I occasionally buy a magazine called The Week, which contains, or so it claims on its front, “the best of the British and foreign media”. How pleasing to see Britain counting unapologetically for about as much as the rest of the world put together, and as the first of these two equals. Quite right.
Joking aside, on page 26 of the Feb 28 issue, there is this letter:
To: The Guardian
As a scientist of no fixed political position, but deeply involved in climate science and sea-level changes, I agree with Diana Liverman that we must exercise caution with the Earth. Likewise, we must not confuse facts and fiction, nor justify wishes with falsification.
As president of an international commission on sea-level changes and coastal evolution, I launched a Maldives research project. Observational data obtained by our international team of experts shows conclusively that the sea level is not rising, unlike fictions propagated by many who are not specialists.
Nils-Axel Morner, Stockholm University
I have read more grammatically perfect written English than this. I mean, what exactly does it mean to “justify wishes with falsification”? And although the attempted meaning of that final sentence is clear enough, its actual wording is something of a muddle. One expects better English from Scandinavians. Nevertheless, the most important bit, where it says that “the sea level is not rising”, is clear as clear can be.
That international commission would presumably be these people.
Interesting, I think. And good on The Guardian for printing the letter.
Damn, was looking forward to jet-skiing to the office.
I think that when the good doctor refers to “justifying wishes with falsification”, he’s talking about people who so want the claim that the sea is rising to be true that they’re willing to make up evidence.
Do a Google search on Michael Bellesiles for an abject example of this.
I agree with Ted.
“justifying wishes with falsification” feels like the possible Swedish interpretation in English of a French equivalent that would go, if, of course, interpreted in English by a French or, who knows, even a Swede, as “To take one’s dreams for reality“.
Now Brian, please do comment at will on the grammatical perfection, wording and clarity, or lack of, if need be, of my understanding of the said Swedish syntax.
But please don’t expect too much in English from a French who is not Scandinavian.
justify wishes with falsification
What’s not to like about such an exquisitely barbed phrase? I suspect Mr. Morner would dismiss many of his critics as ignorant lovechildren.
Ok, even if, theoretically, the polar ice caps were melting more than their normal cyclical rate, haven’t any of these people who claim the oceans will rise ever done the “ice in a glass” experiment? The ice has already displaced its amount of water, and melting will not displace anymore. If anything, if there is global warming (which I still have my doubts about – maybe regional warming would be a better term), then the oceans would dry into a salty brine, not flood the earth.
“Likewise, we must not confuse facts and fiction, nor justify wishes with falsification.”
Brian, I don’t understand your complaint; I rather liked that line.
Greg – The risk of flooding comes from the thermal expansion of the seawater in the event of appreciable global warming, not any amount of “extra” water from melting icecaps. It is quite possible (in theory) to have increasing ice-caps at the same time as rising sea levels.
Ok, even if, theoretically, the polar ice caps were melting more than their normal cyclical rate, haven’t any of these people who claim the oceans will rise ever done the “ice in a glass” experiment? The ice has already displaced its amount of water, and melting will not displace anymore.
This is only true if the ice is already floating. Most of the Antarctic Ice Sheet is grounded, so its melting would increase the sea level.
So how is your Swedish grammar, O wise one?
Verity
You notice that once again everyone has ignored the techtonic uplift in the Southern Alps of New Zealand and the sagging of the Great Tetons 🙂
I think “justify wishes with falsification” might be better as “justify wishes by/through/via falsification”, but otherwise I think it is fine.
It’s perfectly clear as is, even if it could be better.
What “nor justify wishes with falsification” means is that we should not submit to the propaganda and lies of Al Gore and others who wish to impose a carbon tax. A tax that’d put a price on your life because you’d have to pay it every time you breathe out.