On Sea Levels: Gates vs Morner

…and the 2022 Australian Federal Election

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. - Arthur Schopenhauer

The Election

It’s been a week since the 2022 Australian Federal election and we will have a new Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese from the Australian Labour Party. That simply means the country will go even further left, further collectivist and further authoritarian.

I began writing about my thoughts on the election, climate, collectivism, sea levels, Gates, Morner and a suite of other connected threads in my mind and realised it wasn’t a Substack article anymore but an eBook. I finish it in eBook form but until then I wanted the sea levels piece to stand alone.

Similar to the US, we have a federation of States that has allowed us to experience Labor (left) government and Liberal (supposedly right and supposedly conservative government…but not really). Labor governments have ALL been more authoritarian and tyrannical led by Victoria and followed closely by Western Australia and Queensland (with the Northern Territory getting an honourable mention). NSW has had Liberal government and the most that I can say for it is that it has been generally a lesser form of evil…evil none the less…but “nicer” evil.

I have no interest in doing a political analysis of the election and why the pendulum has swung even further away from the centre (whatever that looks like anymore) and further away from individual freedom, sovereignty, and rights. Further towards a collectivist structure and spirit. Others can do that.

What I want to talk about is The Climate™ (see The Science™) as it has become a central spirit running through Australian politics. Among the many things that all the major parties did was to create policy positions that “cared” about The Climate™.

Here is exiting Prime Minister Scott Morrison committing to Net Zero by 2050 in Oct 2021.

Scott Morrison’s cabinet showed support for net zero emissions target by 2050 | Sky News Australia

The Labor Party, and its incoming new Prime Minster Anthony Albanese, wore The Climate™ jacket much earlier and they have their own Net Zero commitments.

Labor's Anthony Albanese recommits party to net zero carbon emissions target for 2050 - ABC News

The Greens, well that goes without saying, they want it by 2035.

Net Zero by 2035 | Greens NSW

Which brings us to the “Independents” that have been described as “Teals” funded by Simon Holmes a Court, the 49 year old son of Australia’s first billionaire. Simon via his Climate 200 group, funded 23 candidates (the names of which has just been removed from the group’s site) to the tune of $1 million each to run as candidates in mainly Liberal seats, and many of them won. It was a stunningly successful political campaign with 10 out of 23 candidate successful.

Here is the Teal list on Wiki (it’s good for something).

The moral of the story is that The Climate™ dominated the Australian political landscape. Many in the country have swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

This stack is really for them, especially the young 20 somethings who don’t know what they don’t know. I believe that Sea Levels is the rope that you can use to climb out From Under the Rubble of the collectivist controlled demolition of truth.

Bill Gates

I remember when Gate’s How to Avoid a Climate Disaster first came out, I was wandering around in our local bookstore (as my suffering wife and kids know I have to do) and picked up his book. At this point I had figured out he was a very bad actor. As I was flicking through it, I noticed the “zero” theme and I noticed its framing as “net zero” by 2050.

Here he is doing the rounds at BBC pushing Net Zero in Feb 2021.

Bill Gates: Net zero will be 'most amazing thing humanity has ever done' - BBC News

And here he is promoting and reviewing his own book around the same time.

My new climate book is finally here | Bill Gates (gatesnotes.com)

I distinctly remember wondering, as I was flicking through his book, how long before this “net zero” talking point starts really doing the rounds. Well as it turned out, not long at all.

What do we know about Gates by now? He is the lead cardinal of the vaccine church, and we know how that is going, and here we see him being the lead cardinal of the climate church.

Here is Gates commenting on his book:

Now the problem seemed even harder. It wasn’t enough to deliver cheap, reliable energy for the poor. It also had to be clean.

Within a few years, I had become convinced of three things:

1.    To avoid a climate disaster, we have to get to zero greenhouse gas emissions.

2.    We need to deploy the tools we already have, like solar and wind, faster and smarter.

3.    And we need to create and roll out breakthrough technologies that can take us the rest of the way.

The case for zero was, and is, rock solid. Setting a goal to only reduce our emissions—but not eliminate them—won’t do it. The only sensible goal is zero.

Does anyone have any doubt that Bill Gates is somewhere on the spectrum, that he has some version of Asperger’s or mild Autism? Well not to me at least.

If I had to make a layman’s diagnosis, I’ll go with high functioning Asperger’s. Both my in-laws and brother-in-law have the condition (my wife dodged multiple bullets) and we employed someone for 6 years who had it, one of our best ever hires, but if we asked Michael to move to a different desk because of an office reshuffle, he would literally start sobbing at his desk, so we figured out that we needed to ease him into a change of work pattern and do it at a much slower rate. Anyway, I’ve had more than my fair share of interaction with this condition, so I’m going with my pop diagnosis.

Net zero carbon is born out of the same psychological handicap that gives you Zero Covid and Gates’ “EVERYONE in the world will need to be vaccinated”.

Here is Gates from his book on Zero and Net Zero:

In other words, “getting to zero” doesn’t actually mean “zero.” It means “near net zero.” It’s not a pass-fail exam where everything’s great if we get a 100 percent reduction and everything’s a disaster if we get only a 99 percent reduction. But the bigger the reduction, the bigger the benefit.

---

How quickly do we need to get to zero? Science tells us that in order to avoid a climate catastrophe, rich countries should reach net-zero emissions by 2050. You’ve probably heard people say we can decarbonize deeply even sooner—by 2030.

Unfortunately, for all the reasons I’ve laid out in this book, 2030 is not realistic [Unbekoming: someone should tell The Greens]. Considering how fundamental fossil fuels are in our lives, there’s simply no way we’ll stop using them widely within a decade.

What we can do - and need to do - in the next 10 years is adopt the policies that will put us on a path to deep decarbonization by 2050.

Now here is Gates, from his book, on sea levels. It’s important to tie him down on his sea level position as we will come back to this later:

In the meantime, people all over the world, at every income level, are already being affected in one way or another by climate change. Just about everyone who’s alive now will have to adapt to a warmer world. As sea levels and floodplains change, we’ll need to rethink where we put homes and businesses. We’ll need to shore up power grids, seaports, and bridges.

We’ll need to plant more mangrove forests (stay tuned if you don’t know what a mangrove is) and improve our early-warning systems for storms.

---

All cities will be affected by climate change, but coastal cities will have the worst problems. Hundreds of millions of people could be forced from their homes as sea levels rise and storm surges get worse. By the middle of this century, the cost of climate change to all coastal cities could exceed $1 trillion…each year. To say that this will exacerbate the problems most cities are already struggling with—poverty, homelessness, health care, education —would be an understatement.

---

Another effect of the extra heat is that sea levels will go up. This is partly because polar ice is melting, and partly because seawater expands when it gets warmer. (Metal does the same thing, which is why you can loosen a ring that’s stuck on your finger by running it under hot water.) Although the overall rise in the global average sea level—most likely, a few feet by 2100—may not sound like much, the rising tide will affect some places much more than others. Beach areas are in trouble, not surprisingly, but so are cities situated on especially porous land. Miami is already seeing seawater bubble up through storm drains, even when it isn’t raining—that’s called dry-weather flooding—and the situation will not get better. In the

IPCC’s moderate scenario, by 2100 the sea level around Miami will rise by nearly two feet. And some parts of the city are settling—sinking, essentially —which might add another foot of water on top of that.

Rising sea levels will be even worse for the poorest people in the world. Bangladesh, a poor country that’s making good progress on the path out of poverty, is a prime example. It has always been beset by severe weather; it has hundreds of miles of coastline on the Bay of Bengal; most of the country sits in low-lying, flood-prone river deltas; and it gets heavy rainfall every year. But the changing climate is making life there even harder. Thanks to cyclones, storm surges, and river floods, it is now common for 20 to 30 percent of Bangladesh to be underwater, wiping out crops and homes and killing people throughout the country.

Here he is on chatting with people whose mortgage is paid for by The Climate™ and on reading “Weather for Dummies”:

I kept learning everything I could about climate change. I met with experts on climate and energy, agriculture, oceans, sea levels, glaciers, power lines, and more. I read the reports issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN panel that establishes the scientific consensus on this subject. I watched Earth’s Changing Climate, a series of fantastic video lectures by Professor Richard Wolfson available through the Great Courses series. I read Weather for Dummies, still one of the best books on weather that I’ve found.

I wanted to tie Gates down on the sea level issue so that we can now deal with it in detail.

I believe that sea levels is THE thread to pull on to unravel the whole The Climate™ sweater.

There are so many variables and so much complexity in genuine climate science with incredibly dense language and acronyms that it is well beyond the reach of most. But if in aggregate it is true, and the world IS warming (regardless of whether we are causing it or not, substantially or in part) then the sea levels must rise, it’s that simple. You cannot have warming without melting and water levels rising…the simplest of physics.

I’ve mentioned Tony Heller and sea levels before (once) and I present him here again. This is the clip (18 mins) that woke me up to the sea level lie. You will learn about land movement and how rising and subsiding land impacts the numbers and how the numbers have been manipulated and changed (fudged and corrupted).

Tony understands the subject matter so deeply and is able to explain it so simply that it makes him one of a kind in the space, but he starts off with the picture of his dog Todo, so I guess people struggle to take him seriously. I’ve sent this clip to many people, and I’ve only ever heard back from one who woke up and got it…all the rest mustn’t have been able to get past the dog.

The clip includes some great charts, such as this one. Sea levels have risen by 120 metres (yes METRES) over the last 20,000 years, without any “human help” yet the MILLIMETRE rises recorded today are man-made and are an extinction event.

This chart shows how NASA started to “change” the data to change the “narrative”. There is no simple or polite way of putting it, it is data and scientific fraud at the source.

This next chart shows sea levels “falling” on the left. You can see in Sweden, for example, that sea levels have fallen by about 2.5 feet over the last hundred years, because the land has been “rising”. Tectonic plates shift (remember earthquakes?) and volcanic activity is real. The data from these gauges has been removed from the data sets so that the “averages” are much higher than they would otherwise be and an “increase in trend” can be created which is then the basis for blaming us humans for that trend change.

But this is Tony Heller talking and you can’t really believe someone whose dog is named Todo and who doesn’t shut up talking about his dog.

Who I really want to talk about is Nils-Axel Morner. This stack is really about him.

Nils-Axel Morner

Whenever I go into a dark room, I prefer to use a torchlight that can help me see what’s there and navigate around the room safely.

Early on in Covid Dr Sucharit Bhakdi was that torchlight, then I found Malone and McCullough to name but a few and the darkness and confusion started to lift.

Well, what Malone is to mRNA gene tech, Morner is to sea levels.

Morner passed away in 2020 at the age of 83. This is a wonderful remembrance of him and his work.

Sea level scientist Nils-Axel Mörner, 1938-2020 - CFACT

Here are several excerpts:

Professor Nils-Axel Mörner, who died on Friday October 16 aged 83 after a short illness, knew more about sea level than did Poseidon himself. He wrote more than 650 papers on the subject in his long and distinguished career. He became even more well-known after his retirement than before it, because he decided to take the risk of publicly opposing the false notion, profitably peddled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change et hoc genus omne, that global warming would cause many meters of sea-level rise.

---

On Bangladesh

Professor Mörner was a hands-on scientist. He did not enjoy squatting in his ivory tower. He liked to travel the world investigating sea level by the novel method of actually going to the coastline and having a look.

On one occasion, when the climate Communists were reporting that Bangladesh was subsiding beneath the rising waves, he went on a fact-finding trip to Bangladesh with a group of fellow sea-level specialists. All the others were true-believers, so they just drifted along with the Party Line and took few measurements.

Only the Professor not only used his altimeter but walked 100 meters uphill, in his late 70s, and back down again so that the instrument would be correctly calibrated. Only the Professor subsequently reported that, as a result of those measurements, sea level off Bangladesh was actually falling. Only the Professor reported that in the few beaches where the sea had encroached, it had done so not because of global warming and consequent sea-level rise but because local prawn farmers had grubbed up the mangroves whose roots had previously kept the coastline stable.

---

On the Maldives

On another occasion Professor Mörner was visiting the Maldives when he noticed a small tree, 40 years old, right on the beach, in leaf but lying on its side. The fact that the tree was still there, feet from the ocean and inches above sea level, after 40 years told him that there had been no sea-level rise since the tree had first begun to grow, or it would have been drowned.

He enquired locally about whether there had been an exceptional spring tide caused by global warming and sea-level rise that had overthrown the tree. He discovered, however, that a group of Australian environmental extremists had visited the beach shortly before him. They had realized that the presence of the tree showed that the official sea-level record showing a sharp rise over the past half-century must be incorrect, and had uprooted the tree. Professor Mörner stood it back up again and photographed it.

He was plainly very distressed by incidents such as this, for he was a highly moral man with a strong regard for the truth. He took each of the numerous lies and frauds perpetrated by climate Communism as a personal affront, and was saddened at the widespread decline in scientific standards, particularly in the universities.

Here are key excerpts from an interview with Morner from 2007.

Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud

You have to look at that in a lot of different ways. That is what I have done in a lot of different papers, so we can confine ourselves to the short story here. One way is to look at the global picture, to try to find the essence of what is going on. And then we can see that the sea level was indeed rising, from, let us say, 1850 to 1930-40. And that rise had a rate in the order of 1 millimeter per year. Not more. 1.1 is the exact figure. And we can check that, because Holland is a subsiding area; it has been subsiding for many millions of years; and Sweden, after the last Ice Age, was uplifted. So if you balance those, there is only one solution, and it will be this figure.

On Earth’s rotation

That ended in 1940, and there had been no rise until 1970; and then we can come into the debate here on what is going on, and we have to go to satellite altimetry, and I will return to that. But before doing that: There’s another way of checking it, because if the radius of the Earth increases, because sea level is rising, then immediately the Earth’s rate of rotation would slow down. That is a physical law, right? You have it in figure-skating: when they rotate very fast, the arms are close to the body; and then when they increase the radius, by putting out their arms, they stop by themselves. So you can look at the rotation and the same comes up: Yes, it might be 1.1 mm per year, but absolutely not more. It could be less, because there could be other factors affecting the Earth, but it certainly could not be more. Absolutely not! Again, it’s a matter of physics.

On “the” Hong Kong tide gauge

So, we have this 1 mm per year up to 1930, by observation, and we have it by rotation recording. So we go with those two. They go up and down, but there’s no trend in it; it was up until 1930, and then down again. There’s no trend, absolutely no trend.

Another way of looking at what is going on is the tide gauge. Tide gauging is very complicated, because it gives different answers for wherever you are in the world. But we have to rely on geology when we interpret it. So, for example, those people in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It’s the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn’t use. And if that figure is correct, then Holland would not be subsiding, it would be uplifting. And that is just ridiculous. Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that. So tide gauges, you have to treat very, very carefully.

Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure it by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.

Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC’s] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn’t look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn’t recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” which they took from the tide gauge. So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow – I said you have introduced factors from outside; it’s not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don’t say what really happened. And they answered that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!

---

On Tuvalu Islands

Another famous place is the Tuvalu Islands, which are supposed to soon disappear because they’ve put out too much carbon dioxide. There we have a tide gauge record, a variograph record, from 1978, so it’s 30 years. And again, if you look there, absolutely no trend, no rise.

So, from where do they get this rise in the Tuvalu Islands?

Then we know that there was a Japanese pineapple industry which subtracted too much fresh water from the inland, and those islands have very little fresh water available from precipitation, rain. So, if you take out too much, you destroy the water magazine, and you bring sea water into the magazine, which is not nice. So they took out too much fresh water and in came salt water. And of course the local people were upset. But then it was much easier to say, “No, no! It’s the global sea level rising! It has nothing to do with our subtraction of fresh water.” So there you have it. This is a local industry which doesn’t pay.

---

If you go around the globe, you find no rise anywhere. But they need the rise, because if there is no rise, there is no death threat. They say there is nothing good to come from a sea-level rise, only problems, coastal problems. If you have a temperature rise, if it’s a problem in one area, it’s beneficial in another area. But sea level is the real “bad guy,” and therefore they have talked very much about it. But the real thing is, that it doesn’t exist in observational data, only in computer modeling.

---

On the Maldives again

I’ll tell you another thing: When I came to the Maldives, to our enormous surprise, one morning we were on an island, and I said, “This is something strange, the storm level has gone down; it has not gone up, it has gone down.” And then I started to check the level all around, and I asked the others in the group, “Do you see anything here on the beach?” And after a while they found it too. And we had investigated, and we were sure, I said we cannot leave the Maldives and go home and say the sea level is not rising, it’s not respectful to the people. I have to say it to Maldive television. So we made a very nice program for Maldive television, but it was forbidden by the government! Because they thought that they would lose money. They accuse the West for putting out carbon dioxide, and therefore we have to pay for our damage and the flooding. So they wanted the flooding scenario to go on.

---

EIR: How does the IPCC get these small island nations so worked up about worrying that they’re going to be flooded tomorrow?

Mörner: Because they get support, they get money, so their idea is to attract money from the industrial countries. And they believe that if the story is not sustained, they will lose it. So, they love this story. But the local people in the Maldives - it would be terrible to raise children—why should they go to school, if in 50 years everything will be gone? The only thing you should do, is learn how to swim.

EIR: To take your example of Tuvalu, it seems to be more of a case of how the water management is going on, rather than the sea level rising.

Mörner: Yes, and it’s much better to blame something else. Then they can wash their hands and say, “It’s not our fault. It’s the U.S., they’re putting out too much carbon dioxide.”

EIR: Which is laughable, this idea that CO2 is driving global warming.

On the Arctic “it’s already floating!”

Mörner: Precisely, that’s another thing. And like this State of Fear, by Michael Crichton, when he talks about ice. Where is ice melting? Some Alpine glaciers are melting, others are advancing. Antarctic ice is certainly not melting; all the Antarctic records show expansion of ice. Greenland is the dark horse here for sure; the Arctic may be melting, but it doesn’t matter, because they’re already floating, and it has no effect.

On Kilimanjaro

A glacier like Kilimanjaro, which is important, on the Equator, is only melting because of deforestation. At the foot of the Kilimanjaro, there was a rain forest; from the rain forest came moisture, from that came snow, and snow became ice. Now, they have cut down the rain forest, and instead of moisture, there comes heat; heat melts the ice, and there’s no more snow to generate the ice. So it’s a simple thing, but has nothing to do with temperature. It’s the misbehavior of the people around the mountain. So again, it’s like Tuvalu: We should say this deforestation, that’s the thing. But instead they say, “No, no, it’s the global warming!”

---

EIR: Here, over the last few days, there was a grouping that sent out a power-point presentation on melting glaciers, and how this is going to raise sea level and create all kinds of problems.

On Greenland

Mörner: The only place that has that potential is Greenland, and Greenland east is not melting; Greenland west, the Disco Bay is melting, but it has been melting for 200 years, at least, and the rate of melting decreased in the last 50 -100 years. So, that’s another falsification. But more important, in 5,000 years, the whole of the Northern Hemisphere experienced warming, the Holocene Warm Optimum, and it was 2.5 degrees warmer than today. And still, no problem with Antarctica, or with Greenland; still, no higher sea level.

EIR: These scare stories are being used for political purposes.

Mörner: Yes. Again, this is for me, the line of demarcation between the meteorological community and us: They work with computers; we geologists work with observations, and the observations do not fit with these scenarios. So what should you change? We cannot change observations, so we have to change the scenarios! Instead of doing this, they give an endless amount of money to the side which agrees with the IPCC. The European Community, which has gone far in this thing: If you want a grant for a research project in climatology, it is written into the document that there must be a focus on global warming. All the rest of us, we can never get a coin there, because we are not fulfilling the basic obligations. That is really bad, because then you start asking for the answer you want to get. That’s what dictatorships did, autocracies. They demanded that scientists produce what they wanted.

Do you notice the “computer modelling” theme with Covid? Modelling is the “evidence base” for The Climate™ and modelling was (and is) the same evidence base for Covid. Observational data doesn’t matter, because it doesn’t suit it to matter.

On Morner’s point about observation, my father was (now retired) a geologist and when were lived in the UK between 1974 and 1980 while he did his PhD at Leeds University, he spent quite a bit of time in Scotland wandering the highlands, collecting rocks, and looking for particular crystal formations. It was pure, observation based science supported with some lab work.

EIR: Increasingly science is going in this direction, including in the nuclear industry - it’s like playing computer games. It’s like the design of the Audi, which was done by computer, but not tested in reality, and it flipped over. They didn’t care about physical principles.

Mörner: You frighten a lot of scientists. If they say that climate is not changing, they lose their research grants. And some people cannot afford that; they become silent, or a few of us speak up, because we think that it’s for the honesty of science, that we have to do it.

Mortgages determine science. That is the real inconvenient truth.

----

EIR: What were you telling me the other day, about 22 authors being from Austria?

Mörner: Three of them were from Austria, where there is not even a coast! The others were not specialists. So that’s why, when I became president of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Change and Coastal Evolution, we made a research project, and we had this up for discussion at five international meetings. And all the true sea level specialists agreed on this figure, that in 100 years, we might have a rise of 10 cm, with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10 cm - that’s not very much. And in recent years, I even improved it, by considering also that we’re going into a cold phase in 40 years. That gives 5 cm rise, plus or minus a few centimeters. That’s our best estimate. But that’s very, very different from the IPCC statement.

See the chart at the top of this stack.

It’s interesting that Morner highlights the “Australian environmental extremists”, as I have come to realise, we have been punching above out weight when it comes to The Climate™ and its required alarmism. Here is our most famous The Climate™ “scientist” Tim Flannery from 2006:

Climate's last chance (theage.com.au)

James Hanson, director of NASA's Goddard Institute, is arguably the world authority on climate change. He predicts that we have just a decade to avert a 25-metre rise of the sea. Picture an eight-storey building by a beach, then imagine waves lapping its roof. That's what a 25-metre rise in sea level looks like.

This is Sydney Harbour tide gauge evidence over 130 years, and as we now know from Morner, there has been mild sea level rise for a very long time, the point though is that there is “no acceleration” there is no change in THE TREND.

But if tide gauges are not enough for you, here is Sydney Harbour well over 100 years ago and here it is today.

The rich vote Left | The Spectator Australia

What happens when you purport to believe that there is an earth-endangering climate crisis (and former Obama Energy Department Undersecretary, Professor Steven Koonin, takes this apart in his new book Unsettled) and that Australia’s emissions make any difference at all, when the truth is that we could go back to the Stone Age tomorrow and China would pump out our emissions in a little over a fortnight? If you go down that road it’s not surprising that voters will vote for the real thing (in the shape of the Greens and Teals) rather than a half-hearted bunch of Liberal ‘moderates’. So the irony is that even for the so-called ‘moderates’, they would have had a better chance to win if the Liberals had stood up against the ABC worldview and not signed up to Net Zero. The appeasement strategy was never going to work, especially for them.

The Lie That Net Zero is 'Settled Science' – The Daily Sceptic

Historically, the claim of consensus is the first refuge of the scoundrel; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. - Michael Crichton, PhD, MD, author, screenwriter and academic.

If there was any part of your vote in last week’s Australian election that was in any way influenced by The Climate™, you have been misled.

I’m also just going to put the wonderful presentation by Patrick Moore here. Well worth 20 minutes!