Re: OT: sea level 'rise' hmmmmm....

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:25:04 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 03:31:01 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
<jkirwan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>
Worse, you are completely unable to defend anything on that page as
your own argument, since you remain uninformed and just cherry pick
web pages of people saying what you like hearing.

By the way, in case you wonder if I read the page, I noticed this
little snippet near some _other_ garbage I may decide to deal with at
a later time, where Mörner writes, "I have been the expert reviewer
for the IPCC, both in 2000 and last year."

__Anyone__ can be an expert reviewer for the IPCC, Graham. I'm also
an expert reviewer for the IPCC and I regularly get mails reminding me
about getting reviews in on various schedules they have in place and
am provided with access codes for their draft work. So what? The
very fact that he makes that point tells me he is already exaggerating
his position with the IPCC. An expert reviewer is nothing more than
someone who asks to be one. That's all the criteria required.

Just look at his academic record will you ?

Where are the drowning islanders ? Why did Greenpeace activists chop that
tree down if not to fake the evidence ?

I am focused on your excessive focus on one person who happens to say
something you like, instead of reading up on the dozens of recent
papers on the subject.

I am simply unaware of where Dr. Mörner gets his data and I'm pretty
sure you also have no idea, too. In addition, to my point above, he
is one person... like I am. But I frankly don't like your very
selective style of picking and choosing your authorities; worse, those
who don't support their positions by the way with explicit references
and the logic necessary to arrive at his own position. If he is so
'great' on the basis of his academic record alone to you, then why
Graham hasn't he published? There is little that can launch a career
or otherwise re-invigorate a stale one than finding a great, huge hole
in piles and piles of peer-reviewed papers and the summary positions
taken from them.

On the point of having no idea where he gets his data, if you go to
the official website for the TOPEX/POSEIDEN JASON data, which is at:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu
(a site, I believe, you've already been made aware of elsewhere) all
of the data, methods, and their results are presented. That's
probably the more modern instrumental data, but it is by no means the
only important data. The other papers I mentioned expand greatly upon
this new instrumentality.

Of course, engineers did design the instruments placed into orbit and
otherwise deployed. Perhaps engineers as a group aren't to be trusted
for their abilities? I don't think so, of course, but that seems to
be the implication from you.

I've also given you a short list of papers to review, which I have
here. In particular, though, you might look at Cazenave and Nerem,
2004, for a review of the subject, at least. (One of the several
papers I already listed for you.)

....

I see you continue to be VERY selective in the evidence you consider
-- most especially NOT selecting any science papers to study. You
read selections from an interview, instead.

Worse, you are completely unable to defend anything on that page as
your own argument, since you remain uninformed and just cherry pick
web pages of people saying what you like hearing.

Jon
.

Loading