Sea Level Rising? More Like Data Falsification!

Wendell is totally convinced of the ethics, integrity and objectivity of the "Climate Change" pseudo-scientists.  Once again it turns out that "scientists" are human beings and are just as prone to corruption as the rest of us.  This is not the first time we've seen many other instances of "data manipulation" - just the most recent:


Tidalgate: Climate Alarmists Caught Faking Sea Level Rise

by James Delingpole  6 Dec 2017


Alarmist scientists have been caught red-handed tampering with raw data in order to exaggerate sea level rise.

The raw (unadjusted) data from three Indian Ocean gauges – Aden, Karachi and Mumbai – showed that local sea level trends in the last 140 years had been very gently rising, neutral or negative (ie sea levels had fallen).

But after the evidence had been adjusted by tidal records gatekeepers at the global databank Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) it suddenly showed a sharp and dramatic rise.

The whistle was blown by two Australian scientists Dr. Albert Parker and Dr. Clifford Ollier in a paper for Earth Systems and Environment.

The paper – Is the Sea Level Stable at Aden, Yemen? – examines the discrepancies between raw and adjusted sea level data in Aden, Karachi and Mumbai.

Kenneth Richard at No Tricks Zone reports:

The authors expose how PSMSL  data-adjusters make it appear that stable sea levels can be rendered to look like they are nonetheless rising at an accelerated pace.

The data-adjusters take misaligned and incomplete sea level data from tide gauges that show no sea level rise (or even a falling trend).  Then, they subjectively and arbitrarily cobble them together, or realign them.   In each case assessed, PSMSL data-adjusters lower the earlier misaligned rates and raise the more recent measurements.  By doing so, they concoct a new linearly-rising trend.


Here is a before/after from Karachi:

 The authors do not mince their words. They refer to these adjustments as “highly questionable” and “suspicious.”

That’s because they can find no plausible scientific explanation for the adjustments.

As they explain at the beginning of their paper, it is hard to put together consistent sea level records covering a long time period. This is because tide gauges are often the result of multiple sets of data, taken over different time periods using different instruments, which are then spliced together.

What is proposed as a single record in databases such as the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) (PSMSL 2017a) is often the composition of data collected by different instruments, sometimes in different locations or over different time windows, with significant gaps in between one measurement and the others. This is the case of the Aden, Yemen tide gauge that is the only tidal location of the Arabian Peninsula spanning a time window long enough to infer a trend and acceleration of the relative sea level (assuming there was continuous measurement and no quality issue). In Aden, similar to Karachi and Mumbai and other tide gauges of the area, a single-tide gauge record is the result of multiple sets of data subjectively coupled together. While a new tide gauge is recording since about 2007, the alignment of the previous data is continuously changing.

So there is nothing per se wrong with PSMSL making adjustments in order to make the different datasets align.

What is wrong is the way that the scientists at PSMSL have adjusted them. In every case, they have revised them in order to make them produce a sharp upward trend in sea level rise – despite the fact that global records do not support this.

The truth, Parker and Ollier conclude in their paper, is that sea level has changed very little in the three sites examined:

The reconstructed tide gauge records of Aden, Mumbai and Karachi are perfectly consistent with multiple lines of evidence from other key sites of the Indian Ocean including Qatar, Maldives, Bangladesh and Visakhapatnam. The sea levels have been stable since the start of the twentieth century in Aden similar to Karachi and Mumbai.

But the official PSMSL data – as used by other global data-keeping bodies such as NOAA – claims that there has been a sharp increase.

In Aden, for example, the alarmists have turned a modest 1.21 mm/year rise into a 3.02 mm/year rise.

In Aden, with data 1880–1969, the trend was + 1.21 mm/year.

Per the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Centre for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services (NOAA 2017a), with data from an intermediate version of a single-tide gauge record by PSMSL we may call (n-1), the sea-level trend in Aden is + 3.02 mm/year based on the monthly average mean sea-level (MSL) results 1879–2011, Fig. 6a (image from NOAA(2017b) downloaded on September 13, 2017).

Using the online analysis tool of Burton’s ( 2017a), with data from the latest update of the PSMSL database that we may call version n, with 2 more years of data, but also with some other corrections, see the data before the year 1900 shifted up, the sea-level trend in Aden is + 1.35 mm/year based on the MSL results 1879–2013, Fig. 6b (image from (2017b) downloaded on September 13, 2017). Worthy of note, the acceleration is now large and positive.

 Again, there is no plausible scientific explanation for these adjustments.

As the authors put it:

“It is always highly questionable to shift data collected in the far past without any proven new supporting material.”

Indeed, but it is perfectly consistent with the behavior of alarmist scientists in other fields, notably those concerning surface temperature data records. As we have reported here before, there is copious evidence to suggest that the gatekeepers of global warming have consistently and shamelessly cooked the books and rigged the data in order to give the impression that “climate change” is a major and unprecedented phenomenon.

A major part of the global warming scare narrative is that melting ice caps will cause sea levels to rise at a dangerous and unprecedented rate, enveloping low-lying Pacific islands, flooding vulnerable countries like Bangladesh and perhaps one day drowning even places like Manhattan.

There is little if any scientific evidence that this is actually happening.

What’s extraordinary is the desperation of scientists at what ought to be impeccably neutral and trustworthy institutions such as NASA, NOAA and PSMSL to pretend that it is.

When alarmists in charge of surface temperature datasets make dishonest adjustments to exaggerate the appearance of global warming, it looks like corruption.

When alarmists in the entirely separate field of sea level measurement make precisely the same sort of dishonest adjustments in order to accord with the same global warming narrative, it starts to look like a conspiracy.


here is the link to the above article:



Kerem Oner Added Dec 7, 2017 - 10:00am
Alarmism is built upon data falsification, lies, intimidation, and the like.  Ask likes of Mann, Hansen, NOAA, NASA, the fine folks at East Anglia, IPCC frauds, etc., etc...
The Burghal Hidage Added Dec 7, 2017 - 10:18am
Damn it Mike!  I thought Wendell had retired to his lair! Now you'll go and get him all stirred up again!
Nice piece :)
Mike Haluska Added Dec 7, 2017 - 10:46am
Thanks Kerem and Burghal.  Go check out my recent posts on Bill Stockton's article:
NASA Just Changed Global Warming
Took Wendell to the woodshed big-time again!
Bill H. Added Dec 7, 2017 - 10:54am
Mike - I see you are using your "usual" sources for your data again.
I present here a lengthy report from the IPPC concerning sea level change by respected international Scientists with well presented, unbiased data. It is a long read, but if you spend the time with an open mind, I believe you will learn something and find it enlightening (as may others).
Or you can simply stick with your Breitbart crap and believe that everyone out here is actually going to be convinced by it.
Lynn Johnson Added Dec 7, 2017 - 10:56am
Good post, it’s always good to expose these guys…
This collusion is nothing new with climate change "scientist"*.  Back in 2009 the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at University of East Anglia was caught massaging data (to hide what didn't fit their narrative) and then went nuts deleting the emails that proved it.
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." -- Phil Jones (Director of the CRU) and leading "climatologist"
Climatic Research Unit documents
Climate Change fundamentalists generally fall into one (or several) of the following categories...

The guys making the money off it. ("research scientists" and snake oil salesmen)


The guys who embrace it because the "solutions" promote their socialist agenda (secular liberals, politicians and bureaucrats)


The guys who embrace it for pagan religious reasons. (liberal nuts)

* "quotes" are used so as not to impugn the character of actual scientist.
Bill H. Added Dec 7, 2017 - 11:00am
By the way, James Delingpole is such an expert author on sea level changes, he even wrote this article in Breitbart entitled Trump Right to Let Big-Game Hunters Bring Back Elephant Head Trophies from Africa.
Dave Volek Added Dec 7, 2017 - 11:03am
To me, rising sea levels are a moot point. Even if they do rise one meter, we will either engineer something for it or move our building back from the shore. And any new ocean front property development that does not factor in the possibility of a one-meter rise, that's just poor engineering! 
I remember Al Gore's preposterous claim that if all the Greenland ice were to melt, all coastal cities would be underwater. This very bad science did a lot of harm to the AGW movement. 
Mike Haluska Added Dec 7, 2017 - 11:12am
Bill H -
The ENTIRE REPORT you mentioned is based on PROXY DATA.  I'm tired of pointing out the obvious inherent inaccuracy of such data.  I prefer to just go back and read the forecasts made by the same bunch of frauds over the PAST 40 YEARS PROCLAIMING THE SAME "IMMINENT DOOMSDAY FORECASTS". 
Give me ONE scientifically valid reason to believe the same bunch of people riding the "Climate Change Research Grant Gravy Train" are right this time.  I'll save you the time - there isn't any! 
Mike Haluska Added Dec 7, 2017 - 11:16am
Dave - you are correct in your comment:
"This very bad science did a lot of harm to the AGW movement."
on two points:
1) the "bad science" practiced by the AGW frauds does a lot of harm
2) AGW is a "movement" (NOT science) and is based on fear, ignorance and an innate desire of many people to feel "morally superior" to the rest of us
Mike Haluska Added Dec 7, 2017 - 11:21am
Bill H - please go review the laws of logical debate.  You violate 6 or 7 of them routinely in a day.
Mike Haluska Added Dec 7, 2017 - 11:24am
Lynn -
great post and analysis!  For some reason the AGW proponents are totally convinced that a $26 BILLION/year federal allocation for "Climate Change" won't result in corruption and politicization of science.
Kerem Oner Added Dec 7, 2017 - 11:25am
Bill H, still drinking the Kool aide, aren't you?  Try learning some basic natural sciences instead so that you can think for yourself instead of falling hook, line, and sinker for fraudulent IPCC articles.
Neil Lock Added Dec 7, 2017 - 11:42am
From what I understand, sea level rise in places where the land isn't either sinking or rising averages out at between 0 and 3 millimetres per year. And it isn't accelerating.
When I used to live in Holland, I lived in one of the deepest polders there - more than 8 metres below sea level. We had serious (serious!) flood defences. Even at 3mm per year, it would take well more than 2,000 years to overtop those dykes.
Dave Volek Added Dec 7, 2017 - 11:47am
Both sides have bad science.
If I am operating a boiler, I have to know that opening a valve--near or far--a lot or just a little--is going to have some effect on how my  boiler is working.
Those who believe that we can release the energy held in fossil fuels and it will not have an effect on the planet are just bad boiler operators.
Neil Lock Added Dec 7, 2017 - 11:49am
Mike: I had a skim of a few of the arguments you had with Wendell and Bill H. in the later stages of William Stockton's thread. What, to me, sticks out like a sore thumb is that one side focuses on the message, whereas the other attacks the messenger. Neutrals in the dispute should make of that what they will.
Mike Haluska Added Dec 7, 2017 - 12:12pm
Neil - thanks for your post.  I agree with your assessment. 
Mike Haluska Added Dec 7, 2017 - 12:18pm
Dave - your statement:
"Those who believe that we can release the energy held in fossil fuels and it will not have an effect on the planet are just bad boiler operators."
needs just one more word inserted between "have an" and "effect".  That word is "SIGNIFICANT".  I showed you how the percent of CO2 in the atmosphere attributable to fossil fuel burning is less than 1.5% of the TOTAL CO2.  I showed you how EVEN IF we eliminated ALL HUMAN CO2 the concentration would only drop from 400ppm to 396ppm.
Was the Earth's climate SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT at 396ppm???  So why go through all the hysteria over "Human Caused Climate Change"???
Lynn Johnson Added Dec 7, 2017 - 12:22pm
Niel, astute observation...
I for one am indeed guilty of attacking the messengers of global warming (as do many of us).  In our defense, it's one thing to hurl demeaning insults (ignorant, denier) based on propaganda vs questioning process, motives, and data produced... then backing it up with proof of corrupt and disingenuous "scientist".
They give new meaning to Mark Twain's borrowed observation, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Neil Lock Added Dec 7, 2017 - 12:33pm
Mike: in your reply to Dave, I'd insert another word as well as the "significant" that you use. That word is "negative." Even if Dave's boiler did have a significant effect on the planet, how do we know the effect would be bad, and not neutral or even good?
Bill H. Added Dec 7, 2017 - 12:39pm
Guys - Here's a video that should provide comfort and reinforcement to most of you on this thread.
After all, this guy is an expert, right!
Lynn Johnson Added Dec 7, 2017 - 1:42pm
He (Alex Jones) is a commentator with an opinion that you disagree with.  What's your point?  Expert?  Not? Has he been proven (as those you would embrace as "experts") to be disingenuous liars?
The first comment on this video says volumes about the left's response to his (or any critical) assertion on AGW... "next alex is gonna say the world is flat". No dispute of anything said, no counterpoint just an arrogant personal attack on the man's intelligence (also applied to anyone who doesn't disavow him); which I am assuming was the point of the comment and link.
Dave Volek Added Dec 7, 2017 - 2:23pm
I went to the video. I got to the part where he said the population of polar bears is now five times what it used to be. If so, I quickly surmised, the food source for polar bears had to grow by five times. And the food source for that food source also had to grow by five times. The Arctic should be a much more lush place than it used to be--which goes counter to denying global warming.
I guess the Jews must be secretly hiring C-130s to fly excess California vegetables to the Arctic to feed whatever polar bears eat. And the government is covering this up and even subsidizing the Jews. For sure, this fellow is not helping the climate denier movement. But he gets more viewers than I can ever hope for.
I'm not sure if you got my analogy. The boiler represents the planet. Opening valves represents human activity. We should expect that opening any valve on a boiler is going to be significant.
Likewise when we break apart hydrocarbon molecules created millions of years ago, we should expect something is going to change. Where's the science to say that is not?
Mike Haluska Added Dec 7, 2017 - 3:15pm
Dave - your statement:
"We should expect that opening any valve on a boiler is going to be significant."
is simply your personal belief - it has no scientific basis.  By the way there are lots of pressure relief valves on "boilers", when they open it is to protect the boiler from exploding.  Not every valve on a boiler is crucial and not every human activity is a threat to the planet, my friend. 
I showed you quantitatively how much CO2 is released into the atmosphere from fossil fuel combustion.  It is a small part of the overall total of CO2 - less than 1.5%.  I showed you that EVEN IF we eliminated ALL HUMAN CO2, the ACTUAL IMPACT ON THE CO2 CONCENTRATION WOULD BE A DROP FROM 400PPM TO 396PPM. 
The above data is accepted by the IPCC and is easily verified by anyone familiar with the science.  Want a good mental picture of how "significant" 1.5% of a 400ppm concentration is?  Here is an example you can easily visualize:
You live in Canada and probably have a nice, clear sky when it's not cloudy.  You can Google the following to verify that approximately 5,000 stars in the night sky are visible to human eyes. 
Now, close your eyes and make a mental picture of the full night sky - 360 view, no obstructions.  That's a LOT of stars in a really BIG SKY - right?  Now, if the visible stars represented all of the CO2 molecules at the 400ppm concentration, ONLY 2 of the stars would be "man-made CO2" stars!!!  What the "Climate Change" proponents want you to believe is that those 2 STARS are OUTSHINING every other star in sky . . . COMBINED!!
Now I am really going to put the whole thing in perspective.  If the 5,000 visible stars in the night sky represented ALL of the molecules of ALL of the gases (nitrogen, oxygen, methane, water vapor, CO2, argon, etc.) ONLY TWO OF THE STARS WOULD BE CO2 - of those 2 stars only a tiny portion of 1 star would be attributable to fossil fuel combustion!!!
So you tell me - how "significant" is the tiny part of 1 star in 5,000 stars in terms of the luminescence of the night sky?  Would "getting rid" of the tiny human part of 1 star really impact the overall brightness of the night sky?
Mike Haluska Added Dec 7, 2017 - 3:18pm
Neil -
Did my "Night Sky" analogy make sense to you?  It's the best way I can think of for people to visualize and comprehend how small a 400ppm concentration is and how incredibly small a 1.5% chunk of 400ppm is.
Neil Lock Added Dec 7, 2017 - 3:22pm
Dave: [the video narrator said] the population of polar bears is now five times what it used to be. If so, I quickly surmised, the food source for polar bears had to grow by five times.
My understanding is that the reason polar bears have increased is that the Inuit stopped hunting them.
Mike Haluska Added Dec 7, 2017 - 3:25pm
Dave - your claim:
"Where's the science to say that is not?"
is a well-known logical fallacy.  A skeptic of a theory can never be called upon to prove a negative.  For instance, let's say I believe in God and you're an Atheist.  If I claim that "God exists because you can't prove He doesn't" - that is a logical fallacy.  A proponent of a hypothesis can't call upon a skeptic to "prove a negative".  As a teacher, you should begin teaching your students the principals of reason and logic - because they sure as hell won't learn it from the media or politicians!!! 
Dave Volek Added Dec 7, 2017 - 3:48pm
Good point. I'll have to take that into further study. I'm pretty sure the Inuit did not go after polar bears with spears. But they would have had an advantage with rifles. Did they engage in hunting with the introduction of the rifle? Did they stop hunting which then increased the population? Good questions to answer.
We've been down this path before. Call it a fallacy if you want. But I take the position that it is incumbent on science to prove that the release of heat, CO2, and H20 is not causing a change of some kind.
Big volcanos have proven to change weather and climate patterns. Why not the breakdown of fossil fuels?
Mike Haluska Added Dec 7, 2017 - 4:12pm
Dave - your statement:
"But I take the position that it is incumbent on science to prove that the release of heat, CO2, and H20 is not causing a change of some kind."
is just as IMPOSSIBLE as proving there is no God!  If someone postulates that human generated CO2 is adversely affecting the Earth's climate by raising the average Earth temperature, then it HIS RESPONSIBILITY to make the case - NOT MINE TO PROVE HE'S WRONG!!!!
Is it "incumbent on science to prove" that flying airplanes DON'T wreck the weather patterns?
Is it "incumbent on science to prove" that vaccines DON'T cause autism?
Is it "incumbent on science to prove" that cigarettes DON"T cause cancer?
Is it "incumbent on science to prove" that Santa Clause DOESN"T exist?
Where the hell does it end if that is your standard???  What belief CAN"T I shove down your throat if YOU have to prove it's NOT hurting you?
You're a teacher for Christ's sake - start acting like one and thinking independently or go into another profession! 
Bill H. Added Dec 7, 2017 - 5:02pm
Mike, you will go on to believe your sources no matter what, just as I will go on to believe my sources. I tend to believe the majority of the world's climate scientists along with the observations that are obvious to most people. I will certainly not take anything from Breitbart or InfoWars as gospel on any subject. We have had many discussions concerning your information sources.
Is your mission to turn this site into BreiterBeat?
Nicholas Schroeder Added Dec 7, 2017 - 11:29pm
WITHDRAWN: Emergent model for predicting the average surface temperature of rocky planets with diverse atmospheres
"This article has been withdrawn upon common agreement between the authors and the editors and not related to the scientific merit of the study. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause."
Bet there's a story here.
Using Earth’s Moon as a Testbed for Quantifying the Effect of the Terrestrial Atmosphere
“In both cases, the effective radiation temperature is Te≅266.4 KTe≅266.4 K , because the computed global albedo is αE≅0.178αE≅0.178 . Thus, the effective radiation temperature yields flawed results when used for quantifying the atmospheric greenhouse effect.”
“These values demonstrate that the power law of Stefan and Boltzmann provides inappropriate results when applied to globally averaged skin temperatures. It is well known from physics that the mean temperature of a system is the mean of the size-weighted temperatures of its sub-systems. Temperature is an intensive quantity. It is not conserved. On the contrary, energy is an extensive quantity. Energies are additive and governed by a conservation law. Thus, one has to conclude that concept of the effective radiation temperature oversimplifies the physical processes as it ignores the impact of local temperatures on the fluxes in the planetary radiative balance.”
You can’t put 15C/288 K in the S-B equation and get 390 W/m^2 upwelling LWIR from the surface.
Take that RGHE theory and pitch it straight in the TRASH!!
William Stockton Added Dec 8, 2017 - 2:34am
"Did my "Night Sky" analogy make sense to you? "
That was very good analogy, Mike.
Ian Thorpe Added Dec 8, 2017 - 11:06am
Mike, excellent rebuttal of some of the tired old arguments made by the usual suspects in the thread on William Stockton's recent article.
What the "ocean levels are rising" (presumably to meet the falling sky) arguments always fail to take account of is that much of the Indian Ocean (where most examples are taken from,) lies over subduction zones where inundations are nothing to do with rising sea levels but are caused by sinking land.
In Britain there are areas that five hundred years ago were major sea ports but now the remains of abandoned docks and warehouses are half a mile from the tide line and surrounded by fertile fields (decline of the cinque ports,) and other places, less than a hundred miles away that appear to be sinking into the water. The reasons are well known but it isn't worth repeating them, the fossilphobes will only claim it's a 'right wing conspiracy theory.'
So when we see tide lines appearing rise or fall slightly, it is probably not due to climate change as the  Warmageddonists  are always too quick to claim, but as Leonard Cohen wrote, "Its just the way it changes like the shoreline and the sea."
Mike Haluska Added Dec 8, 2017 - 11:31am
Ian - terrific post!  Bill H keeps trying to make this a "my sources versus your sources" argument when it isn't.  The subject article isn't a "Reporter claims such and such" type article.  The reporter did a proper job of getting to the sources and quoting them - not a fluff opinion piece based on "surveys" and "polls".  Unlike Bill H who thinks he is "taking the word of the majority of the world's climate scientists", I don't take ANYBODY'S word for anything unless they produce evidence that is based in reality and reproducible. 
All that the "Climate Change" frauds produce as "evidence" is local weather extremes that are favorable to their position, while ignoring weather conditions that contradict their pre-determined conclusion.
Edgeucation Newmedia Added Dec 8, 2017 - 11:31am
Data can be bent to produce a desired outcome just by omission if need be but the reality is Island nations are disappearing beneath the waves and polar areas are shrinking. These things are happening and climate change denial is kind of like closing your eyes and wishing for rain while your house burns down. 
Bill H. Added Dec 8, 2017 - 12:15pm
Mike - Just the fact that you would use Breitbart as a reliable source for information tells me a lot (that I already knew). But the fact that you believe stuff by James Delingpole is even more telling.
Lynn Johnson Added Dec 8, 2017 - 12:27pm
>> These things are happening and climate change denial is kind of like...
See... the rebuttal is exaggeration (from doctored “science” and the media echo chamber) and arrogant condescension.
"Island nations are disappearing" conveniently produces the mental image of thousands or tens of thousands of islanders knee deep in water in front of their huts.  Climate change advocacy is all about producing this type of imagery without providing the data behind it or by inventing the data behind it (as we’ve repeatedly seen and this post shows).
An island sank five inches and the water rose a millimeter or two… a hundred villagers had to move…  Climate Change!!!!  The winter is warmer than usual… Climate Change!!!!  The winter is colder than usual… Climate Change!!!!
You’ve got to hand it to them.  It was ingenious to latch on to weather changing being proof of your theorem. 
Islands rise and sink naturally over the millennia.  The oceans rise and fall naturally over the millennia... as do the polar areas, CO2 levels, and human hysteria over the latest secular apocalyptic predictions (population explosion, then energy depletion, etc…).
Climate change advocacy is like closing your eyes and pretending a candle in your neighbor’s window is burning down your house.  Then demanding the neighbor pay all your bills in recompense.
Dave Volek Added Dec 8, 2017 - 5:19pm
Where the hell does it end if that is your standard???  What belief CAN"T I shove down your throat if YOU have to prove it's NOT hurting you?
I tried my best to give my side of thinking. I kind of understand where you are coming for I'm not 100% convinced AGW is happening. But my logic says I have to disagree and we should be taking some proactive action.
That's one of the beauties of democracy. We get to define our own standards.
In my TDG, I tell my reader to vote for someone of good character and capacity for governance. What that exactly means will be defined by each individual voter.
Pascal Fervor Added Dec 8, 2017 - 6:21pm
Is it really your logic?
Can you say, unequivocally, that you are not influenced emotionally by the highly emotional Precautionary Principle? 
After all, that underlies all requests (when not demanded) for proof of a negative? That not going along with those worried by the crisis envisaged will not be catastrophic?
I tried to word that in unemotional words, but that is one of the problems facing those who will to work this out rationally. The condescending language used by AGW proponents is hardly qualifying that side of the arguments with a crown of rationality.
I've been reluctant to add anything to this discussion for the same reason I do not wish to enter arguments between religions -- there is too much relying upon faith and too little on hard evidence.
Pascal Fervor Added Dec 8, 2017 - 6:24pm
...who will [try] to work this out rationally....
Dave Volek Added Dec 9, 2017 - 11:45am
I have offered my reasoning for my belief in AGW and that the world should be proactive about it in several places on WB. I have made it clear that I am not 100% convinced, and I don't think AGW is going to be as bad as picture the fear mongers like to paint.
The way I have my logic together, I am playing the odds and the consequences of those odds. But unfortunately, many people can not see this. Both sides have to paint their version of reality as 0% or 100%. 
I could offer my reasoning again to show that I am not asking to prove the negative. But this would take up a couple hours of my day. And in the end, no one here is going to be any wiser. 
I have the same number as votes as you. And I guess that is what makes democracy work.
Pascal Fervor Added Dec 9, 2017 - 12:07pm
Dave >> "I have offered my reasoning for my belief in AGW..."
Exactly my point there Dave. Arguing beliefs employing purely rational approaches is almost always non-productive. 
Consequently, the next step for all the true believers, should they rise to power, tends to be forced proselytizing of the skeptics.
Then, in great part because the proselytizers tend to doubt the sincerity of their proselytes -- "A man forced against his will is of the same opinion still" -- forced proselytizing has a sordid, violent history. 
Can anyone of our more erudite contributors explain the distinction between sophists and casuists? Because their involvement in this issue is useful to the understanding how it never seems to end.
Pascal Fervor Added Dec 9, 2017 - 1:10pm
BTW Dave, thank you for your frank answer.
Sadly, I put too much into my first response, and that distracted from my first two questions -- those which prompted me to jump in. Rewording slightly to fit your answer best.
Is it really solely your logic?
Can you say, unequivocally, that you are not influenced emotionally by the highly charged Precautionary Principle? 
I think you answered truthfully, no. It's a credit to you.
Nicholas Schroeder Added Dec 9, 2017 - 2:11pm