For over 100 years the North European cities of Oslo, Stockholm and Helsinki have been steadily rising from the sea with no suggestion from observed evidence that local sea levels will not continue to drop by a few millimetres a year. That is until 2020, when the IPCC’s new AR6 Sea Level Projection Tool suddenly promoted substantial sea level rises all round. The discovery appears to baffle Ole Humlum, Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography at the University of Oslo. It seems that this tool was not produced to test the validity of a scientific idea. It was instead an attempt to “alarm the user”, he said.
Alarm it has. Since this Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) computer model was first made publicly available in 2020, there has been a rush of unchecked ‘flood’ stories in the mainstream media. The Daily Sceptic has reported on the activities of a US-based green agitprop operation called Climate Central that is backed by billionaire Foundations and uses the IPCC data to promote custom-made flood catastrophe stories in local media. Recently the Mirror reported that much of London could be gone within 80 years, while large area along the Humber and the Midlands could also disappear beneath the waves. Local politicians such as London mayor Sadiq Khan pick up on these fantastical stories and use them to justify harsh ‘climate’ polices, including an assault on private transport.
This is what Humlum found when he interrogated the IPCC’s new sea level change computer projection model for the coastal city of Oslo. The Norwegian capital, in common with other Scandinavian cities, was buried under a massive ice sheet that only started to lift 20,000 years ago. Even today, the area experiences an ongoing ‘isostatic’ land rise of several millimetres a year as it bounces back from underlying layers. The observed rate of sea level decline can be seen in the above graph in purple. If the 100-year plus observational trend continues, the sea level will fall by 28cm by the end of the century. The IPCC model forecasts a rise in sea level by 2100 of 17cm. Humlum found similar IPCC patterns and disconnects for the capitals of Sweden and Finland. Copenhagen was at the margin of the ice sheet, and a very small annual increase has become a substantial uplift of 45cm by 2100.
It is “extremely surprising”, observes Humlum, that this modelled change should first appear in 2020 as a rather marked step change in the relative sea level. Humlum suggests that if the modellers had produced data going back to 1950, “the conflict between measured and modelled data would immediately have become apparent”. In Humlum’s view, “it is highly disappointing that such a simple quality – or sanity check – was apparently never requested or performed by the IPCC”.
Humlum’s work features in the recently-published Clintel Report – The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC – and is part of a detailed and critical examination of the UN organisation’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6). As we noted recently, the scientific authors are damning about much of the IPCC’s work. In addition to emphasising worst-case scenarios, it rewrites climate history, has a “huge” bias in favour of bad news, and keeps good news out of the widely-distributed Summary for Policy Makers. The worst case scenario is called SSP5-8.5 and it assumes temperatures will rise by up to 5°C within less than 80 years. Given that temperatures increased by barely 0.1°C in the first two decades of this century, almost nobody believe these scenarios are remotely plausible. Nevertheless, Clintel notes that 43% of IPCC predictions of drastic and damaging climate change, and around half the climate science literature, are based on these scenarios.
Humlum’s graph uses only a moderate SSP2-4.5 scenario. The more extreme scenarios are available to use on the IPCC Tool, a fact that might explain how, with the help of Climate Central, the Wilshire Times reported last year that by 2050 the waters could be lapping around Gloucester Cathedral, sited at an elevation of 19 metres. For its part, Climate Central notes that it provides “authoritative information to help the public and policymakers make sound decisions about climate change and energy”.
The level of the sea is very difficult to measure and despite recent advances in satellite altimetry, tidal gauges still offer a consistent record. Humlum has noted that these gauges located around the world suggest an average sea level rise of 1-2mm a year. Recent modelled attempts to incorporate satellite measurements produce a rise that that is said to be over 3mm. The IPCC is claiming a recent acceleration in sea level rise, but Humlum says the evidence for this is “thin”. The tide gauge records are said to show “remarkably linear behaviour for more than a century”.
Humlum says it is likely that the IPCC conflates what it sees as a recent “acceleration” in sea level with ocean multidecadal variability. “This should become clear in the next 10-20 years,” he writes. “Right now, it is very preliminary to claim there is an acceleration of the sea level rise.”
The starting point for the IPCC’s work is the assumption that all warming from about 1850 was caused by humans burning fossil fuel. Its 1988 founding principles told it to determine the “scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”. Given this dogma, the IPPC has become uniquely unsuited to considering all aspects of climate change, whether arising from the activities of humans or due to natural causes. Since 1988, there is considerably more understanding about the natural forces that cause the climate to change. Humlum feels that the IPCC’s blinkered view may have led to its latest errors in sea level modelling. “The fundamental IPCC finding of no significant influence of natural variations since about 1850 should therefore be reconsidered,” he argues.
The more cynical might note that the IPCC’s primary purpose is to promote the idea that the sole cause of global warming since 1850 is human activity. Any deviation from this line will cause considerable financial hardship and widespread unemployment in the climate science community.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
These gene therapy jabs have been in the making for many years and were always destined to be used on every single human, regardless of age or health status. This is an excellent piece of journalism looking at the history, where these products stem from;
“Gates’s foundation took an equity stake in BioNTech ahead of its October 2019 US stock market launch. When he was asked in 2017 about the danger of these platform vaccines making people less well, he said: ‘You are right that the safety threshold is really, really extremely high because we have to maintain the reputations of all the vaccines, convince parents in all these countries that these shots are really there to help your child out. Anything that you do to healthy people is going to have a tougher standard than, say, a new cancer drug, where if you don’t have the new drug, the outcome is going to be quite negative.’
This tougher standard was soon forgotten. The Pfizer/BioNTech product was pushed into use by the UK Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Authority (MHRA) on December 2, 2020 using a ‘compassionate use’ mechanism called a Temporary Use Authorisation to bypass the European regulator during the last month that the UK was under European Union law. MHRA reviewed only a few hundred pages of summary data, not the full dossier.”
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/anatomy-of-the-sinister-covid-project/
Mogs, I’m going to be a pedant. These bioweapon injections aren’t a therapy – a therapy is a non-surgical intervention to treat a disease/disorder. They are gene modification injections. Calling them a therapy uses semantics to make them sound more benign.
BB
BB, I have said this many times – the gene modification injections were baked to a recipe and the finished article was intended to maim and kill.
Until somebody thoroughly disproves my theory it stands as far as I am concerned.
Yes I know they aren’t a therapy in the traditional sense of the word, and what we all understand a ”therapy” to be, but I’m just using one of many terminologies that people use to refer to them. Even in the above linked article the author refers to them as such;
“The mRNA gene therapies contain no viruses”
So I just use quite a variety of names for them really, much like everybody else does. And if even Dr Robert Malone is referring to them as such then, in this context of the word, I can hardly be described as being incorrect;
“These and the adenoviral vectors are absolutely gene therapy technology…”
https://rumble.com/v1zgr8k-is-this-a-vaccine-or-gene-therapy-dr.-robert-malone-answers.html
‘No, the real crime lay in extending vaccines to those who didn’t need them.’
True, and the majority of people make up this group, with a big majority of people within it who were not true believers but who were more or less softly coerced into having them.
They are now waking up and are the main target group for sceptics.
They could also become very, very angry very quickly, in contrast to the real cult members and priests.
But there are many other big crimes.
Chronologically:
Making the virus in the labs.
Letting it escape, accidentally or deliberately.
The PCR test scam.
The fear mongering and nudging, often with fake pictures and stories.
The lockdowns and related ones, including censorship and oppression of protests.
The sabotage of early treatment.
The reckless development and misclassification of the gene therapies.
The coercion into getting them, in particular of those who don’t need them and above all of the children!
My ranking would be:
If the virus was set free deliberately, that and it’s related production would be crime No1, and it would also most definitely be the biggest crime against humanity since the holocaust.
If not, I’d rank sabotage of treatment first, especially because of its ulterior motive, to get the EUAs for the GTs.
Arguably second would be the totally unnecessary injection of children, again especially so because of its ulterior and even heinous motive, to get liability protection for the officially approved versions instead of just for the EUA ones.
Let the prosecution begin.
Yes, but first let’s have a law change which (re)introduces capital punishment for those found guilty of crimes against humanity involving one or more death.
Nah – they’d find someone who watched Malhotra and later committed suicide, put two and two together that he was the cause, and execute him.
Bliar abolished the death penalty for treason.
I wonder why?
Sorry, what exactly is there to debate?
Either the jabs are causing harm or they are not. And that can be established through investigation, not though debate.
Plenty of investigation has taken place to show they do cause harm. And plenty more should be carried out.
We don’t need a debate we need the facts to be made.public rather than suppressed.
What a terribly quaint idea.
I suppose you think evidence trumps models – well, you won’t get a job in the media, PR or lobbying and I advise you to stay away from any tax payer funded job too!
Evidence? Models? Investigation?
Bah. Nah.
Lying is THE method of modern politics [and journalism] IMHO.
REASONS
Lying gets you elected more easily than truthfulness.
Lying trumps models.
Lying trumps evidence.
It eliminates the need for investigation.
It is quick.
It is efficient.
It costs very little.
The disadvantages are few – getting caught never matters.
How else did we all end up in Lock-downs?
Need some “science”? Make it up. No-one can tell the difference. And if they do, cancel them and cut off media access.
Its all very easy really.
And it will happen again and again – starting tomorrow if need be.
The whole thing works on the basis of “whilst you cannot fool all of the people all of the time, you can fool all of the people some of the time but most of the people all of the time – so those are the ones to concentrate on“.
It does not matter if 10% do not queue up meekly to get jabbed because the government caused such panic that it had 90% gagging to get stuck. And the 10% were shut up anyway.
And as Paul B points out, they don’t want to know and even if victims of the jabs, still don’t want to know it was the jabs.
Right, the bone of contention is how harmful? This is the pertinent question and what anyone in the $cientific field is refusing to investigate or even allow appropriate discourse. Malhotra’s bursting through was an anomaly not to be repeated I’d wager.
Surely the data, if analysed correctly is definitive but each are looking at it and deciding these warning signals, excess deaths and heart related issues are neither cause for concern or nothing to do with.. that thing (despite the obvious correlation in timing). They’re lying to us. We know they’re lying to us. They know we know that they’re lying to us. They know that we know that they’re knowingly lying, yet they’re still lying to us. Not sure what ultimately breaks the dam but mustn’t give up, keep at it folks – they’re obviously concerned over the fallout with this much lying.
This piece took a turn for the worse.
A way to get us out of lockdown? We never should have been in one!
Regardless, much like the general public I expect a producer had a name on a call sheet of a Dr who had previously been on to talk about statins/cardiology. The vast majority of the public have absolutely no idea what has gone on or don’t want to know.
The girl I know who can’t feel the outside of her leg shrugs when asked about it, the young mother who nearly died of a blood clot in the brain quickly changes the subject if I even hint at it.
It’s over, we lost, the “well the science has changed, we didn’t know at the time brigade” (liars and cheats the lot of them) have strung it out so long that the public consciousness has moved on.
I am inclined to agree with you. Nobody in my family apart from one niece will discuss the Scamdemic. My brother throws a deaf one and my sisters volubly shut down anything getting close to the subject. Friends and associates are the same.
It’s the jabs. There is no doubt. Everyone knows it, but they’re frightened of saying it because they’ve had the damn thing.
It’s only the unjabbed that can be fully open, we know that it won’t kill us directly.
“vaccination gave the elderly the confidence to emerge from behind their locked doors. We’d have been as well off giving everyone a saline shot rather than blowing billions on vaccines.”
No, we’d have been BETTER off giving everyone a saline shot, and even BETTER off giving nobody anything and telling the TRUTH about covid.
“It’s worth remembering that boosters haven’t been offered to the non-vulnerable under-50s for about 18 months, and since not even the manufacturers claim any ongoing efficacy for vaccines after about six months, then the only possible reason for not offering additional vaccine boosters to the under-50s is because it’s thought they’ll do more harm than good.”
It’s worth remembering that they are allowing these vaccines to be administered to CHILDREN knowing they do more harm than good, and that billions of young people got vaxxed so they could travel/work/not kill granny.
What the hell is going on with DS at the moment – seems to have turned into a vaccination apology site. Now’s the time to step up the pressure, not get all moderate and understanding.
I have yet to hear any kind of rationale put forth from the vax zealots ( and Offit, I’m looking at you! ) about why jabbing healthy kids ( zero risk of dying from Covid, per Prof Ioannidis ) was ever a thing. Anywhere.
Even at my age ( 40s ), with zero risk factors my IFR is virtually zilch. When people asked me why I didn’t get the jab I said because that’s what immune systems are for. If you have a functional immune system, which the vast majority of people do, then your efficacy is 100% with zero adverse side effects. So how the hell are TPTB psychopaths marketing a medical intervention and convincing individuals who aren’t at risk that their product can improve on 100% efficacy and zero adverse events? This is where the PsyOp proved absolutely essential because it’s just a complete nonsense what they’ve been purporting this whole time. And people are offering up their perfectly healthy, zero-risk babies and children for this toxic crud, based on a blatant lie?! I’m just incredulous at the utter gullibility and intense stupidity of the morons who unfortunately make up a significant portion of the public.
And speaking of morons, it would be remiss of me not to give an example of one such person. It would appear there is clearly no correlation between how intelligent one may be in a given area and how completely thick they are in another, but this is the reality of what we’re dealing with, as Dr Jen illustrates;
https://docbrown77.substack.com/p/i-will-never-regret-or-apologize
“And speaking of morons”
I saw that tweet elsewhere Mogs and seriously ‘lost for words’ doesn’t come close.
Medics? Lord save us.
Even at my age ( 40s ), with zero risk factors my IFR is virtually zilch.
IFR is an inherently problematic/ scammy metric: The number of infections is never really known, hence the infection fatality rate can only ever be estimated. It’s also not really a rate. It’s calculated by dividing an estimate of the number of deaths because of a disease (for COVID, a grossly nonsensical estimate as the actual cause of death of most so-called COVID dead is unknown) by an estimate of the number of infections. Both quantities are historical information. Using an example, let’s assume 2 out of a group of 50 infected died during some period of time in the past. This means the corresponding number would be 0.04 (or 4%). But this communicates that 4% of the people who belonged to this group of infected at that time succumbed to the disease for some unknown reason. It does not mean that 4% of the next group of 50 infected people will also succumb to the disease, ie, will also be vulnerable to this for an unknown reason.
This becomes especially true when this is associated with ages. Viruses can’t read numbers and know nothing about someone’s age. x% of the group of 40-year olds at time … where vulnerable to COVID and thus died doesn’t mean x% of all 40 year olds will be vulnerable to COVID and will thus die.
“Now’s the time to step up the pressure, not get all moderate and understanding.”
Exactly tof.
I am not convinced that Mr Rendell has got to grips with the Agenda 2030 brief that most of the Western world are working to.
A poor article.
As soon as TBTB agree to discuss vax injuries, then it is the brick that will cause the dam to fail. First Vax injuries, then vaxes, then the source of the virus, then the whole rest of the sorry tale. You pull one rat out of the hole and the rest of the rats come with it. They will fight it like fury, but eventually the drip, drip of truth will have to be reckoned with.
Let’s keep half an eye, Janus like, on what the criminal Gates/German supranational organisation the W.H.O. are planning. Spilt milk is spilt, irretrievably. Let’s keep looking forward and objecting to future idiocies/evil.
I am very sorry to hear of the author’s sister in law, but by using the phrase ‘she wanted to go on holiday’ he is wiping out months and months of political and societal pressure to get the vaccine. I well remember walking past headlines suggesting the unvaccinated should be in prison/banned from indoor events/banned from NHS treatment etc etc. My own mother said we couldn’t visit her as we hadn’t been vaccinated. A fellow dog walker suggested the unvaccinated should all be shot (!!)
We mustn’t render that unacceptable and inhumane pressure invisible.
My guess would be that the BBC will store this in their ‘things to throw at the Tories in the leadup to the next election’ cupboard.
The BBC is a government propoganda unit, it does whatever it is instructed to do by the government of the day.
The BBC government bashing? Only if they have been so instructed.
Some say that the public have moved on and or simply want to forget about covid and the jabs.
That would be the case if the damage from the jabs was over. But it’s not, CVS problems are only the start.
The average sheep may want to move on – which is easy to do when nobody near and dear to you dies “unexpectedly”, or has a stroke or other serious illness.
But the problem for them is that it will only be a matter of time before someone close to them does suffer, and then they too may well ask questions.
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one”.. – Charles MacKay/Joel Smalley.
Check out Malhotra’s Twitter here. Doctors have been calling into question his fitness to practice but the GMC is defending him, so no investigation will commence. Win!
And another Prof of cardiology speaks out against these clot shots. Win X2.
https://twitter.com/DrAseemMalhotra
Its obsessive focus on Net Zero and intersectionality.
That’s doing the BBC an injustice if the implication is they are not also obsessively focused on the other Woke causes, on stories of murder and rape allegations and on whitewashing the vaccines. It’s about as unsavoury as the Tavistock.
I don’t if it’s possible, but could the family of Nick Rendell’s sister-in-law seek a second opinion of the autopsy by someone like Dr Clare Craig, Dr Ryan Cole or Dr Aseem Malhotra himself?
It depends on whether there is any tissue samples which haven’t been subjected to any reagents which can be analysed for any further tests. Otherwise all that can be done is an assessment of the post mortem report.
Without access to the source material ie the cadaver new tests aren’t going to be run.
“And though the talk was always in hushed voices, word of mouth is a powerful medium” – this, I believe, is massively understood. An integral goal of lockdown was to stunt face to face communication. They know that digital communication can be controlled and can steer
misunderstood. Wasn’t meant to be posted. Page oddly refreshed while writing post, and thought it had been lost. An attempt to explain my incompetence!
There’s so much that could be said here, but I’ll stick with the one I think is the most important: it goes without saying that what Malhotra has done to raise awareness is powerful stuff. However, if he’d done his f*in job in the first place we’d not be where we are now. Listen to the recent Malhotra Weinstein podcast. Malhotra asserts that if you (us) initially made the decision to not have the vaccine that you were ‘irrational’. He claims this on the basis that there was no good evidence at the time that should stop you from being injected. Injected with an experimental product with virtually no safety data, against a virus that only a few were vulnerable to. He is basically saying that you should jump off a ledge as long as someone has told you the drop is not to far; don’t look yourself, just trust others to look for you. Trust government, trust ‘experts’, trust the BBC. Trust authority. This is why I think this is the most important point: these people are the same people that were complicit in the whole debacle. And although their coats may change, they most certainly do not.
The most important thing is that Aseem Malhotra is doing everything he can to get the experimental vaccines stopped and to publicise their harms. He’s taking great personal risks in doing this and getting the information out there, and there wouldn’t be many capable of standing up to the challenge of doing this. And he’s stood up against big pharma before in relation to statins, again at huge risk to himself.
Of course he got it wrong initially and of course we are thinking how could he not have seen it at the beginning, but that’s not the most important point.
I have nothing but admiration for Aseem Malhotra.
100%. If people only look retrospectively and dwell on why soandso didn’t see what was happening in the early days then it doesn’t really serve us now. In my opinion it’s the present and the future which are most important and the more high profile people with influence we have on our side the better. Andrew Bridgen was another one who was wholly supportive of the jabs at the beginning but personally I am OK with allowing people to wake up and ‘red-pill’ at their own pace, just so long as they do. We need more Malhotras and Bridgens in the public eye, especially if they were fully on board with the narrative to begin with. It shows people that, yes, you too can change stance because once we were like you. People need to be shown that it’s OK to admit you were duped, get over it then fight on the right side hence forth.
You have completely missed my point. There is nothing that you say that I disagree with. The point I was trying to make was about peoples innate character, and while we should be grateful of these people we should also be guarded.
Happy New Year btw. I wish you all the best.
Interested in the downvotes, If you disagree, which a thumbs down obviously indicates, please explain why. From there we can discuss.
I feel like publishing my (in my opinion perfectly rational) reason for not getting vaccinated against COVID here: I don’t want to tell my employer that I’ll need to take a day off to queue at a vaccination center in order to get an injection supposed to protect from a disease I’ve – in all likeliness – long had and survived.
Dr Robert Malone and Steve Kirsch also initially made the same decision as Dr Malhotra.
And possibly Mark Steyn too, judging by how he was allowed to travel to and from the United States and/or Canada.
Fancy taking any notice of a Consultant Cardiologist when our own Matt Hancock says that the vaccine is safe.
An interesting take that giving the jabs to the whole population gave old people the confidence to go out.
Thank goodness they stopped you getting it and passing it on and, above all, were know not to be harmful!
vaccination gave the elderly the confidence to emerge from behind their locked doors.
Insofar the elderly where hiding behind locked doors, this was because of the relentless government COVID terror campaign. The reality is – as all mainly respiratory diseases – pneumonia is a rare complication of COVID and in rare cases (the NHS recommends rest and drink lots of fluids against pneumonia), this may lead to hospitalization and in even rarer cases, may prove to be beyond treatment and thus, lead to death, especially of people who are already at death’s door. Nobody ever needed a vaccine against that, especially not a vaccine which doesn’t work.
What should have been done was to recommend appropriate levels of vitamin D as a prophylactic, with the faster-acting vitamin D metabolites calcifediol or calcitriol for use in hospitalised patients. That alone would have got rid of 90%+ of the deaths, it would have been bye bye pandemic. Safe and very effective. Despite the very high effect sizes that were seen in trials, NICE always wanted better trials, which was utterly unethical.
Yep. You might have noticed that there is plenty of high strength Vitamin D on sale in the well known supermarkets. I’m one of the customers for it, and have been over the last couple of years.
“TV production companies lining up a debate somewhere and just looking for a TV broadcaster to commission it”. Perhaps those who are interested in it will have a chat with GBN; you never know, it could increase their revenue from advertisers, beyond those selling cremation services, equity release etc!
The Guardian, Britain’s equivalent of Tass!
It is unfortunate that many of the presenters and panelists on GB News seem to be in complete denial and ignorance of the severe harms that people have suffered. They think that the jabs have worked because they haven’t been affected. Well, I have kept clear of the jabs and, at the age of 76, am absolutely fine having never caught the Covid. Work that one out!
And Talk TV
Some of them are, but not all – e,g. Mark Steyn. Part of the problem is that they are watching their backs against Ofcom, although it’s quite hilarious as to how Fox reads out the script to comply with it all on his show!
“We call it a Covax death” – I don’t know what’s more scary – that it happens, or that it happens so often that we have a name for it.
Actually, it’s neither – it’s that no-one wants to talk about it.
“It seems incredible that the BBC and, by association, the Government, think they can just bury the story”.
Umm… I seem to remember going on various marches (re Lockdown, mandatory vaccines and vaccine passports etc and still do) over the last 2/3 years don’t remember anything being reported by the BBC (or indeed any MSM). They’ve buried quite a lot over this scamdemic so I for one don’t find it incredible at all. They are dishonest scumbags. Period.
OFCOM will not permit a free and fair debate. There are too many powerful people who require protection. “Our” MPs, with one or two exceptions, are adopting the position of the Three Monkeys.
In my “suspicious corner” are:
Three (admittedly elderly) people living in my Close who all had strokes post their first and second jabs. One died after the second jab, the other two are in a bad way.
Another younger person in the Close who developed vision problems after the second jab, which the medics don’t seem to be able to do anything about. She has noticeably aged.
A middle-aged work colleague who got a pulmonary embolism shortly after her 2nd jab. She’s recently been hospitalised for 10 days with pneumonia, post 4th jab and the ‘flu jab.
Three acquaintances who have developed aggressive, terminal cancers, in the past 18 months, post jabs. One has already died.
A friend’s husband, late 50s, very slim and fit, who has now had two serious heart attacks, post 2 x AZ and 1 Pfizer jab.
Excellent article, Nick. More please.