Rampant Sea Level Fraud In Academia And Government

In 1982, NASA showed just over three inches (8 cm) of sea level rise from 1880 to 1980. They also showed a sharp slowdown in sea level rise rates after 1950.

ScreenHunter_2132 May. 31 12.25


Three inches isn’t very scary, so the EPA has doubled that figure, and shows six inches of sea level rise from 1880 to 1980 – with completely fake acceleration after 1950.

Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1870-2008_(US_EPA) (1)Trends in global average absolute sea level, 1870-2008 (US EPA) – Sea level rise

This graph overlays the two graphs at the same scale. The EPA data is political, not scientific.


Tide gauges show a slowdown in sea level rise rates, so government propaganda agencies tamper with them and now simply ignore them, instead using incredibly poor interpretations of satellite data since 1993. But even this data is being tampered with over time.

In 2004, the University of Colorado (who got beaten up by Oregon yet again last night) showed sea level rise rate of 2.8 mm/year, with an error of +/- 0.4.

ScreenHunter_10644 Oct. 03 11.07


 That wasn’t very scary, so they have since changed the data and moved it outside of their own error bars to 3.3 mm/year, using a Global Isostatic Adjustment which is 100% fraudulent in the context of sea surface height. That adjustment was intended to calculate ocean depth as the sea floor sinks, but has no bearing on the accuracy of measurement of sea level by satellites.

sl_ns_global (2)

2015_rel2: Global Mean Sea Level Time Series (seasonal signals removed) | CU Sea Level Research Group

The image below overlays them at the same scale. The University of Colorado simply altered the data to make it look a little scarier.


But here is the real smoking gun of fraud from the IPCC.

In 1990 the IPCC said :

there is no convincing evidence of an acceleration in global sea level rise during the twentieth century

there is weak evidence for an acceleration over the last 2-3 centuries


In the 2013 report, they say the exact opposite

The 2013 IPCC report (AR5) concluded, “there is high confidence that the rate of sea level rise has increased during the last two centuries, and it is likely that GMSL (Global Mean Sea Level) has accelerated since the early 1900’s

Trends in global average absolute sea level, 1870-2008 (US EPA) – Sea level rise – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Very little of what you hear about the climate from government or academia has any validity. They are simply fabricating data for political and monetary purposes. It is a $29 billion dollar per year RICO style racket, and the biggest scam in history.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Rampant Sea Level Fraud In Academia And Government

  1. David A says:

    Is it possible to get a U of C 2006 SL screen shot from right before they stopped updating and came back with a four year flat period erased?

  2. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    Another classic example of Government sanctioned climate propaganda, and the flagrant abuse of “science” to push the man-made “global (non) warming” agenda…

  3. gator69 says:

    Typo. It should read “C-Level Rise”, and it refers to the current crop of climate scientists, their academic accomplishments, and their unwarranted media status

  4. omanuel says:

    Steven aka Tony, you and your readers are invited to answer the question: Did Sir Fred Hoyle “blow the cover”on Stalin’s BIGGEST LIE in his 1994 autobiography ?



  5. Robertv says:

    But what if they run out of others people’s money ? How stupid of me, they already did.

    • Robertv says:

      This is what I call a hockey stick.

      • Andy DC says:

        Yes, we have been creating a false prosperity through ever increasing debt since the 1980’s. Both political parties have had their hands in it pretty equally. To me it seems like a house of cards, ready to collapse in the not too distant future.

        This philosophy of not raising enough revenue, but never cutting benefits is a road to ruin. You can keep living on credit for only so long.

  6. davidswuk says:

    And which means you can better fake the past (and future) than you can the near present – Geez!

  7. Willis Eschenbach says:

    As usual, well researched, well written.

    Many thanks for all your good work,


  8. Steve Case says:

    Thanks for looking into past publications from Colorado U’s Sea Level Research Group.(SLRG)

    On that note if you plug the URL for CU’s SLRG into the Way Back Machine the data from ten years ago is there. It’s the 2nd oldest snap shot. The rate ten years ago as shown by analysis of that data was 2.6 mm per year. Today the same time series from 1992 to 2004 yields 3.5 mm per year.

    Plain and simple, The historical record has been rewritten.

  9. Andy Oz says:

    Fort Denison is one of the oldest tidal records (if not the oldest) in the southern hemisphere. The fort is open to the ocean but protected in Sydney Harbour, so it doesn’t need to deal with wild seas.
    It virtually mirrors the 1982 NASA data. I don’t get how NASA can say that the oceans are rising a 3mm/yr and say it with a straight face. They must have been botoxed all over.


    • AndyG55 says:

      Been there.. done coffee under those brollies 🙂

      • Andy Oz says:

        Beautiful spot.
        Made by convicts from Hawkesbury sandstone and built on the same as bedrock, 300 plus metres deep, (when I was 18, I worked underneath it down a deep coal mine) The sand was deposited by a massive Amazon like ancient river system that crossed much of Antarctica and Australia when it was joined to Antarctica. So Sydney is actually built on ancient Antarctica.

  10. Andy Oz says:

    Brisbane, Australia, sea level hasn’t moved at all since 1960. It’s geology is different to Sydney but there is no CO2 signal in the data.


  11. Andy Oz says:

    Southern Africa and Spain (being reasonably geologically stable) also show 0 to 0.6 ish sea level rise. And yet the same weighting on the global calculation is given to geologically unstable places – Iceland, Alaska, southern state of USA, Brazil, West Africa, Chile & Peru? To come up with a global number and connect it to CO2, is simply unscientific and fraudulent.


  12. sfx2020 says:

    When it comes to Florida and sea level, you have to calculate the uplift of the state from loss of mass, due to the huge amount of material lost all the time. The limestone is always being dissolved by the underground rivers here, meaning Florida is actually rising from the sea, estimated at an inch a century. This figure is an estimate only.

    • Jason Calley says:

      “The limestone is always being dissolved by the underground rivers here, meaning Florida is actually rising from the sea, estimated at an inch a century.”

      An inch a century? How cool! I have spent a lot of time underground in Florida caves and I can attest that the limestone is often exceedingly weak and soft. Scratch your name into the stone with your fingernail? Easy! Heck, some areas are harder than others, but there are places where you can actually scoop out pieces of limestone with your hand. Doesn’t take much to dissolve and wear it away.

      • sfx2020 says:

        The other thing with Florida, is it is always gaining ground with the barrier islands. On the backside, mangroves constantly create soil. They actually cause the land to form. On the beach side, wind and storms deposit more sand, which a healthy dune system captures, and the dunes grow. Even a really big storm event will dump sand far back into the dune, causing it to actually gain height. Untouched dunes (National parks) are huge. And if a big storm breaches them, it just adds sand to the island.

        Of course where humans have screwed up the dunes, it’s a different story.

        • Jason Calley says:

          “Of course where humans have screwed up the dunes, it’s a different story.”

          Yeah, I saw that documentary movie about the war on Arrakis. And those giant worms! Ewwwwww!


        • rah says:

          I thought the first first ‘Dune’ was by far the best. The remake sucked.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s