You want tides? I’ve seen photos of Admiralty tide-water markers on rock faces on the coast of Australia, made in the mid-19th century, which are exactly at sea level at the same phases of the tide today.
The change in sea-level worldwide, while not precisely uniform, has been insignificant over the last century and a half.
Fine. But posting two pictures does nothing to demonstrate this. Tides alone should invalidate any such photographic evidence, but so does the fact that catastrophic sea-level changes can be quite slight, not noticeable from a distance.
I have no position on this one, I'm just the Evidence Police.
Examine the even dark line along the base of the rocks. That is the high tide mark.
It is the same or a little lower in the more recent rather than the older picture.
Ignoring photo-editing potential, the shots indicate -- consistent with the majority of other independent data collected -- that substantial rise in sea-level is not happening as predicted by Anthropic Global-Warming Alarmists [AGWA].
Just great! I clicked "Post Comment" roughly six hours ago as I left to attend to errands and only now walked in my office to discover that the command did not complete because the cursor remained on the button.
The very fact that you think that two photographs constitute significant evidence here is just about enough to invalidate your perspective on the matter. I am not much concerned with the larger issue, here... sea levels may be rising or they may not be. I don't know.
But I *do* know that two photographs taken from a distance without conclusive tidal information have about as much effective evidentiary power as flipping a coin and asking Janju, the Great God of Seeing to tell us the answer. If there really is such massive evidence against sea levels rising, why leap to defend such silly
Wikipedia is, no doubt, under control of the AGWA?
The very fact that you think that two photographs constitute significant evidence here is just about enough to invalidate your perspective on the matter.
They constitute evidence, and there is much other evidence of the same kind and greater quality. This particular set of photographs happen to have been juxtaposed in such a way as to make the comparison more vivid visually, which, pace tua, is not a crime against science.
But you go ahead, be a fool, and ignore it all because it offends your ideology.
"The very fact that you think that two photographs constitute significant evidence here is just about enough to invalidate your perspective on the matter."
Interesting assertion. It appears, on its face, to presume that one may not independently as evidence weigh data proffered on different criteria than what you hold meritorious.
Mayhaps, you can counter the **content** of my contention, rather than its **form**?
"Wikipedia is, no doubt, under control of the AGWA?"
As for Wikipedia's largely pro-AGWA slant, a quick browser search will reveal the strong influence of Kim Dabelstein Petersen, William Connolley, and founder Jimmy Wales, all strident AGW supporters.
Reply
The change in sea-level worldwide, while not precisely uniform, has been insignificant over the last century and a half.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I have no position on this one, I'm just the Evidence Police.
Reply
Reply
That's simply incorrect.
"...[B]ut so does the fact that catastrophic sea-level changes can be quite slight"
That's not a "fact", that's a Monty Python routine.
Husband [Michael Palin, standing in kitchen of Blitz-bombed London home]: "This toast is buttered on the wrong side! It's a catastrophe!"
Wife[Eric Idle in drag]: "You call that a catastrophe?"
Husband: [sheepishly] "Well... a slight catastrophe."
Or, perhaps, you failed to take Inigo Montoya 101: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
JJB
Reply
I'd like to remember that for next it comes in handy. Unfortunately, I won't.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Examine the even dark line along the base of the rocks. That is the high tide mark.
It is the same or a little lower in the more recent rather than the older picture.
Ignoring photo-editing potential, the shots indicate -- consistent with the majority of other independent data collected -- that substantial rise in sea-level is not happening as predicted by Anthropic Global-Warming Alarmists [AGWA].
JJB
Reply
JJB
Reply
But I *do* know that two photographs taken from a distance without conclusive tidal information have about as much effective evidentiary power as flipping a coin and asking Janju, the Great God of Seeing to tell us the answer. If there really is such massive evidence against sea levels rising, why leap to defend such silly
Wikipedia is, no doubt, under control of the AGWA?
Reply
Reply
They constitute evidence, and there is much other evidence of the same kind and greater quality. This particular set of photographs happen to have been juxtaposed in such a way as to make the comparison more vivid visually, which, pace tua, is not a crime against science.
But you go ahead, be a fool, and ignore it all because it offends your ideology.
Reply
Interesting assertion. It appears, on its face, to presume that one may not independently as evidence weigh data proffered on different criteria than what you hold meritorious.
Mayhaps, you can counter the **content** of my contention, rather than its **form**?
"Wikipedia is, no doubt, under control of the AGWA?"
As for Wikipedia's largely pro-AGWA slant, a quick browser search will reveal the strong influence of Kim Dabelstein Petersen, William Connolley, and founder Jimmy Wales, all strident AGW supporters.
JJB
Reply
Leave a comment