Apparently there was already such horror scenarios in the media:
Here you'll find an interesting interview with a scientist who is controversial, as far as certain private opinions, but as a geologist, he is probably an indisputable expert: Claim That Sea Level Is a Total Fraud IsRising
excerpts that I find interesting:
So, from where do they get this rise in the Tuvalu Islands?
Then we know that there was a Japanese pineapple industry which subtracted too much fresh water from the inland, and those islands have very little fresh water available from precipitation, rain. So, if you take out too much, you destroy the water magazine, and you bring sea water into the magazine, which is not nice. So they took out too much fresh water and in came salt water. And of course the local people were upset. But then it was much easier to say, “No, no! It's the global sea level rising! It has nothing to do with our subtraction of fresh water.” So there you have it. This is a local industry which doesn't pay.
You have Vanuatu, and also in the Pacific, north of New Zealand and Fiji— there is the island Tegua. They said they had to evacuate it, because the sea level was rising. But again, you look at the tide-gauge record: There is absolutely no signal that the sea level is rising. If anything, you could say that maybe the tide is lowering a little bit, but absolutely no rising.
And again, where do they get it from? They get it from their inspiration, their hopes, their compu-ter models, but not from observation. Which is terrible. We have Venice. Venice is well known, because that area is techtonically, because of the delta, slowly subsiding.
Oder das hier:
EIR: These scare stories are being used for political purposes.
Mörner: Yes. Again, this is for me, the line of demarcation between the meteorological community and us: They work with computers; we geologists work with observations, and the observations do not fit with these scenarios. So what should you change? We cannot change observations, so we have to change the scenarios!
Instead of doing this, they give an endless amount of money to the side which agrees with the IPCC. The European Community, which has gone far in this thing: If you want a grant for a research pro-ject in climatology, it is written into the document that there must be a focus on global warming. All the rest of us, we can never get a coin there, because we are not fulfilling the basic obligations. That is really bad, because then you start asking for the answer you want to get. That's what dictator-ships did, autocracies. They Demanded that scientists produce what they wanted.
If I understand it, he complains that some scientific colleagues, politicians and industry to operate for financial reasons, data massage and fact cover-up. I can imagine this very well.
Even that is nothing for the first time in relation to climate change. Moerner says yes only that the sea level has not risen significantly. One indication of just which also is still controversial
the interview, I can recommend as a stimulus, the time to verify everything piece by piece! Do not believe everything you set before you in the media. Think for yourself! The media review zu einem nicht geringen Teil voneinander ab. So kann man regelrecht Hysterie erzeugen. Was mich zusätzlich zu vielen skeptischen Stimmen stutzig macht, ist die plötzliche Umkehr bestimmter Politiker, wenn es um das Wohl der Erde geht, diese Sorge stützt sich aber wohlgemerkt einzig und allein auf die CO2 Thematik. Das hat so ein komisches "Gschmäckle".
Ich möchte aber nicht missverstanden werden. Ich bin nach wie vor davon überzeugt, dass es von der Klimaproblematik mal abgesehen, allein schon genug politische Gründe gibt, sich von Erdöl, Uran und Kohle unabhängig zu machen und energietechnisch autark zu werden.
Das ist nach meinem Dafürhalten kein sonderlich schwieriges Unterfangen, es fehlt allein der politische Wille.
