I have written about how dishonest the National Geographic Magazine is. They use photos of museum historic houses and call them examples of current living. They ignore the writers and photographers descriptions of their own photos and put in their own explanations that are unscientific.
The graph on the right raises questions about whether the people who are in the editorial room are actually stupid. The evidence suggests that they are.
Look at the graph on the right. Tell me what year the oceans began to rise. If you say 1800 you are smarter than anybody in the editorial office at the National Geographic. This is a photo of their own chart.
The article on this subject, which is undated on their website for idiots, explains the rise in global oceans as having the same cause as the rise in global surface temperature.
I only have two points to make. Since 1800 the global oceans have risen at the rate of 8 inches per century. We have two centuries of experience and reliable data, but we have not one single solitary theory to explain this phenomenon.
This doesn't stop the National Geographic editors from projecting astounding increases in the rise of the oceans. Nor does it keep them from blaming this rise on industrialization. Since oil was not in significant use until the 1910s and coal for steel was barely in use in 1900, one has to wonder how oil and coal had such a great impact 100 years before they were in regular use by humans. Moreover humans comprised one sixth of the global number of people we have today between 1800 and 1850.
Once again I asked the question about the editorial staff at National Geographic: are they stupid? Could even ideological blindness help them overlook their own graph?