The images presented of New York, London et al. flooding are scare tactics -
assuming sea levels did rise by the amount predicted, do they think nobody
would build sea defences to protect the richest cities in the world?
Jon
>From: Dr Hillary Shaw <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Swindle-sea level rise, 84 years and still waiting
>Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 19:00:50 EDT
>
>Just seen a recent photograph of Dubrovnik old harbour area - interesting,
>compared with one of 1923.
>
>84 years on, no appreciable rise in sea level here (and on top of sea level
>rise this is supposed to be a subsiding coastline). So, err, what's going
>on
>with the Maldives? Could the climate change / sea level rise argument
>there
>be actually based on isostatic subsidence (maps of Sri Lanka, a little to
>the north, from the 1800s compared to now, show if anything more land now,
>in
>the complex coastline around the north of that country.
>
>If we're going to make a convincing argument for coastal millions displaced
>by rising sea levels, lets base it on places that aren't isostatically
>subsiding, blurring the case.
>
>Hillary Shaw, Newport
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Solve the Conspiracy and win fantastic prizes.
http://www.theconspiracygame.co.uk/
|