
Scientists from all over the world are coming out strongly against an inexcusably hysterical article recently published by the planet's leading wire service.
As NewsBusters reported Saturday, the Associated Press published an unbelievably disgraceful article about global warming induced sea level rises supposedly destined to wipe out large amounts of American coastal communities in the next 100 years.
Sen. James Inhofe's (R-Oklahoma) communications director, Marc Morano, has received e-mail messages from all parts of the globe in the past 24 hours strongly denouncing this piece:
State of Florida Climatologist Dr. Jim O'Brien of Florida State University countered the AP article.
"The best measurements of sea level rise are from satellite instrument called altimeters. Currently they measure 14 inches in 100 years. Everyone agrees that there is no acceleration. Even the UN IPCC quotes this," O'Brien wrote to EPW on September 23. O'Brien is also the director of the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies.
"If you increase the rate of rise by four times, it will take 146 years to rise to five feet. Sea level rise is the ‘scare tactic' for these guys," O'Brien added.
Climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990:
The IPCC never makes ‘predictions', only ‘projections'; what might happen, or be 'likely" if you believe the assumptions in the model. No computer model has ever been shown to be capable of successful prediction," Gray wrote to the Inhofe EPW Press Blog on September 23.
"Actual data on sea levels are unreliable. Long term figures are based on tide-gauge measurements near port cities prone to subsidence and damage of equipment from severe weather. Many recent and more reliable measurements show little recent change. Satellite measurements have shown a recent rise which may be temporary," Gray added.
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, a retired Senior Research Scientist and Coordinator for national international marine geological research at the Geological Survey of Finland:
"Even the worst case scenario is half of that quoted by Associated Press. This is a hype of the worst order. This whole scare builds on GCM's which we know mimic Earth processes very simplistically and are thus most unreliable," Winterhalter told Inhofe EPW Press Blog on September 23.
"I, as a marine geologist, am abhorred. I just looked at the USGS (US Geological Survey) site and am astonished that none of the references or fact sheets seem to refer to IPCC Fourth Assessment Report released this spring," Winterhalter added.
As previously noted, Richard S. Courtney had already responded to a request of my own as reported in an update here stating, "Rarely have I read such a collection of unsubstantiated and scare-mongering twaddle."
Maybe more importantly, Dr. John Christy, who appears to have been either misquoted or quoted out of context in this AP article, after responding to my requests concerning this piece, elaborated in an e-mail message to EPW:
Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, stated that the AP mischaracterized his views on sea level in the article promoting climate fears a hundred years from now.
"[My] discussion [with the AP reporter Seth Borenstein] was primarily about the storm surges which come from hurricanes - that's the real vulnerability. The sea level is rising around 1 inch per decade, but sea level is like any other climate parameter - its either rising or falling all the time. To me, 16 inches per century is not a significant problem to deal with. But since storm surges of 15 to 30 feet occur in 6 hours, any preventive strategy, like an extra 3 feet of elevation, would be helpful," Christy wrote to the Inhofe EPW Press blog.
"Thinking that legislation can change sea level is hubris. I did a calculation on what 1000 new nuclear power plants operating by 2020 would do for the IPCC best guess in the year 2100. The answer is 1.4 cm - about half an inch (if you accept the IPCC projection A1B for the base case.) Also, there doesn't seem to be any acceleration of the slow trend," Christy explained.
To read all the dissent and anger concerning this article, please go here.
That said, please bear in mind that as this article was published over the weekend, many scientists have yet to see it. As such, we expect to receive significantly more refutations in the near future.
However, Borenstein should be asked by his superiors to correct apparent misstatements concerning Dr. Christy's views, and should be cautioned in the future to present alternative opinions concerning this matter.
After all, anything less is not journalism, but, instead, is alarmist activism that shouldn't be tolerated at the leading wire service on the planet.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Liberal Apocalypticism
September 24, 2007 - 12:05 ET by gideonmjamesEverything is a crisis (that only they can solve) with these left-wing nuts.
God of Carbon
September 24, 2007 - 12:11 ET by allanfAl Gore seeks to be the "god of carbon". All who wish to use it must bow down before him.
And everyone knows that god
September 24, 2007 - 12:15 ET by sarcasmoIs De Beers, when it's not the always-worshipped god -- big-government!
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
You must bow to Gore for the
September 24, 2007 - 12:36 ET by jay_1975You must bow to Gore for the privelage to emit CO2 since he is using most all by his lonesome.
Random thoughts
September 24, 2007 - 15:10 ET by Joe SantoraThank God for atheists for without THEM there would be no God
credentials?
September 24, 2007 - 13:58 ET by CurtWhat kind of credentials do all these PhDs with specific specialties in climate research have compared to the man who invented the internet? (Oh, and did I forget Hollywood-types, who have "wisdom" by osmosis?).
Curt
I'm Still Scared
September 24, 2007 - 14:15 ET by Dr_LibertyI don't know about what these scientists say, but I'm still scared of encountering hungry wolves aboard a wayward cargo ship that inadvertantly floats down a frozen river on New York's 5th Avenue.
I'll just stay hiding in the public library and burn books.
<insert witty signature here>
I'm sorry, but it just wrong
September 24, 2007 - 14:27 ET by Ruths husband BenI'm sorry, but it just wrong for NB to continue to deny that global warming is caused by America failing to elect Al Gore as our President. Now he is pouting and threatening to kill us all with tidal forces beyond your imagining and NB acting like it is not a serious threat will end up with four more years of George Bush (you know he is planning on cancelling the next election, don't you?). By the time you wake up and smell the CO2, it will be too late and the Tennessee Speckled Bull Roarer will be driven to distinction....er, I mean extinction, and we will all be doomed. Doomed, I tell you!
"We just can't trust the American people to make those types of choices.... Government has to make those choices for people" -HRC
Don't Forget
September 24, 2007 - 14:59 ET by Dr_Liberty"...and threatening to kill us all with tidal forces..."
Don't forget about hungry wolves on wayward cargo ships!
<insert witty signature here>
I kind of like comedies
September 24, 2007 - 16:09 ET by MikeBI kind of like comedies like "The Day After Tomorrow" and "Absolute Zero". Talk about your willing suspension of disbelief! Both of those movies depict scenarios that are impossible. In "The Day After Tomorrow", you have a sudden rise of, what, 30 meters in just a few minutes, only on the east coast. It ain't happening, babe. Supposedly the North Polar Icecap (melting of the arctic ice cap would result in zero rise in sea level), all the glaciers in the Northern Hemisphere, and the Greenland Icecap all melted in just 72 hours, max? Do you have any idea how much heat energy that would take? The only way that much heat energy could be applied that quickly would be from a large asteroid or comet strike, or the sun went nova. If the latter happened, the heat would be applied even quicker than shown in the movie. In any case, that much heat applied that quickly, and there would be few, if any survivors anywhere on earth. To blame such a scenario on global warming, much less man-made global warming is ludicrous.
The premise in "Absolute Zero" is just as silly. In that movie, it is a shift in the earth's magnetic poles that results in temperatures falling to absolute zero at the equator and thirty degrees above and below the equator. Such a scenario is also contrary to the laws of physics. Certainly the magnetic poles can change, but such a happening will not result in temperatures falling anywhere to absolute zero.
Yet, the fearmongers would have us believe in such fantasy. Will sea levels rise? Yes, they will, as they have done since the last ice age. Will they rise suddenly? Not unless we have an occurence such as an asteroid strike. Can such an asteroid strike happen? Certainly. There is evidence that it has happened before in the geological history of the planet. HEY!!! I just came up with the next crisis for the libs to fix for us: all of the electromagnetic output from all the appliances in use on this planet will attract iron bearing asteroids to strike the earth and destroy all of humanity, unless we give the management of our lives, economy, and country over to the libs.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Please reassure me
September 24, 2007 - 17:33 ET by Dr_LibertyYou mean the hungry wolves attacking people on cargo ships floating up my ice covered city streets is not really what will happen in a few short years?
I'm very afraid of wolves, especially sea-faring ones.
<insert witty signature here>
No, doc, you needn't worry.
September 24, 2007 - 17:56 ET by MikeBNo, doc, you needn't worry. There are only three seawolves, and they're on our side. Now, you do need to worry about all the polar bears heading south and eating all you da** Yankees (after your politicians confiscate all your guns), because you melted all the sea ice in the arctic.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan