This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Sea level is not rising
Professor Nils-Axel Mörner
Copyright © Nils-Axel Mörner MMXI
Nils-Axel Mörner took his Ph.D. in 1969, becoming associate professor in Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University that year. He conducted his postdoctoral research in Canada and was then employed by the Swedish Research Council. He was awarded a personal associate professorship at the Institute for Palaeogeophysics & Geodynamics, which from 1991 became a special research institute at Stockholm University. As head of the unit, he addressed a variety of geological and geophysical problems. He organized two major international conferences: Earth Rheology, Isostasy and Eustasy in 1977, and Climatic Changes on a Yearly to Millennial Basis in 1983. Professor Mörner has led several international field excursions throughout Sweden. Overseas, he was President of the INQUA Commission on Neotectonics (1981-1989) and President of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999-2003). He headed the INTAS Project on Geomagnetism and Climate from 1997-2003. In 2000, he launched an international research project on sea level in the Maldives. Among his numerous publications (this paper is his 547th in a 42-year career) are studies on the following –
the interaction between isostasy and eustasy;
the oscillating regional eustatic curve of NW Europe;
the changing concept of the geoid; the redefinition of the concept of eustasy;
the dynamic-rotational redistribution of oceanic water masses; the interchange of angular momentum between the Earth’s hydrosphere and lithosphere;
a new sea-level curve in the Maldives (showing no sea-level rise);
a new sea-level study in the Sundarban delta of Bangladesh.
In 2008, at an international meeting on sea level in Portugal, Professor Mörner was awarded the Golden Chondrite of Merit from the University of the Algarve “for his irreverence and his contribution to our understanding of sea-level change”.
Sea level is not rising
Professor Nils-Axel Mörner
At most, global average sea level is rising at a rate equivalent to 2-3 inches per
century. It is probably not rising at all.
Sea level is measured both by tide gauges and, since 1992, by satellite
altimetry. One of the keepers of the satellite record told Professor Mörner that the record had been interfered with to show sea level rising, because the raw data from the satellites showed no increase in global sea level at all. from 1993-2000, shows a slight uptrend in sea level. However, after exclusion of the distorting effects of the Great El Niño Southern Oscillation of 1997/1998, a naturally-occurring event, the sea-level trend is zero.
The raw data from the TOPEX/POSEIDON sea-level satellites, which operated
The GRACE gravitational-anomaly satellites are able to measure ocean mass, from which sea-level change can be directly calculated. The GRACE data show
that sea level fell slightly from 2002-2007.
These two distinct satellite systems, using very different measurement
methods, produced raw data reaching identical conclusions: sea level is barely rising, if at all.
Sea level is not rising at all in the Maldives, the Laccadives, Tuvalu, India,
Bangladesh, French Guyana, Venice, Cuxhaven, Korsør, Saint Paul Island, Qatar, etc.
Since sea level is not rising. the chief ground of concern at the potential effects of anthropogenic “global warming” – that millions of shore-dwellers the world over may be displaced as the oceans expand – is baseless. unethical “sea-level-gate”. . a group of Australian environmental scientists uprooted a 50- year-old tree by the shoreline. The true facts are to be found in nature itself. aiming to conceal the fact that its location indicated that sea level had not been rising. We are facing a very grave. Modelling is not a suitable method of determining global sea-level changes. since a proper evaluation depends upon detailed research in multiple locations with widely-differing characteristics. In the Maldives. This is a further indication of political tampering with scientific evidence about sea level.
The sea-level scare is the big one: and. Most of these do not subscribe to the Doomsters’ Union. Above all. Professor Mörner is in the latter category. Professor Mörner alone took the trouble to climb up and down 100 feet to calibrate his GPS altimeter accurately. fuel prices and energy bills that the European Union and its satraps in the Department of Climate Change are ruthlessly imposing. He has caught out Australian environmentalists uprooting a tree on the Maldivian shoreline whose location had demonstrated no sea level rise for half a century. He found that sea level in Bangladesh had fallen somewhat. proclaiming – that they had tilted the sea-level record for the entire satellite era to make it show a rate of increase.Foreword By The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley I T IS with particular pleasure that I commend to the reader this revised and updated version of Professor Niklas Mörner’s recent paper on sea level. On the one hand lurk the computer modellers. The implications of this fabricated scare for the future of democracy are already evident in the hikes in taxes. and a baseless one. As King Charles I said on the scaffold. He has clambered over the glaciers that others merely model. “Liberty and freedom consists in having of government those laws by which the people’s life and goods may be most their own. On the other stand the scientists old-fashioned enough and careful enough to observe. as the Professor demonstrates in this admirably clear. who. if there is little or no sea-level rise there is little or nothing to worry about even if the world warms as fast as the profiteers of doom would have us believe. for the raw data from the satellites show no sea-level rise at all. On a recent visit to Bangladesh with others who called themselves experts.” . it is just that – a big scare. concise and yet comprehensive paper. relying upon their X-Box 360s and Playstations. there are two schools of thought. as this revealing paper shows. As Professor Mörner often points out in his lectures. originally published in 21st-Century Science and Technology. In the dialogue des sourds about the climate. the Professor has heard the keepers of the global satellite altimetry record of sea-level rise admitting – nay. to measure and then to think. luridly and profitably predict anthropogenic apocalypse.
It was not difficult to see why the citation for the award to him of the Gold Chondrite of Merit the previous year at an international sea-level conference at the University of the Algarve had spoken not only of his “contribution to understanding of sea level” but also of his “irreverence”. the Professor concludes. his recent publication record would be envied by a younger man. Professor Mörner has been as good as his word: as the extensive references in this paper show. Andrews University Union was the first student audience in Britain to vote “global warming” down. “The true facts”. if at all. eclectic and relentlessly charming speech captivated the House. When a true-believer in the New Religion of “global warming” got up and sneeringly advised the Professor to see if he could get his ideas about sea level published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. hard way – by going out into the field and taking careful observations and measurements – and the mere silly computer games of the modellers. I do apologize that in a 40-year career I have only published 530 papers [now 547] in the peer-reviewed literature. most of them about sea level. I first met Professor Mörner at a debate on the climate at the St. without which there would be no “global warming” panic pandemic. his answer won us the debate: “Madame President.Predatory pricing mandated by the State. It demonstrates the growing disparity between results obtained the old. The Professor’s witty.” The House collapsed in helpless laughter. “are to be found in nature itself. The undergraduates loved it. but in the light of the Hon. and the St. When the climate scare is over – and it is already well on its way out – the Professor will be remembered as one of a tiny handful of scientists who had the courage. integrity and independence of mind to stand against the prevailing political tide and to demonstrate that the real tide is not rising dangerously. Professor Mörner writes as charmingly and as accessibly as he speaks. Gentleman’s strictures I will undertake to try harder in future. combined with confiscatory taxation. His paper demands no prior scientific knowledge. conspire to take away the people’s goods. and hence to diminish their economic democracy – their right to decide for themselves how to spend what is theirs. Andrews University Union – the oldest undergraduate debating union in Britain – in the spring of 2009.” .
Rannoch. Scotland February 2011 .Carie.
2007b. This paper will highlight the differences and examine the question what data we should trust and what we should discard. In Mörner. Figure 1. Fig. our field observational database from the Maldive Islands was described in detail. Also. New data with respect to general sea level changes were published in a further paper (Mörner. 2010a). Here I will investigate the rates of sea level changes projected by the IPCC and others. If sea level is not rising at a high rate. After 1965. In subsequent papers. the two curves start to diverge. Yet a rapid and perhaps dangerous sea-level rise is the main threat in the scenario offered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I continued to present new data demonstrating that sea level is stable. I showed that global sea level is not rising alarmingly. A new study in Bangladesh was published in 2010 (Mörner. presenting two totally different views. there is no serious threat and no real problem.Introduction I N an interview and paper published in 21st Century Science and Technology in 2007. Modelled and observed sea-level changes. After 1965. the two curves start to diverge significantly (the area marked with a question mark). The curve marked “Models” represents the IPCC’s combination of selected tide-gauge records and corrected satellite altimetry data. separated by the area with the question mark. 2007c) was updated in new editions in 2009 and 2010. Which of these views is tenable? . 1840-2010. 1 illustrates the differences between the IPCC models and the observational facts. The curve marked “Observations” represents the observed eustatic sea level changes in the field up to 1960 according to Mörner (1973) and (in this paper) thereafter. my short sea-level booklet The Greatest Lie Ever Told (Mörner. 2010b).
Tuvalu. according to observational facts from a number of key sites all over the world. 2007abc.Fig. and will soon swamp these island nations and wipe them off the surface of the globe (or rather ocean). 2 shows the spectrum of present-day sea level estimates. it has been claimed that sea level is rapidly rising. where sea level has remained stable for the last 40-50 years (Mörner 2010a). 2009). Bangladesh is a nation cursed by disasters—heavy precipitation in the Himalayas and coastal cyclones. 1 by undertaking a critical examination of the rates given in Fig. All these are key sites in the sea level debate. Vanuatu. according to calibrated satellite altimetry. In an open letter to the President of the Maldives (Mörner.0 mm yr–1. The projected rates of sea-level rise range from 0. and French Guyana (Mörner. not all these rates are correct. however. where the IPCC and its ideological associates have predicted terrible flooding. Observation and measurement in the field Clear observational measurements in the field indicate that sea level is not rising in the Maldives. The erroneously-inferred sea-level rise is the basis for wild claims that tens to hundreds of thousands of people may be drowned and “millions of individuals will be displaced from their homes over the course of the century due to sea-level rise” . Obviously. The reality is different from what the IPCC claims. As if this were not bad enough. This claim has been discredited by my study in the Sundarban area. The spectrum of proposed rates of present-day sea level changes ranges from 0.2 mm yr–1. No reply has come. I will try to straighten out the question mark in Fig. The IPCC group and the Presidents of the Maldives and Tuvalu continue to claim that the flooding is in progress.2 mm per year. Figure 2: Projected and observed rates of sea-level change (mm yr–1). 2. Bangladesh. I addressed the divergence between his claim and our field observations. to 3.0 to 3. 2010ab).
a trend totally different from that proposed by the IPCC models but in full agreement with the observational facts recorded in Fig. satellite altimetry gives a sea level rise of 3. and it shows a halt in the sea-level rise at around 1960. Subtracting the subsidence factor. From the coasts of French Guyana and Surinam there is a very excellent sea-level record covering multiple 18. . Figure 3.” With surprise. Ethics and International Affairs. The north-west European coasts are interesting because here we have sites that are experiencing both uplift and subsidence. it shows a sea level falling around 1970 (Mörner. no acceleration whatsoever in the last decades. A polynomial curve was fitted by Jörn Herold to this tide-gauge record. 1. for 160 years. for example.. The eustatic component (the difference between the polynomial curve and the linear trend) can now be extended up to 2003. the Venetian record reveals no rise of eustatic origin. gives a straight line of subsidence with a rate of 1. refuses to print a comment from me “that focuses on empirical data.0 mm/year. followed by a continuous fall until 2003. The tide gauge at Korsør in the Great Belt (the strait between the main Danish islands of Zeeland and Funen).6-year tidal cycles (Gratiot et al. instead. Adding the eustatic component of Mörner (1973) for the period 1840-1970. 1843-2003. Murphy. This casts clear doubt on the satellite altimetry value. The gray area gives the actual tide-gauge reading for the German North Sea port of Cuxhaven for 1843-2003—that is. 2010b. as discussed further below. Yet the tide-gauge data provide clear indications of stability over the last 30 years (Mörner. the tide gauge indicates a stable sea level over the last 14 years (Mörner. we must ask: What is the meaning of raising moral concerns. The sea-level record from Venice may be used as a test area for global eustasy.(Byravana and Raja 2010). 2010b). It exhibits variations around a stable zero level over the last 50 years (Mörner.000 years. This tide gauge shows no sea-level rise in the last 50-60 years. Cuxhaven tide-gauge record (cm). that is.4 mm/year. 2007c). 2008). In Vanuatu. 2007). For the same area. 2007ac. This is a serious exaggeration: yet the journal that published it. is located at the hinge between uplift and subsidence for the last 8. if the entire empirical basis for those concerns is absent? The President of Tuvalu continues to claim that his islands are being flooded. 2007ac).
0 and 2. . Consequently. is the oldest in the world. Spectrum of rates of sea-level rise (mm/year) reported by NOAA’s 159 tidegauge stations. and falls from 1970 up to the present. The values of NOAA’s 159 tide gauge stations indicate that they range from uplifted areas (bottom left zone) to subsiding areas (top right zone). which seems to provide a measure of a global sea-level factor (the polynomial curve with respect to the linear trend-line in Fig. 3). extended up to the present and double-checked for the pre-1970 section (the difference between the polynomial curve and the straight line). e. If the uplifting and subsiding sites are excluded. The regional eustatic sea level change decelerates after 1930-1940. the Earth’s rate of rotation decelerated at a value which corresponds to a 10cm sea-level rise (see. 1996).The tide gauge in Amsterdam. in an area that represents the subsiding segment of the North Sea coasts. there is the opposite trend: a slow decline. Adding to this the eustatic component of the northwestern European region (Mörner. 1973). personal communication). Cuxhaven. there is a very good fit between sea-level rise and rotational deceleration. 1. 1973). has a tide gauge dating back to 1843. and partly the eustatic component. showing a centennial rise of 11 cm from 1830-1840 to 1930-1940. In that 100-year period. on the German coast. This provides firm evidence that sea level is not rising at all rapidly today: rather. Fig. we are left with 68 sites (central dark zone) where the rise in sea level ranges between 0.0 mm/year. with a long-term trend polynomial fitted to it (Herold. Some further field observations that I have recently made are given later in this paper.g. These data are combined in the “Observations” curve in Fig.. This polynomial curve gives a slightly sinusoidal rising trend that represents the mean relative sea level changes in the area. Mörner. becomes flat around 1950-1970. I was able to isolate a eustatic factor for 1680-1970 (Mörner. installed in 1682. we get partly the local rate of subsidence (the straight line). 3 shows the annual mean values for 160 years. Superimposing the subsidence record here on the uplift record from the Stockholm tide gauge. Tide gauges Figure 4. This is well below the rate estimated by the IPCC and satellite altimetry (as discussed below).
0 mm/year is established by taking the linear trend. 2010. The horizontal redistribution of water masses was first observed for centennial-to-decadal sea-level changes in the late Holocene (see e. as discussed above). Nicholls & Casenave. new technique for reconstructing sea-level changes all over the ocean surface. quasi-periodic climate pattern that occurs across the tropical Pacific Ocean every few years.g. This graph . Having applied all technical correction needed. 2010). This leaves 68 sites of reasonable stability (still with the possibility of an exaggeration of the rate of change. 2007c. The trend thereafter is less clear. Douglas (1991) chose 25 tide gauges and obtained a rate of sea level rise of 1. 2008). 5 trend of 1. installed in 1682. Fig. Most tide gauges are installed on unstable harbor constructions or landing piers. the Stockholm tide gauge is the second-oldest. Therefore. The IPCC authors take the liberty to select what they call “representative” records for their reconstruction of the centennial sea level trend. The mean of all the 159 NOAA sites is 0. The TOPEX/POSEIDON mission. This is vital. This is far below the rates given by satellite altimetry. These sites give a present rate of sea level rise of ~1. 2). however. 1996). 6 (Mörner. and Holgate (2007) selected 9 tide gauges and got a rate of 1. is to exclude those sites that represent uplifted and subsiding locations (the bottom left and top right zones in Fig. With this selection methodology. 5). however (Mörner. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tide-gauge database has 159 stations (Fig. 6 shows a variability (of ±10 mm) around a stable zero level to end 1996 and a strong ENSO-driven peak in 1997. Menard (2000) and also Aviso (2000) presented a first sea-level graph for 1992-2000 (Fig. a method which overlooks the fact that substantial high point in tidal cycles 175-200 was caused by an exceptional El Niño/La Niña-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). This implies that their personal view—that is. 1995. The Amsterdam tide gauge is the oldest. 2004.g. Satellite altimetry Satellite altimetry is a wonderful. Mörner. as shown in Fig. and the Liverpool tide gauge is the third-oldest. recorded variations in the altitude of the ocean surface with high resolution. A much more realistic approach is to treat that ENSO signal as a separate event superimposed on the long-term trend. for sea level not only changes vertically but also horizontally. The Fig. followed by the JASON mission. the IPCC story-line prescribed from the beginning of the project—is imposed in the selection and identification of their “representative” records. installed in 1724/1774. Problems remain with respect to the zero level chosen and to the long-term trend.45 mm/year (Fig. 4). 4).5-0. A better approach. It is also clearly shown in the satellite record from 1992-2010 (see e.Tide gauges were installed at harbor constructions to measure changes in tidal level and long-term sea-level changes. records from tide gauges are bound to exaggerate sea-level rise.6 mm/year (Burton 2010). a naturallyoccurring.0) mm/year. Church et al. Casenave & Llovel. (2006) selected 6 tide gauges and obtained a rate of 1. 2004). installed in 1768.8 mm/year.4 mm/ year.0 (± 1.
The sea-level changes as recorded in Fig. A slow. 2007ac). Source: Mörner 2004. When the satellite altimetry group realized that the 1997 rise was an ENSO signal. 5.2). they faced a problem they had not expected: there was no discernible sea-level rise visible.3 mm/year (later 3. Sea-level changes from Fig. long-term rising trend of 1. was orally confirmed by a member of the satellite altimetry team in 2005 when I attended a meeting on global warming held by the .provides no indication of any rise in sea level over the time-period covered (Mörner 2004. 5 are presented here with a more realistic trend analysis that treats the 1997 ENSO peak as a separate event superimposed on the long-term trend. Figure 5. allowing for the El Niño Southern Oscillation of 1997/1998. after technical “corrections” were applied (from Menard. and they extended the trend up to 2003. This shows stability over the first 5 years (to end 1996) and possibly over the whole time period covered. 2000). Annual mean sea-level changes observed by TOPEX/POSEIDON in 2000. Figure 6.0 mm/year was identified. which turned a near-zero trend in sea-level rise to a trend of 2. so that a “reinterpretation” of the raw data needed to be carried out in order to obtain the desired result. but this linear trend may have been largely an artefact of the naturally-occurring El Niño Southern Oscillation event in cycles 175-200. The fact of this “reinterpretation”. 2007c.
but trends only after “corrections. suddenly there was an uptrend of 2. as the satellite altimetry groups do not specify the “corrections” they carry out. 5 of 2000 are tilted sharply upward in Fig.3 (±0. 7 of Aviso (2003): see also Aviso (2000). 5-6. This means that the original records presented in Figs. At the Moscow global warming meeting in . 7). this single tide gauge record is an outlier: it is contradicted by the four other records existing in Hong Kong. Instead of the near-horizontal trend of 1992-2000. 7 shows that the keepers of the satellite altimetry record have introduced a new calibration factor – an upward tilt compared with the raw data. 5-6. a fact well known to local geologists. In most reproductions of the graph representing the satellite-altimetry sea-level record. which show no real uptrend in sea level. followed by the JASON satellites. Exactly what was done remains unclear.” Figure 7. From where does the new tilt come? The data that lie flat in Fig. but the “correction” has not been disclosed so as to permit independent verification (see Mörner 2007c.3 mm/year relative to the isobase. However. it seemed that this extra.8 mm/year (IPCC 2001) The isostatic adjustment is intended to allow for the deformation of the Earth’s crust by tectonic influences. given as 2. Nevertheless. 2003) suddenly took a new tilt. which is the reference point for calculating the global isostatic adjustment.1) mm/year (Fig. This is exactly the same as the apparent trend in sea-level rise over the decade 1992-2003 in Fig. seen in Figs.3 ±0. passed through Hong Kong. for example. the zero isobase. Obviously. some sort of “correction” has been made.3 mm/year. According to Peltier (1998).1 mm/year. where a single tide gauge gives a sea level rise of 2. We must now ask: what is the justification for this tilting of the record? Originally. 2008). Fig. unspecified “correction” referred to the global isostatic adjustment. Sea-level changes after “calibration” in 2003.Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow. Peltier 1998) or 1. 7 . the record suddenly has a new trend representing an inferred sea-level rise of 2. In 2003. The satellite altimetry record from the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellites. and obviously represents a site-specific subsidence. on the Internet and in journal papers. As presented by Aviso (2003). must have been tilted to show a rise of as much as 2. it is not even stated that the graphs do not represent trends taken from the raw data as read by the satellites. the satellite altimetry record (Aviso. which showed little or no sea-level rise.4 mm/year (see.
rather.8 mm/yr is surely an overestimate that is strongly affected by subsidence at the tide gauges selected (Fig.0 mm/yr – little. El Niño Southern Oscillation events (and especially super-ENSO events such as that of 1997-8) must be subtracted. C) encompasses multiple variables that need painstaking and skillful handling. it is a matter of personal opinion. and see Casenave and Nerem 2004. which certainly has not been done by the groups dealing with the satellite altimetry records and the IPCC community. Mitchum (2000) states that. sea-level rise. The calibrations applied to the satellite altimetry readings were discussed in Mitchum (2000.” In other words. 1995) of 1. The tide-gauge records play a central role in this calibration. just segments that need individual treatment (as in the case of the Bombay tide-gauge record. 2010a). if any. Cyclical trends. 2 & 4. The 1. water withdrawal. The local land motion at the tide-gauge sites (box C) is another intricate issue that calls for geological understanding of the specific site in question. since it is based on a probably unrepresentative subset of the tide-gauge stations (see Fig. I replied: “Did you hear what you were saying? This is just what I am accusing you of doing. a better value would be at or a little above 0. the actual data did not show sea level rising at all.8 mm/yr rate is not well established. Other important factors are the global isostatic adjustment and vertical movements of the tide-gauge sites. as seen in the wide range of global sea-level change estimates set out in Figs. 2). event signals. are far from vertically stable. as well as the 25 sites used by Douglas). as illustrated in Fig. in part. 7 was tilted back to its original position as indicated by the unaltered data from the satellites (Fig.2005. in part. in answer to my criticisms about this “correction.” and that. In my opinion.1 mm/yr. “We had to adjust the record. Local sedimentary ground changes (such as compaction. To establish a local tide-gauge trend (box B) is far from straightforward. “we adopted the rate given by Douglas (1991. and segments must be identified and subtracted. otherwise there would not be any trend. The “global sea level factor” (box A) is never clear and trustworthy. but rather the opposite (this applies for the 6 sites used by Church et al. Leuliette and Scharroo 2010). the graph reproduced here as Fig. “the tide gauges were assumed to be vertically stable”. and so on) are a prime . The rate of 1. Both of these assumptions are wrong. Very often there is no long-term trend. 5). in my 2007 booklet (Mörner 2007c). Numerous different variables affect and interfere with the long-term trend. as expressed in the boxed equation below: Each of the three boxes (A.” Therefore. implying some sort of circular reasoning. discussed by Mörner.” one of the persons in the British IPCC delegation said. The tide-gauge records. 2010b). 2). B. especially those selected.8 ± 0. 6 and shown for the Tuvalu record by Mörner (2007c. Mitchum (2000) provided the following relations.
2010b).12 (±0. In the harbor in the Maldives capital of Malé. 1998) but contradicted by other data (e. 2003-2007.06) mm/year (lower curve). 8). to sea level records. Satellite measurements cannot help here. With the space gravimetry observations from the GRACE satellites it has become possible to record changes in the ocean water mass (Casenave et al. Mörner. causing distortions that invalidate any tide-gauge reading there. to satellite altimetry data. which given an approximation of changes in mean global sea level (Fig. One thing is for sure. The difference is significant. For instance. Figure 8. 2009). Casenave et al. and now to ocean mass changes. . Inferring a global isostatic adjustment correction. Instead. The raw data show a slight fall in sea level over the period by –0. Ocean mass changes obtained from G RACE satellite data.factor in the assessment (Mörner 2004. Satellite altimetry is not providing what is often claimed: a measure of sea level changes truly independent of tide gauges and global isostatic adjustments. Site-specific knowledge is key. many tide gauges are installed on harbor constructions and landing piers that are far from stable. The space gravimetry readings from the GRACE satellites record changes in ocean mass which are approximately equal to changes in mean global sea level (Casenave et al. Crustal movements and seismotectonics are other factors. Global isostatic adjustment corrections have been applied to tide gauges.g.9 (±0. the island is so heavily overloaded by building that the harbor constructions fracture. 2009). The question is whether or not this “correction” is justifiable. It appears that without these corrections there is little or no room for any global sea level rise. which is to be questioned.9) mm/year (upper curve). The concept of the global isostatic adjustment is a model supported by some data (see e.g. Peltier. it is profoundly dependent on those variables. (2009) presented a corrected rate of 1.. 2005).
showing no signs of any sea-level rise. Satellite altimetry as given by NOAA. waves.2 mm/year over the period 1993-2007. This gives an un”corrected” satellite altimetry graph. this satellite altimetry graph has a long-term trend which is significantly greater than that which actual instrumental measurements provide: it is created by inferred “corrections. wind. each site must be evaluated individually with respect to stability. 5-6 for 1992-2000 and the raw data from the G RACE satellites in Fig. Fig. which suggest a sea-level rise of 3. 9 is back-tilted to fit the original trend in Figs. The original record . 8 for 2003-2007.4) mm/year. compaction.” In Fig. A blind global isostatic adjustment model correction may provide quite wrong results. it is a dangerous shortcut applied by scientists who are not sea-level specialists by training and hence lack the skill to undertake careful site-specific stability analyses themselves. and tectonics. from two independent sources of actual. sedimentation. This suggests that the satellite record is strongly affected by “corrections. The TOPEX-JASON satellite data provide a record suggesting a mean sea-level rise of 3. loading. Instead. the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite altimetry record of Fig. 9 shows the satellite altimetry records as presented by NOAA (2008). 10. The (GRACE) GIA-corrected trend (Fig.” Consequently.Correcting tide gauges for global isostatic adjustment or regional crustal movement is not the correct way of treating records of this type. 8) for 2003-2007 (arrowed line) agrees with the JASON data. unaltered data.2 (±0. Figure 9.
9). un“corrected” data. The “corrections” applied are not specified by the responsible groups at NOAA and the Centre National des Etudes Spatiales. The “calibrated” satellite altimetry record tilted back to match the original. 6) and the GRACE raw data fit the record perfectly well: Figure 10. This is not the case with the presently-circulated trends in sea-level rise from satellite altimetry (see e. The G RACE raw data (Fig. Various types of corrections may be applied.2 mm/year rate of sea-level rise arising from the “adjusted” data (Fig. . 5. The original TOPEX/POSEIDON raw data for 1992-2000 showed variability around a stable horizontal zero line (Figs. 9 satellite altimetry record is significantly altered by nontechnical “corrections” (whatever they may be). France’s space agency. This implies that the Fig. altogether eliminating the apparent 3. NOAA. 6). 2003. Together.g. provide that they are clearly declared and described. 8) show a gently falling trend for 2002-2007. these two untampered datasets indicate that global mean sea level trend has remained stable over the entire period 1992-2007. 2008). Figs. Aviso.for 1992-2000 is restored (cf. 5.
g. which is actually little more than zero. we are facing a very grave. the “interpretational record” after the application of what I have called “personal calibrations”. Aviso. 2008). 11 illustrates the difference between the instrumental record (in this case from the TOPEX/POSEIDON and GRACE satellites: Figs. 9): Figure 11.0 mm/year. 2003. 2. the raw data read by the satellites. In Stage 2. How “corrections” change sea level rise of ~0 mm/year to ~3 mm/year. It may be mere disinformation. Therefore. interpretational graphs were produced (see e. 2000). 2000. Fig. Aviso. an IPCC member discussing subjective adjustments to the instrumental record told me: “We had to do so. However.If the “corrections” applied are not clearly specified (and discussed and argued for). in Stage 3. 10) gives a true sea-level rise of around 0. then the resulting corrected data cannot be objectively evaluated. “sea-level-gate”. 5-6: Menard. otherwise there would not be any trend. As reported above. to yield the correct sealevel rise. the “interpretational record” represents disinformation. The “instrumental record” gives a sea level trend on the order of 0. 6. 10). perhaps disseminated with the intention of supporting the IPCC’s wild claims about sea-level rise. This fits the observational . appropriate technical adjustments are applied to the satellite instrument readings. un“corrected” instrumental satellite-altimetry record (Fig. 2008) that the satellite altimetry recording consists of three steps: first. 9). Our examination of the satellite data seems to confirm that this is indeed the case. 8) and the interpretational record from the University of Colorado (Fig.” No trend means no sea-level rise. Stage 1 is the collection of readings from the satellite by altimetry. and is not a true “instrumental record” (Mörner. after additional subjective “personal calibrations”. secondly. If so. I have previously asserted (Mörner. unethical. 2008) that imply sea-level rise in the order of 3 mm/year (Fig. For the actual. 5-6. These corrections were applied to the original altimetry graph (Figs. the “instrumental record” after appropriate technical correction. NOAA. and thirdly.0 mm/year (Figs.
Figure 12a. a decade ago I launched a special sea level research project in the Maldives. As a geologist. together with an indication of what my observations mean for the IPCC’s projected future changes in climate. 2004. This is illustrated in Figs. In recent years President Nasheed has taken the lead in maintaining that his own nation has no future and will soon rest beneath the waves.. 2007bc. sea level is not rising. providing a coherent picture of no sea-level rise (or at most a harmless ~0.R. The present sea level is recorded as mean sea level. In the 1970s sea level even fell by some 20 cm. by contrast..facts much better.” indicates a beach rock-platform. The Maldives The IPCC and its supporters have frequently claimed that the Maldives are doomed to become submerged well before 2100. As president of INQUA. Mörner. Here. now abandoned and overgrown. and to form interpretations and theories based on those facts. Shoreline profile of most islands in the Maldives (from Mörner et al. All this talk is sheer nonsense.5 mm/yr. 12a and 12b. Personal observations in the field The IPCC bases all its argumentation on computer models and scenarios. It has been stable for the last 30-40 years. high-tide level and storm level. however. We visited several islands. 2009. and further discussed in a number of papers (Mörner et al. I find it natural to turn to observational facts in nature itself. 2004). Several additional field expeditions were to follow. I will give a brief summary of some of my recent fieldwork on sealevel changes. there is an older beach with storm level. the International Commission on Sea-Level Changes and Coastal Evolution. equivalent to 2 inches per century) over the last 50 years. . A group of sea-level experts was formed and the work commenced in 2000 with a month-long expedition in the field. Some 20-30 cm above storm level. 2011a). “B. The facts found in site after site and in all types of coastal environment were quite straightforward: in the Maldives.
it recently fell. Again we are facing observational facts revealing no rise at all in sea level despite severe coastal erosion attributable to cyclones (Fig. . Minicoy is the southernmost island. demonstrating the shoreline zonation illustrated diagrammatically in Fig. according to local fishermen. The lowering of sea level occurred in the 1970s. natural phenomena. Bangladesh There are no limits to the terrible scenarios that have been proposed for the future of Bangladesh as a consequence of an imagined global sea level rise. 2011a). however. unfortunately. so that new land was formed. The reality is totally different. They took a scientific colleague to the shore and presented the clear observational fact that sea level is not rising. The locals are quite aware the sea level is not at all rising. 2010a). Maldives. however. 13. They say they are amused to hear what President Nasheed of the Maldives has been saying. The ultimate nonsense was a recent claim that 25 million to 1 billion people will have to be relocated by 2050. The cyclones and flooding caused by heavy rain in the mountains are another factor that we cannot do anything about. The new land is now starting to become overgrown and has been settled by terrestrial snails (Mörner. The Laccadives Just north of the Maldives lie the Laccadive Islands. The people of Bangladesh are not about to be flooded by rising sea level. On the contrary. An actual field section from the Guidhoo Atoll.Figure 12b. an archipelago belonging to India. 12a. for they are. It is recorded all over the Maldives and in different shoreline environments. They also say they understand that it is “all a matter of money”. Mörner.
The cycles vary symmetrically around a stable. There is no basis for this suggestion. and do not indicate rising sea level. 2007c. Changes in mean high-water level (cm: left axis) measured by tide gauges at the coast of French Guyana and Surinam (Gratiot et al. satellite altimetry in the same region gives a rise of 3. 2007). horizontal zerolevel. which swings up and down around a long-term zero trend (the arrowed line). the tide gauges in both regions show no rise at all. the tide gauges indicate stability for 14 years in Vanuatu and 32 years in Tuvalu (Mörner. there has been no change in sea level (Mörner. Instead. However. 2010a). 14). which spread their roots just below the mud-flats (right above). that the photographs were taken at extreme high tide. Mörner. Erosion is not sea-level rise: The outermost edge of the Sundarban delta in Bangladesh was severely eroded by the 2007 cyclone (left above). there is a very good tide-gauge record covering three 18. Satellite altimetry gives a rise of 3 mm/year in the same area. The horizontal roots reveal that the trunks are from mangrove trees.0 mm/year – another revealing example of the difference between recorded facts and “reprocessed” satellite data. Facts and fiction seem to clash. The record is dominated by the 18. 2008. however. indicating that sea level has been quite stable over the last 50 years. Tuvalu and Vanuatu A continuing sea-level rise is said to threaten to flood both Tuvalu and Vanuatu. 2010b). 2010b. . Murphy. Some people take tree-trunks on the exposed beach as evidence of a sea-level rise.6-year tidal cycles (Fig. This implies the same level of mud-flats as the delta surface behind. However.. we often see pictures of partially-flooded areas in Tuvalu. French Guyana and Surinam From this region. Additional information indicates.Figure 13. Accordingly. Figure 14. On the internet and in the news media.6-year tidal cycle. The map of satellite-altimetry changes from 1992-2009 give a general rise over the whole region in the order of 3 mm/year or even more. however.
however. in effect. the main 18. This suggests that there is much still to do in calibrating the satellite altimeters to ensure that they monitor sea-level changes correctly. North-western Europe The north-west European region. The map of sea level changes inferred from satellite altimetry in the period 19922009. Sea level rose 11 cm from 1850-1950. sea-level rise caused by ice-melt must be significantly below 1 cm a year. 3). In the short term.g. with uplift over Fennoscandia and subsidence over the North Sea coasts. yet sea level rose by little more than 1 cm per year or 1 m per century. to have an upper bound on sea-level rise as a yardstick allowing us to discriminate between realistic estimates and much-publicized extreme values that can be discarded as physically impossible. both before and after the data have been “reprocessed” or distorted to take account of purely subjective adjustments as discussed earlier. The Last Ice Age ended with an extensive melting of the continental ice caps under extreme climatic forcing. time and a substantial input of energy are required. . useful indications of the trend in sea level.000-12.6-year tidal cycle) or large spikes caused by the naturallyoccurring El Niño Southern Oscillations every four years or so. However.000 years. as illustrated by the sea-level record from Cuxhaven (Fig. 2011b). satellite altimetry Most tide-gauge records are far too short to provide meaningful information about real trends. they are often dominated by segments of cyclic variations (e. gives a large high over most of the western Pacific and a low over the equatorial region west of the Americas. Ice melt For large bodies of ice to melt. when it stopped rising. the tidegauge records we have mentioned above are all long-term records and are. Discussion Tide gauges vs. It even seems to have fallen somewhat in recent decades. This picture fits very badly with available tide-gauge records in both areas.Venice The sea-level record from the tide gauges in Venice shows that there has been no acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise in recent decades (Mörner. It is very useful. The process of melting took 10. offers another test region where the global sea-level component can be isolated and identified. during which time sea level rose 130 m. A sea-level rise of 1 cm per year is. 2007c). therefore. Today. above the maximum rate that can arise today from melting ice and other causes combined (Mörner.
The last interglacial During the mid-Holocene. It was once generally believed that sea level was some 2-4 m higher than today. Therefore. hardly more (Mörner.5-2 m above the present sea level. mean surface temperature was 4 C° warmer than today and sea level was generally higher than today. mean global surface temperature was about 2. During the last interglacial. 1996.000 years ago. there is less and less water to expand. 6000-8000 years ago. the effect is zero. ~125. owing to the strict stratification of the oceanic water masses. however.000 years ago. . It has sometimes been suggested that if temperature were to rise as the IPCC has projected the Earth might return to the climatic conditions of the last interglacial period. ~125. Only the upper part of the ocean may be heated.5 C° warmer than today. There have even been claims that sea level was 7-10 m higher. this rock-cut platform is likely to mark the maximum sea level of the last interglacial. Hidden in the adjacent forest is the foot of a steep fossil sea cliff. At the shore. A fact often ignored is that as the water depth becomes shallower towards a coast. This has raised new interest in the actual sea level of the last interglacial. 2011b). Thermosteric expansion of seawater The water column will expand when heated. Figure 15. The amount of expansion is in the order of centimetres up to a decimetre per century. including the IPCC’s current maximum of 2 m per century) must be dismissed as impossible.All claims of a sea-level rise by year 2100 exceeding 1 m (and there are several. The elevation is only 1. Rock-cut platform from the Last Interglacial in Hong Kong.
2011b). India. In 2010 an international excursion was therefore devoted to field evidence from Sardinia (Carboni & Lecca. French Guyana. No catastrophic sea level rise at the end of the last interglacial can be substantiated. 15) from the last interglacial.000 years). The next solar minimum The next solar minimum is due in 2040-2050. Bangladesh. When Hansen & Sato (2011) propose a 4 m sea-level rise between 2080 and 2100. Two peaks in sea level are well recorded. Conclusions Observational facts indicate that sea level is by no means rapidly rising. 2010c). 1687-1703. Venice.The western Mediterranean is widely taken as a reference point for changes in sea level during the last interglacial. 1 and claim that the “models” (upper curve) provide an illusory picture of a strong sea-level rise and that the “observations” (lower curve) provide a good reconstruction of the actual changes in sea level over the last 170 years. with stability over the last 40 years. the Maldives (and also the Laccadives to the north of the Maldives). Mörner. Tide gauges tend to exaggerate rising trends because of subsidence and compaction. Vanuatu. Early in 2011 I visited Hong Kong. Here. 2011c). Tuvalu. and Korsør (a stable hinge for the last 8 .g. It is a serious mistake to look for horror scenarios in the behaviour of sea level during the last interglacial. Satellite altimetry is shown to record variations around a stable zero level for the entire period 1992-2010. empirical geology and scientific ethics (Mörner. it will be likely to invalidate all the linear and exponential extrapolations of temperature change in the IPCC’s models. Qatar. Saint Paul Island. Full stability over the last 30-50 years is indicated in sites like Tuvalu. Therefore. 1440-1460. Whatever the next Solar Minimum will bring. . Consequently. Venice (after subtracting the subsidence factor). there is a quite clear rock-cut platform (Fig. Its elevation is only ~2 m above today’s sea level. It is quite stable. the climatic conditions generated “little Ice Ages” (Mörner. Reported trends in the order of 3 mm/year represent “interpretational records. they violate the laws of physics.” after the application of subjective “personal calibrations” which cannot be substantiated by observational facts. The same result is evident from the passive continental margins of east South America and Tanzania. where we have worked extensively. and northwest Europe. Cuxhaven (after subtracting the subsidence factor). there is no reason to hypothesize that any similar event would be likely to occur in our near future. we can now return to Fig. varying in elevation between +2 and +4 m. This is the case in key sites like the Maldives. 1809-1821). 2010. At all the previous solar minima (e. however.
This is illustrated in Fig.7 mm/year seem realistic. but differs significantly from the values proposed by the IPCC (2001. 2010a).3 to 3. 2) and evaluate the various values proposed. The true facts are to be found in nature itself. Consider trees. This fits well with the values proposed for year 2100 by INQUA (2000) and Mörner (2004). 2007). They are certainly not to be found at the modelling consoles.g. Reliability of different proposed rates of sea-level rise.7 mm/year (<3 in. If sea level is not rising fast. 2000). is clear and straightforward. however.0 mm/year to maximum 0. I hope that by this research we can free the world from the artificial crisis to which the IPCC has condemned it. Values >1. hereby revealed as an illusion.We can now return to the spectrum of present-day sea level rates (Fig. I have often said that “trees don’t lie”: see e. Figure 16.0 mm/year to at most 0. A group of Australian environmental “scientists”. Only rates in the order of 0./century). 2007c. . 2007c. then the greatest threat imagined by the IPCC disappears. and now it is gone. lying on the strand.4 mm/year are untenable overestimates. Observational facts suggest 0. I described the significance of the lonely tree by the shore in the Maldives which indicated that sea level had been stable for 50-60 years. Values close to 1 mm/year represent minor centennial rises and falls. but is well below the 37 ±19 cm projected by IPCC (2007). uprooted it and left it. The idea of an ever-rising sea drowning tens of thousands of people and forcing hundreds of thousands or even millions of people to become sea-level refugees is simply a grave error. Other evidence. realizing that the location of the tree was fatal to their notion of ever-rising sea level. 16. There will be no extensive or disastrous global sea-level rise in the near future. There are also the trees on the beach in Sundarban. Some data depend heavily on interpretation. 2 can now be assessed. Mörner. indicating significant coastal erosion (caused in part by the clearance of mangroves to make way for shrimp-farms) but no sea level rise at all (Mörner. The validity of the spectrum of rates of sea-level rise shown in Fig. 2004) and 10 ±10 cm (INQUA. This result agrees with estimates of a possible sea level rise of 5 ±15 cm by 2100 (Mörner. In that paper. That was the main threat in the IPCC’s arsenal of bugaboos. still in leaf. and is not going to rise fast.
INQUA. J.E. 33. My sincere thanks. doi: 10. 1995. Global sea level changes: determination and interpretation. Madrid. Guinehut.aviso.C. 239-260. B.Acknowledgements With deep gratitude. 2010.. 48 pp. pp. doi:10. Lecca. Douglas. Casenave. Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution. Workshop on “Decoding the Last Interglacial in Western Mediterranean”.). Nerem.columbia.fr Aviso.C. Houghton et al. 83-88. eds.burtonsys. Without the vision and input of my friend Christopher Monckton. 2008.T. White & J. 2000.. Geophys. Sea level budget over 2003-2008: A re-evaluation from GRACE space gravimetry. Res. 2009. www. S. A. Ablain. LO1602. IPCC.J. Rev. Present-day sea level changes: Observations and causes. Lett.pog. the paper would never have appeared. Berthier. Analysis of global linear mean sea level (MSL)-trends.. 2. Global sea-level rise. Significant contribution of the 18.6 year tidal cycle to regional coastal changes.1029/2006GL028492. 2010.pdf Holgate. Rev.. Christopher Monckton sensitively extracted the introductory main points. S. 2001. Dominh.com/global_msl_trend_analysis. Global and Planetary Change 53. and J. N. 1991. Paleoclimate implications for human-made climate change. E. Ann. 2006. W. Its origin lay in a paper published in 21st Century Science & Technology (winter 2010/2011. Observing the oceans by altimetry.. 34. Larnicol. Hunter.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110118_MilankovicPaper. London & New York. Douglas. Gardel. Casenave.R. this paper stands out as a Mörner & Monckton contribution.su. www.oceanobs. Llovel. www. 2007.com Burton. For me. Geophys. Marine Sci. 1425-1432. K.T. & M.pog. & R. Global and Planetary Change 65. & W. 145-173.. J.1038/ngeo127. Out of this work the present paper emerged.. 2010. & S. 6981-6992. 155-168. C. . Carboni. 12-22). Rajan. Nature Geoscience 1.. including distanceweighted averaging. Sato.S.aviso.fr Aviso. 1-20. A. J. Rev. 169-172.nu). Casenave. B. C. Climate Change: the Physical Science Basis (J.. Ethics and International Affairs 24:3. References Aviso. and especially not in this elegant and expressive form. Geophys. INQUA Project 0911–CMP Commission. Res. Church. N. D. A. Wells. ETS... Observing the oceans by altimetry. Rammien.cnes. 2004. 2011. 2010. Press. E.se (from 2005: www. Field Trip Guide. Llovel. and G. Geophysics 42. 2000. www. Mean Sea Level as seen by altimeters.cnes.A. M. redrew several graphs and asked for additional observational material.cis. On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century. & L. 2008.J.C. satellite altimetry and Argo.cis. 96. Sea-level rise at tropical Pacific and Indian Ocean islands. Proisy. A.. www. S. 2003. I acknowledge the skilful input into this paper of Christopher Monckton as editor-in-charge. Hansen. Contemporary sea level rise. S. Anthony. Cambridge Univ.html Byravana. G.A. Gaucherel.. The ethical implications of sea-level rise due to climate changes. www.J. Gratiot.aviso.
Solar minima. Easterbrook. 9-17. Mörner. N. 2004. 31-34. suppl. Z. Claim that sea level is rising is a total fraud [interview]. 2011a.. 219-220. www.-A. Open letter to the President of the Maldives.. Geomorph. Mörner. 91-102.. Elsevier. Estimating future sea level changes. 177-182. Mörner. 33-37.gov.. D.J. 3rd ed.J.F.. 2008. Mörner. The Maldives as a measure of sea level and sea level ethics: In Evidence-based Climate Science. 353-374. Eustatic changes during the last 300 years.-A.-A.J.-A.T.. Postglacial variations in the level of the sea: implications for climate dynamics and solid-earth geophysics.J. Earth’s rotation and Little Ice Ages in the past and in the future: the North Atlantic/European case.. W. 21st Century Science and Technology. The NOAA satellite altimetry program: Closing the sea level rise budget with altimetry: Argos and Grace. N. G. N. 2011c.-A. G. 603 ff. Mörner.-A. 2005. N. M. Sea-level rise and its impact on coastal zones.. 223-232. N.IPPC. 2004.” Palaeogeogr. 2010. Mörner. 2011b.. ocean circulation and paleoclimate.-A.R.S.. N. 2010a.-A. Elsevier. Global and Planetary Change 40. London & New York. N. New perspectives for the future of the Maldives. 282-293.-A. The Greatest Lie Ever Told. N. 2007. Mörner.. 2000.. MEDIAS Newsletter 12. Casenave. . Press. 15171520. 1995. 249-263. Possnert. D.. N. 2000.. 2007b. G. P&G-print (2nd ed. GeoJournal 37:4. The Great Sardinian Sea Level Excursion [submitted].). Palaeoecol. Science 328. Sea level changes in Bangladesh: new observational facts.-A. 1-14. Solomon et al. 2007c. 137. Marine Geodesy 23. Global and Planetary Change 72. There’s no danger of global sea level rise. Comments.oco. Fall 2007. 21st Century Science and Technology. Fall 2007. 2010b. Mörner. Sea Level Changes and Tsunamis: Environmental Stress and Migration over the Seas. & A. N. Mitchum. R. Mörner. Mörner. N. eds. Mörner. Geomorphology N.. Palaeoclim. Mörner. N.. Internationales Asienforum 38. Some problems in the reconstruction of mean sea level and its changes with time. Ed. N. Easterbrook. 1998. An improved calibration of satellite altimetric heights using tide-gauge sealevels with adjustment for land motion.-A. The Sun rules climate... 145-166. Mörner. 2007a. Geophysics 36.. Environment 21:3. Z. Global & Planetary Change 40. Rev.-A. Setting the frames of expected future sea level changes: In Evidence-based Climate Science. Mörner.-A. vol. [in press]. Sea-level changes and crustal movements with special aspects on the Mediterranean.noaa. Nicholls.. [in press].. Peltier. 1973.. N. Tooley & G. NOAA.-A. N. Sea Level Variability. N. New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter 53. 102. 2010).. 1996. 49-54. 2009.-A. Mörner. 80-83. Earth rotation. Murphy. Menard.. Energy and Mörner. Climate Change (S. 2008. 2007. 3-8. Satellite-based altimetry reveals physical ocean. 419-430.-A. 13. Mörner.-A. N. 2010c. Ed. Cambridge Univ. Quaternary International 221.. Global and Planetary Change 62. N. 2009.
T Why the Centre for Democracy and Independence? HE CENTRE for Democracy and Independence conducts research. to make and unmake their laws? The Centre for Democracy and Independence exists to ask and to illuminate questions such as these. the Spaniards and the Austro-Hungarians. the Romans. the World Trade Organization. formerly confined to the territorial jurisdictions of city-states and then of nations. Today. Has the nation had its day? Is the globalization of governance a public good? Can democracy survive it? Should it? Should the use of the ballot-box be extended? Should supranational and global institutions of governance be elected? Should the people have the right not only to make and unmake their lawmakers.G. the Law of the Sea Conference. the Incas. never had sweeter masters. but also. Abhijit P. at will. Yet not one of the multiplying and expanding institutions of supranational and now global governance is truly a democracy. Pandya Director . every cession of sovereignty from a nation to a supranational or global entity at present entails a real transfer of legislative and increasingly of fiscal power from elected to unelected hands – both legislation and taxation without representation. publishes papers and educates the public and students in schools. notwithstanding the sunset of that first global Empire. Governance. the Moghuls. the Medes and Persians. With the British Empire. the Organization on Economic Cooperation and Development and the Framework Convention on Climate Change. Only at the level of the nation-state – and even then by no means universally – is government of the people. and secretly by ballot to decide. The world. however necessary it be that nations should collaborate and cooperate in matters of common concern. the Moors. Therefore. what laws they shall live by and what imposts they shall endure. governance became truly global for the first time. said the philosopher Santayana. and by the directives of centralizing bureaucracies from the Delian League via the later Ottoman Empire to the European Union. the Aztecs. by the people and for the people the custom. youth organizations and institutions of higher learning. who shall govern them. the tendency towards global governance is gathering both momentum and permanence through entities such as the United Nations. providing a non-partisan forum for informed discussion on questions of policy in the United Kingdom and worldwide which may affect – for good or ill – the rights of the people openly and freely to debate. became regionally supranational by the swords of the great empires of the Chinese.
Centre for Democracy and Independence .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.