Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny

Chicago Sun Times ^ | 30 June 07 | James Taylor

[NavVet]

Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.

For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."

[slowhandluke]

Wikipedia isn't authoritative, but even they note that there are severe problems with even the low (2mm/year) estimates of sea-level rise

< a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise"> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise, "but severe limits are imposed by the observed perturbations in Earth rotation. (Munk 2002)"

Further comments on the physics of the maximum 1.1mm/year increase is found here: Swedish Scientist Accuses UN's IPCC of Falsifying Data and Destroying Evidence The article makes the point:

"1.1 mm per year? That means that if this were to continue for 1000 years, sea levels would be 1.1 meters higher. Doesn’t sound very catastrophic, does it?"

So, in the next 100 years, we can expect a 4 inch rise. And by 2050, we'll be at the bottom of the 40-year sun cycle and at a better place to look at the whole phenomenon with better information.

[Ditto]

Since the Reagan administration we’ve had agencies studying the rise in sea level. Over the next century, if the current trend continues this can become a problem for low lying coastal areas.

What trend? The guys who actually study sea levels for a living can't find a trend.