I read Rob Colmore's letter ‘Rise and fall', (The Weekend Sun, September 13, 2019, pg 40), and found myself puzzled by his referral to "the models and narrative". Where does the data fit in, in a view of science that only sees models and narrative aka predictions?

Leaving aside the Wikipedia article on Nils-Axel Mörner with the information that he believes in dowsing (below-the-belt jabs are not supposed to happen in scientific discourse), the data on the sea level is derived from several sources, from harbourmasters taking high-tide measurements to military and civilian satellites measuring the sea level directly or indirectly. (According to US President Trump, that means the New England and West Coast harbourmasters in the 1890s and the US DoD satellites during the Cold War were willing participants in a Chinese hoax of the 2000s. A very, very stable genius. If I ever made any such statements, I would be prescribed suitable medication...)

Now Rob Colmore has said Nils-Axel Mörner had said that the models of the relevant environment and the resulting narrative (the predictions) were fundamentally flawed. Ironically we've been hearing the same thing over and over again, from scientists who find that glaciers are melting faster than their models had predicted, etc. The IPCC has been criticised for being too conservative in its climate modelling, because they keep getting tripped up by such discrepancies.

Now given the choice between a group of people willing to admit their mistakes and someone who seems intent on beating them up with such mistakes and refusing to admit to those of his own, I know who I believe.

Wesley Parish, Bellevue.