Making Up Sea Level Numbers Is Now Ubiquitous

The dam has broken. Government scientists now simply make up random sea level numbers and report them directly to the press.

Australian sea levels to rise by three feet unless climate change is halted

Sea levels will rise by more than three feet by the end of the century making severe coastal flooding a common factor of life in Australia if urgent action is not taken to limit climate change, a key report by a panel of climate scientists has found.

There is zero evidence to support this claim. Sea level rise has slowed over the last five years, and even the highest reported rates are less than one tenth of that. Over the last 18 months, sea level has fallen 5-20 mm by all measures.

In business, people get prosecuted for making baseless high predictions.

h/t to Marc Morano

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Making Up Sea Level Numbers Is Now Ubiquitous

  1. suyts says:

    And it just gets more shrill. lol, 3 feet, that’s a lot!!!!

    • Jimbo says:

      The only evidence they offer is future speculation.

      • John Marshall says:

        Their evidence is some model which these goons rely on for their version of the ‘facts’
        It was some UKMet Office loon who stated last week that observation was not very useful. I’ve got news for you pal science is about observation, collecting data, formulating a theory, construct an experiment to consolidate the observed data and if the theory proves not to fit the observed data, CHANGE THE THEORY.
        These goons change the data to fit their poor theory.

  2. bubbagyro says:

    Al Gore said 30 feet, so they probably think they are being reasonable coming in at 1/10 of the Goracle. My own prediction is that sea level will fall 35 feet by 2100, since we will be in a reglaciation period.

    • glacierman says:

      So you are going with an actual prediction? You know, if you call it a scenario, you can be completely wrong, yet get credit for your efforts, a promotion, and some more money to do more research.

      • bubbagyro says:

        My prediction is based on facts. 12,000 years ago, when it was 5°C colder, the sea was 350 feet lower. So, just taking a linear regression, if the temperature falls by 0.5°C, then we see clearly that the facts support a 35 foot decline in sea level.

      • glacierman says:


        You have the opportunity to be a post-normal scientist giving a “potential scenario”. You know, one that doesn’t have to be right. The methods are not important, only achieving the desired policy changes and being wrong is a resume enhancer – as long as you helped push things in the preferrable direction.

        But if you would like to use logic and the scientific method, I guess you are just old school.

  3. Latitude says:

    every comment so far is trashing it………………….

  4. PhilJourdan says:

    I fault the scientists less than the media. At one time, reporters actually did some fact checking (kind of like the AP did to the SNL SKIT on Obama). SO if no one is going to fact check you – why should you do any yourself?

  5. chris y says:

    From the book Future Babble, page 110, regarding scenarios:

    “Consultants who offer scenario-planning services are understandably bullish, but ask them for evidence and they typically point to examples of scenarios that accurately foreshadowed the future. [ e.g. Hansen’s claim of accurately predicting 1988 – 2008 temperature increase by selecting from multiple scenarios]. That is silly, frankly. For one thing, it contradicts their claim that scenarios are not predictions and shouldn’t be judged as predictions…It’s also absurd because, given the number of scenarios churned out in a planning exercise, it is inevitable that some scenarios will ‘predict’ the future for no reason other than chance.”

    The author continues to describe why scenarios are very useful for nudging the public into believing that some future event will happen soon. A recent real or imagined event tends to make people believe the event will happen again soon. Imagined scenarios provide vivid, colorful, dramatic stories. Because they need to be dramatic, they are ludicrous, like Day After Tomorrow or AIT, yet the scenarios successfully nudge an unsuspecting public into expecingt these events to unfold.

    Scenarios are P.T. Barnum marketing tools, not science.
    Fortunately, the IPCC and Trenberth are very clear that the IPCC product is comprised only of… scenarios.
    And even more ludicrous are cascading scenarios, which comprise most of the IPCC report.

  6. Gavin Rowatt says:

    It’s obvious, Australia must declare war on China NOW and get them to shut down their coal-fired Power Stations, a cheaper alternative would be to stop selling coal to the Chinese. Alternatively, you can Cap&Trade to shut down Australia and then nobody will be bothered about SLR because they will all be living in caves!

  7. Ed in PA says:

    It is simply reprehensible that scientists, or anyone, would simply make up numbers to support their pet theories or squeeze grant income out of a funding source. Disgusting!

    But now for the important news. The temperature of the earth is going to rise by about 200° by mid-July. I can’t tell you how I know this, but trust me, it’s true. You will start to see the effects by mid-June at the latest. But do not despair. I have perfected a process which will stop this insidious trend. However, it is quite expensive, and I simply must have your help. So send as much money as you can, right now, to Together we can save humanity from becoming toast. For the children.

  8. DirkH says:

    “In business, people get prosecuted for making baseless high predictions.”

    There will not be any business left when the warmists have accomplished their mission.

Leave a Reply