Climate change lies: Sea level rising edition

Climate alarmists admit that the oceans have been rising since long before the industrial revolution but they say that since CO2 in the atmosphere has increased due to human activity the rate of increase has increased.

But that's not what the data shows.  Here's a plot from a NASA paper written by famous climate alarmist Dr. Hansen

What's interesting is the red line. That's what NASA published in 2019 using the same data that Hansen used in 1982.

Somehow mysteriously in 1982 sea level rise had been near to zero between 1955 and 1980 suddenly became large; although consistent with the rate from 1880 to 1955 or so.

When you see something like this you should immediately distrust the results.  Getting significantly different results without new measurements means that either the scientists were wrong the first time or they're wrong now.

Given that back in 1982 scientists wouldn't get a pile of money if they proclaimed that the earth is doomed unless we turn over our money and freedom to the government whereas in 2019 they do we have more reason to distrust the 2019 analysis than the 1982 analysis.

Further here's a plot of sea level over thousands of years.  Clearly any human impact is tiny compared to what nature has done in the past.

It's clear that any man made impact is small and hence it would be very hard to prove that any of the modern sea level increase is due to human activity. This is especially true when one looks at long term data taken by sea based sensors.

This plot shows the average sea level vs time for a site in Florida.

Here's one for New York City:

Climate alarmists agree that humanity didn't have any significant impact on global CO2 back before the 1940s so these plots clearly show that there is no indication of a significant increase in the rate at which the ocean is rising after we supposedly destroyed the environment.

Why are climate alarmists lying? Because it's not about climate but about power and money. Here's what Ottmar Edenhofer, an official in the IPCC group that issues periodic climate scare reports, said in an interview :

NZZ: The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal[A predecessor to the Green New Deal which AOCs chief of staff said was about remaking the economy not dealing with the climate]is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

Edenhofer: That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.[The purpose isn't to reduce emissions but to send lots of American money to other countries]

NZZ: That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

Edenhofer: Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet—and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400—there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.[Once again it's about, as Ilhan Omar would say, the Benjamins]

NZZ: De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

Edenhofer: First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.[So he admits that the objective is redistributing wealth, with UN officials like him getting a taste, not about avoiding global catastrophe]

That's why they will lie or spin the truth; us falling for the climate catastrophe scam would mean untold wealth--our money--for the scientists and politicians.

Also note how the climate scam is being used to justify Democrat politicians telling us how we can and should live. Democrat politicians say that we should kill all the cows, give up our cars, and stop flying because if we don't the world will end.

All the more reason to spin the data so as to ensure that people are afraid.