the week indenialism

The world-renowned economist and humanitarian has blundered into an argument with an actual climate scientist, with entertaining results. After calling on politicians to be guided by the "careful" work of the "hugely respected" IPCC, Lomborg cites IPCC author Stefan Rahmstorf's views on sea level rise as proof that consensus ≠ agreement. Stefan Rahmstorf argues that sea level rises will be much higher than those anticipated by most researchers.

Rahmstorf is a well-established, serious researcher on climate change who holds a minority view on the rise in the sea-level — the IPCC's estimate is an 18cm to 59cm rise by the end of the century. I mentioned him to make the point that meeting with like-minded colleagues does not somehow create a new global scientific consensus.In his response, Rahmstorf labels me a "spin-doctor" who is "fooling the public".

Often, such strong language can belie poor arguments. In this case, I believe that is the case.
Lomborg's proof essentially consists of evidence that sea level fluctuates, along with a bit of finger-wagging to the effect that "one cannot pick the timeframes to fit the argument."
Rahmstorf is correct to note that the levels are no longer dropping — which they were from 2006 to early 2008, the data available at the time of my article — but curiously seems disinclined to explore why the rise over the past four years (2005-2008) has been half the previous rise at 1.6mm/year.

The inescapable point is that sea levels are not escalating out of hand – if anything, they are doing the exact opposite right now.Rahmstorf's entire response is , but here's my favorite part:
Lomborg argues that 18 years could be too short for a robust trend comparison because of decadal variations in trend – but the 42-year period analysed by IPCC yields the same result. And it is telling that he then goes on to draw an "inescapable" conclusion about a slow-down of sea level rise from just four years of data.