Is the science settled on climate change?

The building in the photo covers a concrete saltwater pool that was opened in 1903 on the foreshore rock at New Plymouth, New Zealand. It was designed in 1899 and set at a level which would automatically flush it with every tide cycle, which it did and very nicely. In fact it still does 120 years later despite your data which says it should be some 200mm lower into the water than in 1903. Coincidentally the Islands of Tuvalu have shown an increase in land mass of 10% during a much lesser time.

When we talk about data and what data is included in any graph like this – so the validity of it and whether its been selectively applied for a purpose – we should consider the example of heat data used for that same purpose. Heat records which are available since the mid 1800’s have generally been dismissed as unreliable since they show that up until around 1914 the planet was actually hotter during the latter part of that century than they are now. The argument that mercury doesn’t expand at the same rate in 2020 than in 1895 doesn’t really stack up.

In any event the global temperatures are showing no meaningful increase over almost 20 years now so the threatened sea level rises will have the same outcome as we feared in the1960s, not much at all, but the best reason to not be fearful is that Obama just bought a nice little coastline retreat in Martha’s vineyard and I’d say he’s well enough informed to know he won’t be surfing from the lounge to the dining hall any time soon.

By Gorden Burnside

Loading spinner
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x