AlGore embarrassed by his own inconvenient BS

[calfoxwc]

December 15, 2009

 

Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don't add up

 

Al Gore's office admitted that the percentage he quoted in his speech was from an old, ballpark figure

 

Hannah Devlin, Ben Webster, Philippe Naughton in Copenhagen

 

There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was poleaxed by an inconvenient one yesterday.

 

The former US Vice-President, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, became entangled in a new climate change "spin" row.

 

Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.

 

In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: "These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years."

 

However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast."It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at," Dr Maslowski said. "I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this."

 

Mr Gore's office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a "ballpark figure" several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.

 

The embarrassing error cast another shadow over the conference after the controversy over the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, which appeared to suggest that scientists had manipulated data to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.

 

Mr Gore is not the only titan of the world stage finding Copenhagen to be a tricky deal.

 

World leaders with Gordon Brown arriving tonight in the vanguard are facing the humiliating prospect of having little of substance to sign on Friday, when they are supposed to be clinching an historic deal.

 

Meanwhile, five hours of negotiating time were lost yesterday when developing countries walked out in protest over the lack of progress on their demand for legally binding emissions targets from rich nations. The move underlined the distrust between rich and poor countries over the proposed legal framework for the deal.

 

Last night key elements of the proposed deal were unravelling. British officials said they were no longer confident that it would contain specific commitments from individual countries on payments to a global fund to help poor nations to adapt to climate change while the draft text on protecting rainforests has also been weakened.

 

Even the long-term target of ending net deforestation by 2030 has been placed in square brackets, meaning that the date could be deferred. An international monitoring system to identify illegal logging is now described in the text as optional, where before it was compulsory. Negotiators are also unable to agree on a date for a global peak in greenhouse emissions.

 

Perhaps Mr Gore had felt the need to gild the lily to buttress resolve. But his speech was roundly criticised by members of the climate science community. "This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from sceptics," Professor Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.

 

"You really don't need to exaggerate the changes in the Arctic."

 

Others said that, even if quoted correctly, Dr Maslowski's six-year projection for near-ice-free conditions is at the extreme end of the scale. Most climate scientists agree that a 20 to 30-year timescale is more likely for the near-disappearance of sea ice.

 

"Maslowski's work is very well respected, but he's a bit out on a limb," said Professor Peter Wadhams, a specialist in ocean physics at the University of Cambridge.

 

Dr Maslowki, who works at the US Naval Postgraduate School in California, said that his latest results give a six-year projection for the melting of 80 per cent of the ice, but he said he expects some ice to remain beyond 2020.

 

He added: "I was very explicit that we were talking about near-ice-free conditions and not completely ice-free conditions in the northern ocean. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this," he said. "It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at, based on the information I provided to Al Gore's office."

 

Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist at the Massachusets Institute of Technology who does not believe that global warming is largely caused by man, said: "He's just extrapolated from 2007, when there was a big retreat, and got zero."

[calfoxwc]

Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist at the Massachusets Institute of Technology who does not believe that global warming is largely caused by man, said: "He's just extrapolated from 2007, when there was a big retreat, and got zero."

 

 

I wonder what happened to Shep's "virtually all scientists agree".

 

 

Now, Sheppie, you don't have to run and hide from "An Inconvenient Reality".

 

 

People who won't be honest about global warming not really being caused by man,

 

are truth deniers.

[Spunkonmyback DPOY]

Record cold forecast for Copenhagen

 

 

 

The Weather Underground people are forecasting low temperatures of 21°, 17° and 22° in Copenhagen, respectively, for Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. The record lows for those dates are 24°, 19° and 19°.

 

Now it could be that the weather history that Weather Underground uses does not go back that far.

 

But then again, the Global Warming crowd ignores data that shows the Middle Ages were much warmer than today.

 

The normal temperature range for Copenhagen in January is 29° to 36°.

 

Other forecasts say it will be only slightly colder, no record.

 

UPDATE: The Weather Underground updated its forecast and upped its lows to above the record.

 

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/5805

[calfoxwc]

from "The Media Research Center" <alert@mrcaction.org>

 

Ignoring this massive scandal won’t make it go away!The left-wing media like to refer to those of us that aren’t drinking the Global Warming Kool-Aid as “deniers.

 

But they’re the ones in denial if they think we’re going to let them get away with sweeping the biggest scientific scandal of our generation under the carpet!

 

We just received confirmation that our grassroots blitz to expose ClimateGate has surpassed 30,000 e-mails and many thousands of phone calls -- every contact demanding the networks fully investigate this ongoing, and deepening scandal.

 

Just days ago, Media Research Center founder Brent Bozell, during an interview with NewsMax.com, drew a correlation between the 1970s Watergate scandal and ClimateGate, saying, “[bob] Woodward and [Carl] Bernstein didn’t just cover Watergate, they investigated it!

 

Thats precisely what is not happening with the ClimateGate scandal.

 

Instead of investigating and exposing the real truth, the so-called “news” networks are in denial, telling viewers and readers that “the science is solid” and “the evidence is overwhelming that man is behind climate change.”

 

Even worse, they are actively orchestrating a whitewash campaign -- attempting to silence and even discredit those who are raising legitimate questions and concerns about ClimateGate!

 

Mike, this scandal is far from over, and with our environmental and economic health hanging in the balance, we need the truth.

 

That’s why we’re counting on you to help us amplify our grassroots demand for a full investigation into ClimateGate!

 

We are expanding our reach beyond the network executives and going directly to the journalists at the networks, appealing to their integrity and urging them to uphold some scrap of journalistic standards.

 

So, even if you’ve already sent e-mails or made calls, click here to express your outrage to our newly expanded list of network executives and science correspondents!

 

You can count on the MRC and our team of analysts and researchers to continue exposing the media cover-up of the ClimateGate scandal on a daily basis.

 

Click here for the truth the media aren’t telling you about ClimateGate.

 

After taking quick action please alert 30-40 friends about ClimateGate. Educate them on the networks’ deceptive cover-up, and urge them to join with you in demanding a full investigation by clicking here.

 

For the real truth of ClimateGate to be told, it will take massive grassroots pressure on the so-called “news” networks -- something the MRC is ready, willing, and uniquely able to do … with your help.

 

Thank you for your continued support in our efforts.

 

 

 

David Martin

 

[/color]

 

 

 

 

P.S: To read the untold story of ClimateGate, click here.

 

[Westside Steve]

Though I doubt Shep's still around this does indeed highlight the fact that Gore's a clown and the Nobel committee clueless.

 

Probably worse if it's just blatant greed at play which I assume.

WSS

[ClevelandFanForLife]

global warming is bs. last year had a warmer average temperature than any in the past few years. shut up al.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Much like "Climategate", this is a perfect example of the right's pettiness and stupidity about this issue, and the ease with which you can distract them, or simply lead they around by the nose.

 

What Gore said was there's a 75 per cent chance that the entire polar ice cap will be ice-free in summer within five to seven years.

 

The study he's basing this on says something slightly different: that in six years they project 80% of the ice to be gone.

 

So Gore was off on his numbers. Not by a huge amount, but he was off. So what do you dimwits choose to focus on? The fact that the polar ice cap is melting rapidly, and all the consequences of that? No. You get to read your Drudge and Fox headlines about how Al Gore got his stats slightly wrong, then continue pretending this means global warming is a hoax, even though the fact remains that the polar ice caps are melting at an alarming rate, which creates a feedback loop for even more warming. Or that this current cycle was already predicted by previous global warming theory.

 

It's not an argument. It's a tactic. It's saying, "Hey, look over here!"

 

And you all look. Because, as we've seen in here for years, the Republican base actually thinks Al Gore is global warming, and cant separate the two.

[Westside Steve]

And you all look. Because, as we've seen in here for years, the Republican base actually thinks Al Gore is global warming, and cant separate the two.

 

Heck it's your guys who made him the focal point of the movement.

Sorry he's a goofball.

You bellyache about Glenn Beck but nobody had the gall to give him a Nobel.......

 

WSS

[Mr. T]

Yeah all this fuss over carbon footprints, well after Al Gorian has been found out to be this decades biggest fraud all those carbon foot prints have been washed away with each wave as it washes upon the sand.

 

Carbon Foot Prints in the Sand, Check it out.

[calfoxwc]

"Maslowski's work is very well respected, but he's a bit out on a limb," said Professor Peter Wadhams, a specialist in ocean physics at the University of Cambridge.

 

He added: "I was very explicit that we were talking about near-ice-free conditions and not completely ice-free conditions in the northern ocean. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this," he said. "It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at, based on the information I provided to Al Gore's office."

 

Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist at the Massachusets Institute of Technology who does not believe that global warming is largely caused by man, said: "He's just extrapolated from 2007, when there was a big retreat, and got zero."

**************************************************************

 

Heck, give it up. Stop being soaking wet in Egypt ! Gore cherry picked a sensational guess/prediction by one climate scientist, and Professor Peter Wadhams, specialist in ocean physics at the University of Cambridge, and Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist at MIT flat out disagree.

 

The former says Gore's goofy cherry picked "expert" is realy out on a limb.... and Richard Lindzen does NOT believe that global warming is largely

 

cause by man.

 

Spin your bias, Heck, as defiantly as you want to. The TRUTH is, the TRUTH about this fraud is becoming more and more apparent, like I said it would

 

BTW, Heck, send yer little buddy Sheply over.

 

Yes, seriously, Heck, you ARE completely soaked in Egypt.

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

Heck it's your guys who made him the focal point of the movement.

Sorry he's a goofball.

You bellyache about Glenn Beck but nobody had the gall to give him a Nobel.......

 

WSS

 

God, your comparisons are so stupid. It's like watching my son trying to jam the square block in the round hole. And I enjoyed how I posted about how distracted and obsessed the right is with hating Al Gore and you respond with ...more about Al Gore.

 

As for Al Gore, he took one of the most important environmental issues of the century - if not the most important - and made it accessible to the general population. He travelled around the world sounding the alarm, showing his video and powerpoint presentation to rooms with 5 people in them to rooms with 5000 people in them. He's been working on this issue since the 80s, when almost nobody knew about it. He's done more than any single human being on the planet to focus national and international attention on this problem. That's why he won the prize.

 

And if it's his small collection of factual errors in a campaign that's lasted well over a decade that bothers you, or his lack of charisma that bothers you, you're either intentionally missing the bigger picture, or you're just being partisan and ignorant.

 

As for Glenn Beck, he's a clueless, paranoid TV and radio host, with no particular expertise, selling scary to rubes. So I'm not sure I see your point. But thanks for yet another lame equivalency argument.

 

Honestly, can you do anything else?

[Mr. T]

Hey heck, did you here the News?

 

 

 

Al Gore Lied!

[Westside Steve]

Honestly, can you do anything else?

 

 

Besides exposing you and your idols for the dipshits they are?

 

Sure I can. That's just what I do here.

 

BTW your kid is shoving a block up which hole?

 

I woudn't let Shep babysit anymore.

Just trying to be helpful.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Yes, Westside Steve, exposer of truth.

 

Nothing more sad than a prideful idiot.

[Chicopee John]

As for Al Gore, he took one of the most important environmental issues of the century - if not the most important - and made it accessible to the general population. >>

 

 

It's really a hypothethis, not an issue Heck.

[calfoxwc]

A politically oriented, fraudulently supported, hypothethis, Heck.

 

The corruption is surfacing more and more.

[heckofajobbrownie]

As for Al Gore, he took one of the most important environmental issues of the century - if not the most important - and made it accessible to the general population. >>

 

 

It's really a hypothethis, not an issue Heck.

 

That kind of line makes less and less sense the further you get away from high school science class, or the Browns Board, but whatever works for you, John.

 

Perhaps if you can name me a single national science academy that doesn't believe that AGW theory is beyond the basic hypothesis stage and then we can play your 8th grade semantic games. But you can't, because every single one has endorsed the theory.

 

Honestly, John. And then you wonder why everyone who wants to have a serious conversation left this place? You can do better.

[Westside Steve]

Nothing more sad than a prideful idiot.

 

Oh the irony.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Or as they say on the playground, "I know you are but what am I?"

[heckofajobbrownie]

So can anyone name me a national science academy anywhere in the world that disputes the finding that man's activities are causing the planet to warm, with potentially grave consequences? Is there a single nation boycotting Copenhagen?

 

Does anyone want to dispute the basic physics of carbon dioxide molecules and how they trap heat?

 

Does anyone want to dispute that we're pumping more and more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?

 

Does anyone want to dispute the fact that once you put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere it stays there for a really, really long time?

 

Or do you just want to spend your day griping about Al Gore citing a study wrong?

 

Anyone?

 

[Chicopee John]

Honestly, John. And then you wonder why everyone who wants to have a serious conversation left this place? You can do better.

 

There is enough question in my mind, Heck, to be truly agnostic about "Man Made Global Warming" and I believe it has- at least as much to do about politics as it does about science.

 

Why were those scientists so concerned about hiding the data from these investigations? Please answer that one, Heck. It is a true and honest question.

 

Now natural climate change is something different, IMHO. I do believe the climate is changing. It has been changing for thousands and thousands of years. I don't believe we can do anything about it except to rely on the concept of natural selection and 'survival of the fittest'.

 

On the other front....those guys you are referring to never wanted to engage in serious conversation. One, in particular, simply cannot accept that he might not be 100% correct 100% of the time. You know the guy. They are both welcome back to this board if they are interested or if Stan will relinquish their suspensions.

 

[calfoxwc]

Heck,

 

it is a scientific fact that CO2 is used by plants. Taken in, and processed.

 

That's a fact.

 

CO2 doesn't just stay in the atmosphere forever. That's dumb.

 

I keep asking, why do you mmgw enthusiasts not worry about the millions of acres of rainforest being destroyed?

 

Do you know that plant life thrives on CO2?

 

Why, do you know that black also absorbs heat? Doesn't reflect light like lighter colors.

 

I think you goober warning people need to take a course in the science that makes spectrophotometers work.

 

then you could take a genuine class on weather.

 

and fraud. Then you could come over to our side.

 

Until then, asking a few questions hardly makes the case for "man is heating up the globe so we have to tax the everlovin

 

crap out of people and make them vote Democratic" nonsense.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I don't know who you're talking about, so I can't help you. But I don't sense any willingness to come back to this board. Everyone likes the new one better.

 

As for the emails, I think it's proof that a couple of these people acted unethically, and their reputations will suffer, and already have. But it really doesn't do anything to the overall case for global warming. You had thousands and thousands of emails over many years and most of what they found amounts to little or nothing. The only thing that is problematic in a real sense is the part you mentioned - trying to keep emails from a FOI request.

 

That doesn't really do anything to the case for global warming. It's just a PR problem. PR problems are real, but there's still about PR, not substance.

 

As for your bit about the climate changing over history, of course it has. The point is we're changing it in unnatural ways that could be very problematic, and far more costly than the costs involved in reducing emissions.

 

I don't think sitting back and saying "It'll weed out the weak and the vulnerable, so let's just let it happen" is a very good argument.

[Westside Steve]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/34385342#34385342

 

It's worse than we thought.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

One thing I'd ask you, John: if you're worried about politics interfering with scientists, shouldn't you be more concerned with, you know, politics interfering with science?

 

You seem to be suggesting that it's the scientific community that's engaged in playing politics. And while they're certainly not immune from politics, I'm wondering what you think their political goal is? We're talking about thousands of people from different countries. You're suggesting that their science isn't good, but they've toyed with it, en masse, for political ends? And what would those ends be? I'd love to hear what you think that is.

 

Isn't it far more likely that the people applying political pressure to alter the perception of what the science says are the moneyed interests who would face a new regime of carbon pricing should a cap and trade system be implemented?

 

On one hand, you've got a PhD from Oxford doing research on ice cores in the Arctic. On the other hand, you've got Chevron and Peabody Energy.

 

Who do you think is more likely to be exerting political influence?

 

Who was trying to alter the science during the move to regulate tobacco? Was it the scientists at Johns Hopkins and the ones writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, or was it Phillip Morris and Brown and Williamson?

 

Also, don't want to ruin your day, but professional wrestling is staged.

[Chicopee John]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/34385342#34385342

 

It's worse than we thought.WSS

 

 

 

Matthews isn't a serious journalist - if he ever was.

 

He is nothing but a shill and, to be honest with you, I wonder if he is back on the sauce.

 

The thrill up his leg will dog him for ever.

 

Amazing that he, Olberman, and Moore represent the representative left.

 

[Westside Steve]

Matthews isn't a serious journalist - if he ever was.

 

Well probably not.

I just found this outrage to be similar to what we hear from the other side.

Seems he's more angry at Fox than he is concerned about the end of life as we know it.

 

But even if I did think GW was a grave danger I'd be pissed off at the hysteria that the left finds necessary to sell their case.

Every time you reset the doomsday clock it becomes less frightening.

 

WSS

[calfoxwc]

Kinda like when the Dems turned off the air conditioning, closed all the doors, and turned the heat up,

 

to dramatize the testimony before Congress about mmgw.

 

Now THAT WAS "mmgw".

 

Gee, now we know it can happen !

[Chicopee John]

To answer your question, Heck, I believe it is the politics of anti-industrial, anti-military, anti-capitalism, etc. that are the politics and - to a certain extent - many scientists are involved in this action. We've already seen what 'the community' does when scientific data does not support their hypothesis'.

 

As I've said before, I do believe our climate is changing but am agnostic about the impact 'we' - the industrial, military, capitalists - have on the environment. For those who believe in Darwinism, they can look to natural selection over time and believe that those best equipped to alter and adapt will continue to flourusg - and this includes human beings, and trees, and grass, etc.

 

Look at those folks in DK - they are the same ones that show up at IMF meetings, etc.

 

 

Heck, you often say some things that make a lot of sense but how you can hang your hat on the likes of Gore, Moore, Olberman, etc. and - at the same time - rail against the likes of Dobbs, etc. bewilders me.

 

No it doesn't - it's Politics, stupid.

 

 

Do you really think that the Madow's of the world are adequate leaders for you guys?

[heckofajobbrownie]

John, I just think this post is wildly off the mark in every respect. And I doubt you can support any of your claims.

 

Who are the "anti-industrial, anti-military, anti-capitalism" people you speak of? Name one person of import in this country that is "anti-industrial, anti-military, anti-capitalism". This is just a fiction many of you on the right live under, as if there are powerful Democrats who aren't capitalists and hate the military and are trying to dramatically alter your way of life. I don't know anyone in the Obama administration, for instance, who fits this description. Debates are over things like the appropriate level of taxation in a democracy, how to improve health care delivery and availability, etc. They're not about dismantling our system and replacing it with something else.

 

Nor do I imagine that you can name a single climate scientist who fits this description, or could really do anything about it if they did believe this. They're scientists, not policy makers. I think this is a villain you dream up, but doesn't exist in reality. You're just pulling this stuff out of your ass, not to mention ignoring the obvious attempts to play politics with science by some - though certainly not all - in the business community.

 

More importantly, I don't know of, or have heard of, a single person who wants to tackle global warming for the reasons the right dreams up - that there is some sort of world socialist movement to redistribute wealth, or bring down capitalism, etc. It's just ridiculous. It's just what nuts tell themselves - or more likely, what people in the know tell the nuts to tell themselves in order to get them on their side and angry.

 

Quite the contrary, everyone I know would much rather be focusing on other priorities than this. They'd much rather this wasn't an issue, and could focus more on health care, or terrorism, or education, or the economy. Tackling this issue is a huge undertaking, one that requires that we spend loads of political capital and time in order to do something that's never been done before. And the impetus to do something - believe me - comes from the fear that if we don't it's going to be really bad news for humans and wildlife, food production, the availability of fresh water, etc., and that the costs of not doing something vastly outweigh the costs of doing something. It's also an insurance policy against the higher end projections and possibilities that, though less likely, would be truly catastrophic.

 

As for what "the community" does when scientific data doesn't match their "hypothesis", I'm guessing you're referring to the emails from East Anglica, which you seem to think show something more than they do. The science is fine, and it's transparent, and it's peer-reviewed. And again with the "hypothesis" nonsense.

 

The Darwinian stuff is just bizarre. I don't know what to say about that.

 

As for the personal stuff, if you can find me "hanging my hat" on Michael Moore and Keith Olberman, be my guest. But I've never done that. Nor have I done it with Al Gore. I don't throw my lot in with anybody. If they make a good point, or support good policies, I'll support them on those specifics points. The idea that this is some sort of love affair is just a fiction and a crutch created by people who can't argue policy. It's just something you can say when you can't say anything else.

 

This is always about policy for me, and about who can best translate those policies into law. In short, I don't argue Al Gore; you guys do. Constantly, in fact. I argue global warming. I'm the guy who has been saying for years to forget about Al Gore because he's not global warming; he's just a guy who's done more than anyone else to make it an issue. You can take Al Gore off the planet and it changes nothing about the science, or the laws of nature behind the science.

 

As for Rachel Maddow, her show is fine for what it is, a bit snarky for my tastes, and she's really cool in person. But I don't think ever ever watched a single episode all the way through. Same goes for Olberman. I don't watch much TV.

 

As for Rachel Maddow being a "leader" for "you guys", I think you're reaching a bit here. She's a TV show host who reaches about a million people a night. Liberals simply don't enjoy partisan opinion shows on TV or the radio in the same numbers conservatives do. It's why Fox News beats MSNBC handily. It's why right-wing radio is a huge success, but left-wing radio has never worked. Liberals, by their nature, tend to like to hear news news. The frothing partisans appeal to some, but it's a smaller number.

 

But as a liberal voice on the airwaves, sure, I think she's great. What's wrong with her?

 

And I don't really remember railing against Lou Dobbs either, though I think he's a bit obsessive and mostly wrong. But I don't know why you'd be so stunned why someone like me would agree more with someone like Olberman and Maddow and less with Lou Dobbs or Glenn Beck. Of course I do. Their views run more parallel to mine. So what?