More proof that Anthony Watts can't tell the difference between crackpottery and his elbow. Even his faithful followers know better than he.
I wonder how long this article by Richard Guy will last? (Updated archive link here.) Here is a taste:
We will never solve the disappearing water problem until we face the reality that we have been mislead by Iostacy. We have to face this reality because this reality is now facing us: we are losing water all over the planet while we continue to harp on rising seas levels.
Once we abandon Isostatic Rebound we will see the reality of receding seas. This path will also lead us to other interesting discoveries such as why the seas recede.? Once we accept that seas are receding that acceptance will automatically eliminate Post Glacial Rebound. There is no time to waste because our survival depends on this acceptance.I've archived the original here for posterity - with update 1 and update 2 and update 3 with the latest comments. A number of people are asking if Richard Guy is a fake denier, suggesting it's a Poe.
Anthony tries the excuse that:
Note: I’m not convinced that this idea has any merit, as I see more conventional reasons (like silting) for land recovery such as at Rome’s original harbor and in New York, but thought it was worth posting for the discussion that would ensure – Anthony"Not convinced" but thought it "worth posting"? It reminds me of the diatoms fiasco from last year. Quoting Greg Laden: "Let me be very very clear: This is not a claim to be skeptical about."
Was his "would ensure" a slip or did he mean to include the "r"?
Will his next article be about the likelihood that elephants will evolve into flying elephants using their ears as wings?
Is he just hoping to pick up a few pennies by click throughs to Amazon?
Has he run out of quack authors and has to resort to superquack authors?
PS Poor old Anthony hasn't yet twigged that the article is not "worth discussing". He's tweeting left, right and centre trying to justify posting it.
What a nutter!
PPS Anthony has decided to stick it out in the face of everyone's guffaws. He's moved his cautious "not convinced" but "worth posting" comment to the top of the article and has become more definite. He probably checked here too, because he's replaced "ensure" with "ensue". Compare his original with his revamp.
NOTE: (I had this at the bottom of the post some people missed it so I moved it up to the top) I’m not convinced that this idea has any merit whatsoever, as I see more conventional reasons (like silting) for land recovery such as at Rome’s original harbor and in New York, but thought it was worth posting for the discussion that would ensue. Even bad science deserves to be discussed/disproven. See also a note below. – AnthonyNote the change from his original uncertain comment.
Note: I’m not convinced that this idea has any merit, as I see more conventional reasons (like silting) for land recovery such as at Rome’s original harbor and in New York, but thought it was worth posting for the discussion that would ensure – AnthonyAnthony has shifted from a weak "not convinced" but "worth posting" to a bolded "whatsoever". He doesn't like looking like the fool he is, but is not sure how to best wiggle out of it. Will it eventually be retired altogether or will he leave up this example of how poor is his scientific acumen?
What a nutter! (Yes, I mean to repeat it.)