Climate change liars and the data that exposes their lies

I’m cynically amused by the latest climate change hysteria from the ecoweenies.

If carbon emissions continue to increase unabated, large, populated areas of Northern California and the U.S. will be inundated from rising sea levels over the course of this century according a new report. Many areas will be impacted by the year 2050.

Researchers at Climate Central, an independent group of scientists and journalists based in New Jersey, predict a 2 to 7 feet sea level rise this century, “depending upon how much more heat-trapping pollution humanity puts into the sky.”

In a report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they predict that “unabated carbon emissions up to the year 2100 would commit an eventual global sea-level rise of 4.3-9.9 meters.”

If their projections are true, at least 21 U.S. cities with populations of more than 100,000 are considered “endangered land,” including Stockton, Sacramento, and Long Beach. San Francisco’s Financial District will be under water, and areas of smaller cities like Alameda, Emeryville, Richmond, and Vallejo will be uninhabitable.

The group created a website, Surging Seas-Sea Level Rise, with interactive, high-resolution coastal flooding and sea level rise maps, and tools that show just which areas in California have the highest risk. Users can type in specific areas, and see results according to varying levels of sea-rise and varying levels of emissions control.

There’s more at the link, including pictures of well-known parts of the Bay Area before and after the forecast rise in sea levels.  They’re quite entertaining.

Trouble is, hard data is not on the ecoweenies’ side.  As Karl Denninger trenchantly points out:

The problem with the claim is that there’s a tide gauge (actually, several of them) in the San Francisco Bay basin.  One of them with a 75 year record is at Alameda Naval Air Station.

It shows no material change in tidal levels. 




Again, more at the link.

So much for the ecoweenie’s claim that climate change has already produced an 8″ rise in sea levels since the problem reared its head.  If that’s the case, why do no sea level gauges show that rise?

There is no objectively verifiable truth in the anthropogenic climate change lobby.  None whatsoever.



  1. Snoggs, old mate, you ask what's behind it all?, I don't know but this little Aussie from Toukley, Central Coast predicts one major event, built up of very insignificant events.
    Electoral Voting Change, under the guise of 'streamlining' our voting system.
    I care shitloads less than squat about the bastards who infest Federal Parliament house, except for .0001%, the rest are in it strictly for themselves, and Australia can go to hell, witness Peter Garret, Jesus H. Christ, didn't he change his spots at the speed of light when he gained office!.
    Anyway, 'nuff said, just watch 'their' space, Comrade Turnbull will inevitably make his journey in the tumbrill.

  2. You know, I'm getting tiered of all this crappy polemic on climate change… I there climate change? Yes. Is it caused by pollution? It is a factor, but not the only one. Should we be concerned? Yes, but not hysterically so! Is this a civilization changing phenomenon? Well heck, what's not a civilization changing phenomenon these days, but climate changes have already occurred during human history and we've overcome quite ok, thank you very much! I'm really sick of all this polarization of public opinion just to gain some dubious political capital..

  3. Except that the very data you show as evidence against a sea level rise shows an increase of around 50mm. It's not the 200mm that was advertised, but then it's only got a 75 year record. And for a data point that allegedly shows no rise whatsoever, it certainly shows a rise.

  4. Remember that tide gauges reference to ground level, which in
    an area laced with earthquake faults are not vertically stable.

    Before you can draw conclusions about ocean rise, you need to
    track the elevation of the tide gauges themselves against one of
    the standard geiods over those 75 years. Even then, you are left
    with the question of which geiod.

    Generally speaking, with the non-transparent adjustments (i.e.
    not subject to scientific review) used go from the raw data to
    the NASA and CRU datasets, the whole field of climate change
    is best described as "garbage in, gospel out", or maybe "Piltown
    Man, redux"

  5. Alameda is about spitting distance from that double-decker freeway that collapsed in the '89 'quake. I'm wondering how much of that island is man-made from fill. That type of earthquake makes that stuff act like a liquid. Absolutely bizarre to see waves marching across a blacktop parking lot built on it. I've seen that twice, now.

  6. Sat in a technical session last week regarding the Oso landslide in Washington state. The geologist made a comment about models. He said if even one data point doesn't fit then the model is wrong and needs to be revised or in worst case scenarios, scrapped. Seems obvious to me that all the climate models are wrong.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *