Ebionite
Well-Known Member
He posted a link to irrelevant data.
Sorry, Morner. I was writing about Molnar in a different thread.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Climate change as a tool of tyranny
- Thread starter Shaul
- Start date
this is what happens when one does not click and read the links....
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
What point do you think I missed?
exchemist
Veteran Member
No, he posted an article describing, among other things showing his poor approach to science, Morner’s deliberate cherry-picking approach to data on the Maldives sea level rise.
But Morner seems to have been going a bit nuts by that stage (he died in 2020, at the age of 82). He was a retired geologist and dowsing crank, not a climate scientist or oceanographer, and was reduced in the end to self-publishing his notions in cranky pamphlets. I think we can safely ignore his opinions on the topic.
Last edited:
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Wrong. It was irrelevant because Morner's claim against the IPCC related to Hong Kong tide gauges, and the link was about Hawaii data.
exchemist
Veteran Member
No, it was about the Maldives. Go back and check. post 492.
exchemist
Veteran Member
I’ve just told you.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Deflecting won't work.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Post #492 has a link to a Guardian article that paints Morner as an idiot, not a liar.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
So an accurate news story then.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Don’t be daft. I am directly addressing your question.
exchemist
Veteran Member
No, it paints him as a liar. He knew quite well there are 3 gauges in the Maldives, yet he deliberately ignored them. He also made up a cock and bull, paranoid conspiracy story about Australians digging up a tree to hide the supposed lack of evidence for sea level rise.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
It read like you were denying the link to the irrelevant data.
Are you sure the description of poor science and cherrypicking wasn't just hearsay?
exchemist
Veteran Member
Quite sure. It’s not only in that linked article but in other sources. And it is a matter of record that the body he once chaired publicly dissociated itself from his views, and that he resorted to self-publishing towards the end.
Actually it is not that uncommon for elderly academics to find it psychologically hard to adapt to new findings and to believe that they must be right, regardless of the weight of evidence. Think of Linus Pauling and his crazy ideas about vitamin C, or David Bohm’s metaphysical speculations. It’s a bit like ageing athletes, or singers, not realising they are past their best and it is time to stop. If it goes on too long it just becomes an embarrassment for everybody.
Morner seems to have become so blinkered that he started making stuff up and ignoring data that contradicted his idee fixe. But anyway, liar or idiot, he is clearly not someone whose opinion you should rely on.
I suggest you might ask yourself instead why the motor manufacturers and international fossil fuel companies all accept the reality of climate change. Do you think they are all fools? Or participants in some dastardly Marxist conspiracy?
Last edited:
A person who continues to propagate his inaccurate beliefs relying on his scientific credentials after being shown to be wrong in the scientific community is someone whom we call dishonest and a liar.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
So what? The fact that you call people liars doesn't make it true.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
I skimmed two of the links and didn't see anything that indicated intent to mislead.
exchemist
Veteran Member
QUOTE
In an interview in June, 2007, Mörner described research he had done in the Maldives that had been reported in the documentary Doomsday Called Off.[15]Specifically, he mentioned a tree he had discovered growing close to the shoreline as evidence to support his claim that sea level had actually fallen rather than risen. He also alleged that the tree had been deliberately destroyed by a group of Australian researchers who were promoting the IPCC view that sea level was rising.[16]
Mörner's use of early TOPEX/Poseidon satellite altimeter data to claim that sea levels are not rising was criticised by members of the TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason-1 Science Working Team in Nerem et al. (2007),[17] for ignoring the calibrated satellite altimeter records, which show that sea levels are rising.[17]
UNQUOTE
QUOTE
In 1995, Mörner gave several courses in dowsing at Stockholm University in the summer program, and also outside of the university.[20][21] He claimed that dowsing could be used not only to find water, but also to discover Curry and Hartmann lines. When reported in the press, he received sharp criticism from the Swedish scientific community and the Swedish skepticism movement.[22] Mörner persisted[23] and the conflict escalated,[24] leading to a formal ban from the president of the university to teach dowsing, citing the Law on Higher Education, until he could present scientific evidence for dowsing. In the summer of 1996 Mörner held a symposium at the university where he presented what he considered to be supporting evidence for his teachings. A committee appointed by the university dismissed Mörner's claims in December 1996.[25] He was named "Confuser of the Year" for 1995 by Vetenskap och Folkbildning,[26] a Swedish organisation in support of the broadening the understanding of the scientific method. The renowned American skepticist James Randi offered him a reward of US$971,000 if Mörner could show that dowsing worked in a scientifically controlled experiment. Mörner later rejected the offer.[27] In late 2002 Mörner reaffirmed his stance in a documentary on Swedish television.[28]
UNQUOTE
From: Nils-Axel Mörner - Wikipedia
There is also this: Wayback Machine. indicating Mörner has engaged in misrepresantation.
He also engaged in malpractice in publishing: https://www.science.org/content/art...limate-skeptic-papers-publisher-kills-journal
I meant the discussion of his actions in the article I posted here
Climate change as a tool of tyranny
Furthermore rebuttal of his Maldives and satellite claims have been published already
Redirecting
Here is a figure from the paper showing the satellite data on sea level superposed on about 20-30 tide gauge data in the equatorial Indian Ocean and Pacific showing that both these data sets give us the same correct trends, showing, once again that
1) The satellite data was not corrected post-hoc based on one cherry picked tidal data set from Japan
2) Wherever you look, the satellite data remains consistent with that areas tide-gauge data.
The coloured dots are the mm/yr trends from the tidal stations and the contours are data from the satellite altimetry (the same data set he was accusing scientists of altering).
This what this paper, which was a direct rebuttal to Morner, says in his conclusions.
The fact is that Morner knows this, as the paper directly rebuts his work. But he has not been able to defend himself against the rebuttal of his "findings" and "accusations" in any scientific paper. He cannot. He is wrong and he knows this. So instead he goes around misleading the people using his science credentials. That is what makes him a dishonest scientist.
exchemist
Veteran Member
All good stuff, but should be in the past tense. The guy is dead (died in 2020, at the age of 82).