new techniques, the priests, prophets and magicians could more effectively compete for public attention. Credulity they redefined as “faith”, and fanaticism as “zeal”, while respect for the laws of cause and effect was condemned as “blind materialism”.

  32. Schiller Thurkettle July 9, 2007 at 10:01 am #


    You shouldn’t unleash quotes like that here. Civilized persons will understand their importance, while culture-vandals will run amok with them.

  33. Luke July 9, 2007 at 10:34 am #

    Yes Faith and Fanaticism indeed.

    What a bunch of nonsense Sid and the other scum balls have slopped up on the Morner issue.

    Sid is this your level to offer up utter bilge like this to insult this blog’s intelligence. I am really miffed at your level of misrepresentation.

    Morner’s scientific findings have now been firmly rebutted in 4 separate publications (Church et al. (2006), Woodworth (2005), Woodroffe (2005) and Kench et al. (2005))

    He’s not even processing the data correctly.

    Also Morner’s behaviour is set into some perspective when one sees

  34. Ian Beale July 9, 2007 at 8:09 pm #


    Depending on the response there are the quotes of Frontinus and/or Seneca prior to that one

  35. Sid Reynolds July 9, 2007 at 8:31 pm #

    An old and true saying.- ‘The Truth Hurts’. It certainly seems from his above contributions, that the truth hurts Luke.

  36. Luke July 9, 2007 at 9:56 pm #

    Oh Siddles .. .. where are you .. ..

  37. Luke July 9, 2007 at 9:58 pm #

    Oh there you are – and that’s it is Sid. You big flake. That’s your reaction. Yes the truth does hurt and you’re not going to live this one down old son.

  38. Sid Reynolds July 9, 2007 at 10:31 pm #

    It’s interesting to see how one of the world’s leading experts on sea-level changes is subjected to such verbal abuse by the AGWarmers here. It seems that Morner threatens their very weak case for rising sea-levels. Which rises are plain not happening.
    A while back, Jen wrote a brilliant piece on the ‘Politics of Polar Bears’. Maybe it’s time for a piece on the ‘Politics of Rising Sea-levels and “Climate Refugees” ‘.

    And, the ABC’s Poll on AGW….Doesn’t seem to be going too well for the true believers… 25% believers; 75% non believers….
    Well… As ol’ Abe Lincoln said…..”You can fool some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time.. But you can’t fool all the people all the time”.

  39. Luke July 10, 2007 at 8:05 am #

    Listen mate – stop your usual squirming and bulldust. I know you haven’t read any of it. I can tell now that you only read essays. Don’t think that it’s not obvious Sid.

    (1) you put this guy up as an expert
    (2) he’s been rebutted comprehensively by 4 EXPERT studies from different groups
    (3) he’s goofed on his TOPEX data analysis – errr what analysis
    (4) instead of staying professional he’s been let go out of INQUA but has still been running round pretending to represent people he does not – says heaps in itself
    (5) check Warwick Hughes blog – implications he made up his video presentation – I don’t know – even Louis was taken aback
    (6) he’s sour and mouthing off – and WRONG
    (7) and come in spinner you guys picked him up without checking – you little beauty Sidso

    Korgano 30/4/2007 at has summarised the early papers before Church et al. (2006) – added below.

    So stop your diversionary nonsense about other stuff that’s IRRELEVANT and spare us the philosophy – you’ve come a gutser being the bigotted shonk that you are. A total gutser.
    I think an apology is well in order.

    Actually I think we need a porkies spread by Sid post. You’ve just convinced me to write it.

    Korgano STARTS:
    I have thoroughly checked Morner’s work as well as the work of all nine who cited his work (including Kench – who does not support Morner) and several others, and now I am completely unconvinced that the sea level is falling at Maldives. It is either rising, or one could say as Kench et al. said “ The region’s sea level history remains uncertain”. None of the papers I read (other than Morner’s) support Morner’s conclusion that the sea level is falling. Woodworth directly address the evaporation explanation and rejects it. Here are some statements, but one has to read the whole paper to get the complete picture. It is very difficult for me to believe that the sea level is falling after reading these reviewed journal publications combined with all the other current news reports.

    Woodworth PL
    Have there been large recent sea level changes in the Maldive Islands?
    GLOBAL AND PLANETARY CHANGE 49 (1-2): 1-18 NOV 2005

    “…..A number of met-ocean data sets and regional climate indices have been examined, at least one of which would have been expected to reflect a large sea level fall, without any supporting evidence being found. In particular, a suggestion that an increase in evaporation could have caused the fall has been demonstrated to be incorrect. Without any real evidence for a hitherto-unrecognised process which could lead to a sea level change as significant as that proposed by the fieldwork team, one concludes that a rise in sea level of approximately half a metre during the 21st century, as suggested by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change…”

    Woodroffe CD
    Late Quaternary sea-level highstands in the central and eastern Indian Ocean: A review
    GLOBAL AND PLANETARY CHANGE 49 (1-2): 121-138 NOV 2005

    “…Regardless of minor past fluctuations, most reef islands in the Maldives are particularly low-lying and appear vulnerable to inundation, and extracting a more detailed sea-level history remains an important challenge….”

    “…Mörner et al. (2004) appear to base much of their narrative of past sea-level change upon their interpretation of the morphology of reef islands. They postulate a series of levels shown schematically in their Fig. 2, representing, they claim, stepwise coastal evolution, including a higher storm level, a sub-recent level now vegetated, and an older and higher island surface….”

    “…implied, by Mörner (2004). If there had been such a sea-level fall, then those microatolls that had grown up to the limit of coral growth prior to the fall, would have shown a ‘top hat’ morphology with continued growth during post-fall years constrained at a lower level….”

    Kench PS, Nichol SL, McLean RF
    Comment on “New perspectives for the future of the Maldives” by Morner, N.A., et al. [Global Planet. Change 40 (2004), 177-182]
    GLOBAL AND PLANETARY CHANGE 47 (1): 67-69 MAY 2005

    “Here we raise a number of concerns with arguments and data presented by Mörner et al. (2004) that are central to the interpretations and conclusions presented in their paper….”

    “…We conclude that the sea level history and data presented by Mörner et al. (2004) is less than compelling and can be readily explained via an understanding of contemporary coastal processes. The region’s sea level history remains uncertain. Consequently, we believe that this work does little to inform the international community on new perspectives of the future of the Maldives…”

    The short reply to this by Morner is hardly convincing.

    There are other papers, but they all take the same tone.

    Kench’s article in Geology that you provided (stating that “The islands have existed for more than 5000 years and are morphologically resilient rather than fragile systems, and are expected to persist under current scenarios of future climate change and sea-level rise.”) does take into account sea level rise as current prediction, but he says that the island is resilient. The conclusion that the island is resilient is entirely different than saying the sea level is falling.

  40. Sid Reynolds July 10, 2007 at 8:52 am #

    Lets face it Luke, outside the world of rigged computer models and virtual reality, there is no evidence whatsoever for sea-level rises of any magnitude, let alone the scare stuff being put out by the global warming industry. 1 mm a centuary, ha ha.
    Morner is yet another expert in his fiel who has fallen foul of the AGW hatchet men for questioning ‘the faith’.

  41. Luke July 10, 2007 at 10:36 am #

    Sid – you love the rhetoric but eschew the details.

    I don’t know where you’re getting your quotes from but the numbers are very much in-line with IPCC assessments.

    There’s no virtual reality in this – it’s called observational data.

    Morner has done himself in – and now he’s whinging. I’m afraid his science isn’t up to snuff. He’s nowhere near it.

    And you guys uncritically fell for it. There’s no way out Sid – you’ve not done your homework and backed a dead horse.

    The latest 4AR chapter does not even mention the Maldives.

  42. Sid Reynolds July 10, 2007 at 5:44 pm #

    The latest 4AR chapter wouldn’t. The IPCC only employs yes men in this chapter on sea-levels. Again, there is no sea level rises. If tested in a Court of Law, where hard evidence is required, the rising sea-level case would be thrown out, for the nonsense that it is.

  43. Luke July 10, 2007 at 10:06 pm #

    Says who? You? ROTFL. How would you know – you haven’t read any of it have you ? If you had, you wouldn’t have embarrassed yourself here.

Website by 46digital