I’ll let you do it but quite awhile ago, when realclimate was born, they mentioned EMS and Fenton and the hairs on the back of my neck stood up. I was always wary…

“…Those who favour individualism over egalitarianism are more likely to reject evidence of climate change and calls to restrict emissions. And the messenger matters perhaps just as much as the message. People have more trust in experts — and scientists — when they sense that the speaker shares their values. The climate-research community would thus do well to use a diverse set of voices, from different backgrounds, when communicating with policy-makers and the public. And scientists should be careful not to disparage those on the other side of a debate: a respectful tone makes it easier for people to change their minds if they share something in common with that other side.”

They could follow their own advice, sheesh.

“…As comforting as it may be to think that the best evidence will eventually convince the public on its own, climate scientists can no longer afford to make that naive assumption: people consider many factors beyond facts when making decisions. Even as climate science advances, it will be just as important to invest in research on how best to communicate environmental risks. Otherwise scientific knowledge will not have the role that it should in the shaping of public policy.”

They don’t need to invest in research. Just get those top PR firms involved. They’ve done the research and have the experience. Hmmm, maybe one of those firms wrote the editorial, part of the Nature damage-control project. Just a thought.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/463269a.html

I find this line from the editorial particularly galling:

“The small coterie of individuals who deny humanity’s influence on climate will try to use any perceived flaw in the evidence to discredit the entire picture. ”

The person who wrote this obviously has no clue how science actually works. In fact, it is usually the ‘percieved flaws’ that are responsible for questioning current models. Doubt and uncertainties are what leads to progress. Without them, we get idiots saying things like ‘The science is settled’. Science is never settled!

Nature is fast losing credibility, at least in my eyes.

> >Peter Lemke wrote:
> >>Dear Colleagues,
> >>please find enclosed a ppt-file addressing issues of Chapter 4.
> >>Slide 1: addresses SPM-312 and 314. I suggest to accept 312. The
> >>figure (4.15 from the chapter) indicates an increased rate of
> >>change after about 1990. But I do not think that we have an
> >>indication of an acceleration (continuously increasing rate of
> >>change).

The headline Colorado number 3.3 mm/yr
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

The Colorado/NOAA AGU Jason calibation number 2.6 mm/yr
http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/~leuliett/presentations/agu_2002f.pdf
(last page)

University of Nottingham theses 1.0 mm/yr
Very comprehensive GPS Calibrated Tidal Gage system in England
(last page)
http://etheses.nottingham.ac.uk/27/

The big picture
sea Level over the past 10,000 years
http://books.google.com/books?id=yt0eAYwqn-QC&printsec=frontcover&dq=sea+level+holocene&cd=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false
go to page 2

Willis 2008 agu paper

Now 1.25 mm/yr
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2008/11414/EGU2008-A-11414-1.pdf?PHPSESSID=ff496b94e85dbd60ba8faa82b4ceed9e