I quite like reading the Torygraph. Unlike the Grauniad it doesn’t tell me what I want to know. But every now and again it is time for a reality check, and the most recent demonstration of their utter incompetence at reporting GW is Rise of sea levels is ‘the greatest lie ever told’, which uncritically repeats the tripe from “dowsing” Morner (the “facts” in the article are so badly at variance with reality that they aren’t even worth refuting). And there is a good reason why he is the *former* head of the INQUA commission: http://www.edf.org/documents/3868_morner_exposed.pdf will provide some hints.


  1. #1 Magnus W

    There are lots of stories about this weirdo in Sweden, I can’t but help to feel realy sorry for all the PhD students that where fooled to have him as supervisor…

  2. #2 Jack K

    The WikiPedia page describing the author of The Telegraph article makes interesting reading:


  3. #3 Andy

    All I can see here are ad hominem. And the letter as pdf merely states he once worked there. He does not any more.

  4. #4 P. Lewis

    And the “Christopher Booker Prize for Climate Change Bullshit” goes to …

  5. #5 Lance


    Well the letter to which you link only says that he was the head of the INQUA commission until 2003. It gives no “hint” as to why as far as I cans see. It just says that he disagrees with the “consensus” of the role of humans in climate change.

    Are you implying that that is enough to disaqualify a scientist from a position of authority? Think that one through. It would be hard for science to progress if everyone was forced to toe the line on scientific theories.

    In fact it would be impossible.

    [You need to be able to read between the lines. If you want to stick to your point of view, I don’t claim to be able to persuade you otherwise. If you knew anything about INQUA things would be clearer. People don’t write letters like that purely to make the informative point that X is no longer the head of Y. They write them to point out that Morner is a wacko -W]

  6. #6 crandles

    >”Are you implying that that is enough to disaqualify a scientist from a position of authority?”


    Can you honestly read that letter and think that a mere difference of opinion is being suggested as a reason to disqualify him from a position of authority?

    If you had indicated the letter was silent on issues prior to his departure but accepted that there appeared to be issues afterward that might just about be a credible position. However it seems clear that William is saying he knows there is good reason for the departure (and this must precede the departure), but William is only going to provide hints.

    There doesn’t seem much hint in the letter about matters prior to departure, but only if you ignore the hint of the letter’s existance.

    Such letters are carefully written to say only what is clearly known. Only a wacko would write a letter saying Dr X is a wacko.

  7. #7 bi -- IJI

    I think I get it — when Mörner misrepresents his own position with INQUA, it can’t be a good sign. But it’ll be nice to have a more concrete clue on the reason of the departure, instead of just coded messages.

    And why on earth does Christopher Booker keep getting so much column space?

  8. #8 P. Lewis

    Maybe for the same reason that the Washington Post keep George Will on?

    Given its Tory stance still (despite the Barclays stating it wouldn’t necessarily remain the house journal of the Tory party), Booker’s perspective is curiously at odds with the pale green tinge of the Tory front bench. Then again, it is in line with the dinosaurs and quacks (ie the likes of Lawson and Vacant Monckton) of the Tory party.

    So, perhaps it’s all part of some editorial balance to keep as many Tories as possible still reading the house journal.

    (I used to read the Telegraph, despite my always left of centre (UK) political leanings. It had the best Sports section of all the daily rags, a decent crossword to do in my lunch hour and its opinion pieces reinforced what I never believed in. A happy marriage of convenience.)

  9. #9 Eli Rabett

    FWIW, reorganizations are the easiest way of getting rid of people. Sometimes you just say it

  10. #10 Lance

    If you want to stick to your point of view, I don’t claim to be able to persuade you otherwise…

    The only point of point of view I am “sticking to” is to follow the evidence where it leads.

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.