I am not questioning your honesty AK, and I am not qualified to comment on whether Morner's observations can be interpreted as he claims.

But some who are so qualified have taken a look, and they basically say .... Nah.

Morrner et al. (2004) claim that their observational data sheds new light on the present to subrecent sea level changes as expressed in Fig. 3. For instance, in Fig. 3A, it is claimed that a sub recent level of 1.2 m above MSL on Hulhudhoo Island indicates a higher sea level of +0.3 m. Our evidence from repeat surveys of seven profiles on Hulhudhoo in 2002 and 2003 demonstrate that the sub recent level falls within the dynamic range of the contemporary erosion and accretion zone. Therefore we reject the notion that the sub recent level represents a sea level +0.3 m higher than present.

Our evidence also suggests that the 1.45-m island surface level also falls within this level of contemporary morphodynamic change and does not represent a +0.6 m higher sea level. Beach rock positioned at 0.4–0.5 m above MSL is also used by Morrner et al. (2004) to infer sea level change. Using beach rock as a palaeo sea-level indicator has been widely discussed and used in a number of studies (e.g. Scoffin, 1977; Scoffin and McLean, 1978; Hopley, 1982). These studies show that contemporary beach rock can form well above mean sea level and as identified by Hopley (1982) can exceed mean high water spring tide level by several centimeters.

For the Maldives, beach rock at +0.4–0.5 m places it in the intertidal range. Our data from 12 traverses surveyed across contemporary beach rock exposures on Goidhoo atoll in 1995/1996 show an elevation range of 1.2 m from
0.4 to +0.8 m above MSL. Consequently, the elevations of beach rock reported by Morner et al. (2004) lie within the range of contemporary beach rock and cannot be used as an indicator of a higher sea level. In summary, we reject both the beach rock and morphological evidence for a significant sea level fall over the past 30 years. We conclude that the sea level history and data presented by Morner et al. (2004) is less than compelling and can be readily explained via an understanding of contemporary coastal processes.

http://www.ask-force.org/web/Global-Warming/Kench-Comment-New-Perspectives-Moerner-2005.pdf

See also Philip Woodworth's rebuttal.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818105000780

Aug 25, 2019 at 10:21 AM | Phil Clarke

If you quote it, then Nah!

Where is the actual, physical and observable evidence to counter what people can see with their own eyes?

For scientific assessment:

https://judithcurry.com/2019/08/22/climate-change-whats-the-worst-case/#more-25104

Curry writes:
"However, one of my clients wants me to publish more journal articles. This client particularly encouraged me to publish something related to my Special Report on Sea Level and Climate Change. I submitted a shorter version of this paper, in a more academic style, for publication in a climate journal. It was rejected. Here is my ‘favorite’ comment from one of the reviewers:

“Overall, there is the danger that the paper is used by unscrupulous people to create confusion or to discredit climate or sea-level science. Hence, I suggest that the author reconsiders the essence of its contribution to the scientific debate on climate and sea-level science.”

https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/27/special-report-on-sea-level-rise/

When the rate of sea level rise even begins to decelerate, then we will have already started the descent into the social maelstrom of re-glaciation.

The climatically ignorant Once Upon an Obama called for the halt of the rise of the oceans, but he was just pandering to the Daemons of Superstition raising the call of climate alarm, and manipulating the populace with fear and guilt.

Phil belongs to a grand tradition of such charlatans, most of whom have been religious; Gore is the godfather of many recent adepts.
==============

Heh, maybe Obama is dumb enough to think Martha's Vineyard can be raised on stilts. More likely he's just a hypocrite about sea level rise and thinks the mass of people are even more ignorant than is he. Yep, but I would guess they are not more manipulable than he.
=================================================

kim, I think too many have underestimated the numbers of polar bears in the sea, and standing on the floating sea ice, that neither Hilary nor Obama ever saw, because taxpayer funded experts always took them to places where there was nothing but sea to see.

https://polarbearscience.com/2019/03/26/latest-global-polar-bear-abundance-best-guess-estimate-is-39000-26000-58000/

"There have been some wildly untruthful claims about the recent dismissal of libel litigation against Tim Ball circulating on social media. Here is our statement:

The defendant Ball did not “win” the case. The Court did not find that any of Ball’s defenses were valid. The Court did not find that any of my claims were *not* valid.

The dismissal involved the alleged exercise of a discretion on the Court to dismiss a lawsuit for delay. I have an absolute right of appeal. My lawyers will be reviewing the judgment and we will make a decision within 30 days.

The provision in the Court’s order relating to costs does NOT mean that I will pay Ball’s legal fees.

This ruling absolutely does not involve any finding that Ball’s allegations were correct in fact or amounted to legitimate comment. In making his application based on delay, Ball effectively told the world he did not want a verdict on the real issues in the lawsuit."

Phil, I still need to see a transcript or more information about Mann having had his case thrown out, but if (as seems to be the case) he has still not made disclosure (discovery, as it used to be called here and still is in some legal systems) then his defeat is definitely NOT on a legal technicality. IF the situation is as it seems to be, then it would suggest that despite having had 18 months to produce the evidence in support of the claim that Ball libelled him, evidence surely relating to the validity of his scientific work relating to the hockey stick, then despite having lawyers to assist him, he has failed to do so. Why? Who on earth brings a libel claim because they say their integrity with regard to their scientific work has been impugned, but 8 years after starting the litigation are unable to back up their claim by producing the workings to support it?

It IS true that having a case thrown out for delay is not the same as a formal ruling ruling on the issues. It IS true that the Court has NOT ruled on the evidence or the rights and wrongs of the cases put forward by both sides. But this?

"This ruling absolutely does not involve any finding that Ball’s allegations were correct in fact or amounted to legitimate comment. In making his application based on delay, Ball effectively told the world he did not want a verdict on the real issues in the lawsuit."

Talk about spinning a bad job! In making his application based on delay, Ball told the world he was fed up of the process and the cost and wanted to be free from a vexatious litigant who sued him, but who 8 years later still hadn't produced his evidence. It seems that in failing, over 8 years, to adduce any evidence in support of his claim, it was Mann who effectively told the world he did not want a verdict on the real issues in the lawsuit.

How's that other case going - the one against Steyn et al? Any sign of any evidence from your hero there, either? Any sign of a trial date? How many years now?

"The provision in the Court’s order relating to costs does NOT mean that I will pay Ball’s legal fees."

Well, if he doesn't successfully appeal (and after all this delay it's difficult to see what grounds he could possibly have for a successful appeal) and then doesn't pay the costs as ordered, he might find himself in contempt of Court.

Aug 27, 2019 at 7:14 PM | Mark Hodgson

Climate Science has yet to reveal any details of how CO2 was found guilty. They have obstructed all attempts to lodge an Appeal, and still demand more money from Taxpayers to collect carefully selected cicumstantial evidence, that doesn't prove anything at all.

"But I daresay the Science paper will generate some suitably alarming headlines ahead of the New York climate confab next month, and that may well be all the authors hope and intend for this piece of work.
Aug 29, 2019 at 3:51 PM | John Shade"

That is what they are paid for. I wonder if they have thought about the Managed Retreat from Climate Alarmism if there is no money floating about?

Sep 6, 2019 at 3:15 PM | John Shade

As no climate catastrophes have happened to match Hockey Teamster predictions, politicians are having to plan economic catastrophes instead. US Democrats have turned the Stupidity Level to Maximum (+1) and have nudged ahead of the EU. Unfortunately, the EU are in power, unelected, and unsackable.

The importance placed on tackling climate change by the public has rapidly jumped, following high profile campaigns, and the vast majority of people say that they are willing to make sacrifices in their own lifestyles to stop global warming.

• The Environment has become the third most issue in the minds of voters after Brexit and the health service. Ranked as one of their top issues by 27% of voters, this put concern for the environment above the economy, crime and education. This was a sharp jump from even last summer, when the Environment ranked as the seventh most important issue at just 17%.

• 79% of people agree with the statement that “We must all be prepared to make some sacrifices to our lifestyles in order to stop global warming”. Only 6% disagreed.

• 59% of respondents supported the statement that “Protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of curbing economic growth”, with just 13% opposing it.

Winning

Back from your hols? Fresh with misleading stats, as per usual.

Don't blame me! Blame YouGov.

polling was conducted by YouGov plc using an
online interview administered members of the
YouGov Plc GB panel of 185,000+ individuals who
have agreed to take part in surveys. All figures,
unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc.
Total sample size was 6,118 adults. Fieldwork was
undertaken between 26th April - 1st May 2019.
The survey was carried out online. The figures
have been weighted and are representative of all
GB adults (aged 18+).

Morton's Demon is strong with this one.

Perhaps you shouldn't have reminded us about Morton's demon, it draws attention to your own culpabilities. There is much evidence out there, to which you shut your mind.

Sep 19, 2019 at 12:54 PM | Phil Clarke

Still no science to back up the media hype.

US Democrats are now infighting over St Greta as Mann avoids Court and producing evidence.

Losing.

If Conservatives and Labour are realising that Climate Science is a Vote loser, and more than 50% of US Democrats realise that Trump is right, it will only be the rump of the EU that has to pay for the rest of the world's decarbonisation projects.

https://order-order.com/2019/08/16/labour-quietly-drop-climate-change-target/

Courtesy of Mark Steyn's website, here is the Court's decision to dismiss Mann's litigation against Ball. It doesn't deal with the issues in the case, goes nowhere near the scientific evidence, and doesn't say that Mann was in breach of any order to file evidence. Nevertheless it's pretty damning of Mann's delays, and IMO reflects very badly on him. Read for yourselves, and make your own minds up (good luck, Phil, in trying to make your hero come out of it smelling of roses):

https://www.steynonline.com/documents/9740.pdf

"Additionally, based upon the evidence filed, the plaintiff and his counsel appear to have attended to other matters, both legal matters and professional matters in the case of the plaintiff, rather than give this matter any priority. The plaintiff appears to have been content to simply let this matter languish."

Tut tut indeed.

Sep 19, 2019 at 9:18 PM | Mark Hodgson

So a Judge has ruled that Michael Mann, (the notorious Hockey Stick fabricator) has failed to produce evidence to support his claims, and benefits from wasting other people's time and money.

No wonder the IPCC have disassociated themselves from Hockey Teamsters and have switched to a new Swedish model, too innocent to sue, as The Guardian's coverage of Climate Science now demonstrates.

 Mann avoids Court and producing evidence.

I fear that's a little counterfactual; in the Steyn case at least one source of delay was Steyn making a counterclaim that Dr Mann's case was frivolous, malicious and vexatious.

The BC Superior Court dismissed Steyn's claim with prejudice noting that the case is far from frivolous and also the Court of Appeals has already ruled that a reasonable jury is likely to find in favour of Dr Mann.

An inconvenient truth to kick off Climate Strike Day :-)

https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/photos/a.221233134599563/2520349621354558/?type=3&theater

"Mann avoids Court and producing evidence.
I fear that's a little counterfactual;
Sep 20, 2019 at 9:00 AM | Phil Clarke"

More lies and dishonesty from Hockey Teamsters. Mann does avoid Court, producing evidence, AND giving evidence in Court.

Steyn words it
https://www.steynonline.com/9742/michael-e-mann-loser
"Which is to say it's over and Mann lost. Whatever the floundering Fraudpants regards in the fevers of his brain as "the real issues", this judgment is binding on them as it is on all other aspects of his complaint: The Court has found that Mann's inexcusable behavior prejudiced the defendant, and therefore the case is dismissed. As a point of law, that is a dismissal on the merits: Whatever his "real issues" with Ball, they're over and done, forever. Tim Ball can declare that Mann belongs in the state pen every day of the week for the next thirty years - because that vital legal question has been adjudicated, and Mann blew it. I'm not surprised none of his lawyers, Canadian or American, want to put their names to Mann's tosspottery above - because you'd get disbarred if you argued as insanely as this before a judge."