 |
 |
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/