A guest post by: Russ Steele from NCWatch
We can only hope the most people in the US are shopping on Black Friday and not watching the Oprah Winfrey Show today. Al Gore has brought his global warming propaganda machine to share with Oprah. You can find the details on Oprah’s web page. Here are some of the topics that Gore is pushing:
Classic Gore:
“Some of the leading scientists are now saying we may have as little as 10 years before we cross a kind of point-of-no-return, beyond which it’s much more difficult to save the habitability of the planet in the future,” Gore says.
Yes, but Al you have been saying that for over ten years and we are still here. And in the last ten years the global temperatures stopped rising and are now in decline.
Click for a larger image
Really Al, show me where the temperatures are beyond natural fluctuations:
Gore agrees that the planet’s temperature has indeed experienced up and down cycles, but he says the current up cycle is too extreme. “It’s way off the charts compared to what those natural fluctuations are,” he says.
Here is look at long term temperatures
One word of caution, these are USHCN numbers, which [have been] adjusted. Past temperatures are going down and the more recent going up.
Going, going Gored:
No place is immune to global warming, Gore says. “Of the thousand largest glaciers on every continent, 997 of them are receding,” he says. “And it’s not seasonal.”
Glaciers have been retreating long before CO2 was problem. (Graphic from Climate Skeptic) Now we learn that the glaciers have stopped retreating and are expanding:
DailyTech has previously reported on the growth in Alaskan glaciers, reversing a 250-year trend of loss. Some glaciers in Canada, California, and New Zealand are also growing, as the result of both colder temperatures and increased snowfall.
Al needs to take a second look at the North Pole:
“The North Pole is melting.”
Here is comparison of the ice in November 1980 and 2008. Do you see some major differences, like the “North Pole is melting.” (Note: Earlier photos do not show snow coverage) Details at Cryosphere Today
Katrina again:
“Temperature increases are taking place all over the world, including in the oceans. Gore warns that when the oceans get warmer, storms get stronger. In August 2005, millions of Americans were left homeless by Hurricane Katrina, one of the most powerful hurricanes in recent history. Gore says people should expect more Category 4 and 5 hurricanes if the ocean waters continue to warm.”
Looks like a decline in cyclone energy to me, not an increase.
Please let Oprah know that you expected more from someone of her intelligence and veracity here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I just have a different opinion than what appears to be most of you. For that you have referred to me as angry and empty headed. FYI I have degrees with honors and a doctorate degree. I suppose that if anyone disagrees with any of you, that person will be labeled as something. So be it.
I mentioned Palin because that is one of her chief beliefs, i.e., global warming does not exist.
If you attacked Al Gore’s theory, rather than him, I think what you say would be taken a bit more seriously. It just looks like sour grapes.
REPLY: I’m sorry Catherine, but when you keep tossing out things like “we’re labeling you” (after you said in your very first comment that we are “Palin supporters”) and “sour grapes” it is pretty hard to take you on anything but an emotional level, degrees or not.
Why do you choose to label us first with “Palin supporters” then claim we are the ones doing the labeling? That seems pretty disingenuous. It seems more emotional than rational. In fact visiting your blog in the link with your name, it seems you have mostly emotional postings there.
In fact a search of your entire blog for the word “science” brings up only two stories. Neither of them has any science in them, the word was used casually or with the name “Christian Science Monitor”.
But searches for “Palin” brings up too many to count. Ditto for Bush. That seems pretty emotional to me.
We have attacked Gore’s theory, i.e. the science, many times, and it comes up wanting.
See these links to see how terribly wrong Mr. Gore’s theories are, yet he keeps saying them anyway, and that is why it it valid to question him. read these then get back to us on what you think. Try to set aside for a moment previously held beliefs when reading these:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/05/gore-demonstrates-he-doesnt-understand-basic-meteorology-much-less-climate/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/05/19/hurricanes-to-global-warming-link-blown-away/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/04/11/hurricane-expert-reconsiders-global-warmings-impact/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/25/yet-another-inconvenient-story-ignored-by-the-msm/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/21/noaa-hurricane-frequency-and-global-warming-not-the-cause-of-increased-destruction/
and this one is of particular relevance:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/04/detailed-comments-on-an-inconvenient-truth/
Regarding Gore -vs- his theories. When you put yourself in the public spotlight on TV, it is equally relevant to question the man as well as the methods. In fact, due to the way he presents such things (as multimedia rather than science studies) it is darn near impossible to separate them at times
Then ends don’t justify the means. – Anthony
PhilM,
Nutz to do that.
It appears that the jet stream affects temperature gauges around here, not CO2, (though I do have a pasture full of cows just below the house so methane could be keeping me a bit warmer than last year). This year, the jet stream is dipping down further East of us (from Oregon). Last year we got the Arctic belt and a dump truck full of snow. This year not so much. We are however getting LOTS of rain and low clouds/fog, and on the dry side of the Cascades and Blues.
I don’t have a vested interest in colder or warmer political thought, and don’t care who or what causes temperature changes. I do have a vested interest in farming and ranching. Warmer means wetter. Colder means dryer. A downpour of rain has lots more water than the same time amount of snow. Warmer is better. Those that constantly beat the drum of drought don’t understand that warmer air is more humid than colder air. When the great deserts of the world were surrounded by warmth, the land was green, not sand colored. Enjoy the warmth for what it is. US wine production rode in on waves of warmth. When it turns cold, years of vineyard development along the Columbia river will cost millions in vine death, resulting is economic stress while farmers recover their losses and then must return to cold season fruit crops.
And just so no one thinks I am just a polluting flat earther, I would rather spend my tax dollars on developing coal and natural gas sources that are free of soot and safer in terms of explosions. Now that would be money well spent. I am also all for the development of local small nuclear plants. Lets leave the water for fish and irrigation. These are things that don’t need carbon caps or international treaties. It just needs common sense.
Gore was president?
“Pamela:
And just so no one thinks I am just a polluting flat earther, I would rather spend my tax dollars on developing coal and natural gas sources that are free of soot and safer in terms of explosions. Now that would be money well spent. I am also all for the development of local small nuclear plants. Lets leave the water for fish and irrigation. These are things that don’t need carbon caps or international treaties. It just needs common sense.”
We may be crosswise on economics, but we’re spot on for energy ;*)
JimB
We are cooling, Catherine, for how long even kim doesn’t know.
=======================================
Here’s a question for those of you religiously defending the GW movement. When in your lifetime have you personally experienced global warming? Have you personally seen the sea rise, the ice melt, or the temp in your home town go dangerously extreme? (longer than a weather oddity) Have you seen an environmental disaster near your home caused by long term climate changes? Seen or dealt with something that consistently worsens yearly with the Co2 rise?
For myself, I’ve lived in the same place for almost 30 years. I have seen hotter, I have seen colder, but on the average its pretty much been consistent. Some years are wetter, some drier, some hotter, some colder but we still manage to hold within a temp range normal for this location on the globe. So tell me. Why are you personally so convinced that climate change is a disaster?
If you can only state that you heard it from Nasa, who has recently stated water vapor is the major greenhouse contributor or that the ice caps are melting… you should do some research of your own. You will find that the Antarctic never suffered a major melt and the main cause of the arctic loss was a wind current. You will find that ocean currents trump Co2 and solar contributions to the heating and cooling of our earth are not insignificant. You will learn terms like Little ice age and medieval warming period and you just might be joining us here wondering how the heck such a scam as Global warming got to be such a widespread cause of panic. Climate change is natural to the Earth. We cannot predict when the solar minimum will end or what our ocean currents will be doing in a month, yet somewhere you actually believe someone made a model that can predict our future.
Here’s a challenge for you. Watch “An Inconvenient Truth” and tell me just what in that movie has actually come to pass?
Dr. Catherine,
Please present proof that the planet has warmed over the last 10 years.
Please present proof that the 20th century temperature increase was due to manmade CO2 emissions.
If you don’t have this proof, then Gore in my view is a liar and a fraud. His AIT film was riddled with misstatements, exaggerations and falsehoods. And he is also a hypocrite when you examine his mansion-living, jet-setting lifestyle.
But if you can prove that Gore is right, then I’ll retract what I wrote and apologise.
Criticism of a public figure such as Sarah Palin is equally fair game. I need not say much about her as she does enough herself. My blog is more humorous than emotional, but even if it was, so what.
I agree that you have every right to assess a public figure, but disagree that your posts are any more or less genuine than mine or that the opinions are any more or less “emotional” (or whatever brand you want to put on them). I point out the fallacies in Bush and Palin ideology and actions. You say that you do the same with Al Gore. So who is disingenuous?
By the way, here are some examples of the “scientific,” cold, emotionless postings here (not):
“Just goes to show given enough money any lunatic can promote their ideas. I have no respect for Gore.”
“Gore is actually quite insane and dangerous and cynical.”
I could list more, but I think that is sufficient indicia of the “science” discussed here.
Another one bolts for the exit.
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=1c00bef5-02a8-46e8-88bc-dcd7c46f8f2b
Gore’s acedemic record , especially in science is mediocre .
This is drived from the Washington Post in the year 2000 .
On his SAT tests for physics and chemistry he scored in the
lower 50th percentile ( physics and chemistry are in large part basic to climate studies ). At Harvard he scored c’s and d’s in science . In non science areas ,at Vanderbilt University he failed Divinity School and dropped out of Law School with mediocre grades .
As various sientists have reported , he has attempted to destroy their careers for not agreeing with him.
P.S. I derived the percentiles from the raw sore reported in the Washington Post Artilcle using SAT records on the internet .
Robert R. Prudhomme
Catherine (09:42:15)
The essence of science is wondering. You should wonder why the globe is cooling not warming. We do.
======================================
Something for Oprah’s bookclub?
“We’re not scared anymore Mr Gore”.
The illustrated book is a climate change parody in which teacher Ms Green is surprised when Mr Gore comes to teach the class about the dangers of climate change. Mr Gore looks at the evidence and the outcomes of man made global warming. It’s scary stuff. He gets a lot of help on the way from Ms Green but in the end it’s Mr Gore who learns a thing or two about the climate. How fast can you run Mr Gore?
Look out for Mr Gore as Death complete with Hockey Stick Graph Scythe!
You can now download a FREE PDF copy of “We’re not scared anymore Mr Gore” from The Little Skeptic blog. Just follow the link on the following page:
http://littleskepticpress.blogspot.com/2008/11/were-not-scared-anymore-mr-gore_21.html
or watch a reading on youtube:
http://au.youtube.com/my_videos_annotate?v=DW9_RkHlz2Q
Pamela Gray:
“Gore was president?”
Pamela, I assume you were referring to my post above.
I never said that Gore was president. I said:
Tell me if that’s wrong.
[Think Nobel Prize.]
Catherine:
Remember when Joe “the Dumber” Biden [Governor Palin’s opponent] stated to Katie Couric: “When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on television and he didn’t just talk about the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened…'”?
Commercial television was not in existence when FDR was president, and the stock market crash occurred during the Hoover administration.
I imagine that you would have gone ballistic if Gov. Palin had said something so ignorant. But you give Biden a complete pass.
Why?
Al Gore’s originally gave his presentation “How Dare We Be Optimistic”, at TED in February of 2008. The entire presentation lasts for 28 minutes. http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks al_gore_s_new_thinking_on_the_climate_crisis.html
Starting at 8 minutes and 20 seconds from the beginning of the presentation, he displays two charts which he uses to discredit any theory that the sun is part of the global temperature equation. Al Gore refers to this segment as “CSI Climate”. The charts are displayed for only a few seconds, so it is hard to see the scale of the charts at first glance. So, I downloaded the presentation for a closer look at his charts. Here is what I discovered.
The perception that is created with the lower atmosphere slide and stratosphere slide is that data from the two slides are comparable. This comparison demonstrates that when the lower atmosphere was cooler, the stratosphere was warmer, and when the lower atmosphere is warmer, the stratosphere is cooler. The implication is that the comparison of these two charts refutes the skeptics of Al Gore’s global warming premise of anthropogenic (man made) induced global warming. Since each chart is only displayed for about four seconds, at first glance they appear to be comparable. There are three years shown on the X axis of each chart, and the charts overlay each other nicely during the fading transition from atmosphere to stratosphere.
However, upon closer inspection of the data presented in the charts, it becomes evident that the two charts are not comparable. A cardinal rule of data analysis was violated. The X axis of the charts are not the same. Data from different years are being compared to each other. The years presented in the “Change in Nightime Low Temperatures” chart start at about 1952 and end at about 2006. The years presented in the “Change in Stratospheric Temperatures” chart start at about 1980 and end at about 2006. When the charts are corrected with the proper x axis scaling, a completely different visual perception is created, which does not support Al Gore’s proposition.
Also, the “Change in Nightime Low Temperatures” chart has about 15 bars for every 10 years, while the “Change in Stratospheric Temperatures” chart has 10 bars for every 10 years. This brings into question the nature of the data.
I have created a PDF document, which shows the chart comparisons I have completed.
Catherine,
The United Nations believe that they have to save our planet by a (huge) reduction of human productivity in terms of manufacturing, consumption and population growth.
Without carbon fuels industrial manufacturing will stop, productivity will go down and population growth turns in population decline.
In order to grab the political power to enforce this process, twenty years ago the hoax of global warming by CO2 was introduced by Mr. Hansen from NASA.
After 50 billion dollar of research no proof was produced.
The whole theory is based on computer models, lies and pseudo science.
In twenty years time the United Nations, with the help from the world wide environmental movement, millions of people like Soros and many politicians, have build up a world wide power block. They have promoted the AGW/Climate Change Doctrine via media, their politicians have taken over a majority of national Governments world wide and now we are on the eve of a great coup that started with the recent financial/economic recession.
The UN was waiting for the USA where Democratic presidential candidates failed to win the elections (Gore, Kerry), despite massive backing of MoveOn (Soros) e.o.
Now Obama is the new President elect and he has promised to bankrupt coal and start the most vigorous plan to fight climate change the world has ever seen.
The arguments fit the doctrine which completely in tune with the UN IPCC agenda.
Gore, Kerry, Clinton, Obama, Merkel (Germany), Rudd, Australia, Brown (Great Britain), all speak the same language.
The few that resist (Poland, Italy, Ireland) within the EC block will be forced by EC sanctions and bank loans. (Climate Conference Poland tomorrow)
China and India will sign the agreement because they only have financial objectives.
If they succeed in a climate treaty that will reduce 95% of CO2 emissions by 2050 we will be living in an eco-socialist/communist society before we know it.
No freedom, no rights.
Green shackles for everybody, except the ruling elite, but that is common in any dictatorship.
Now we have debunked the AGW Climate Change doctrine and know the real objectives of the UN we must resist these mad policies which are completely based on fabricated lies and corrupted crazy people.
http://green-agenda.com
Mike Pickett (08:45:39) : It has been said by a few that our names were derived from either our family personality or our own…the point has some merit…smith, blacksmith, carver, carver, &c. Now the mind reels considering the family “Gore”
did you know his partner in nefarious profiteering was a Mr Blood?
to anon
the a in the arrhenius activation energy equation is determined by doing the experiment ( say at 2 different temps) and plotting to find intercepts. it is determined graphically with experiment
the a in the ln(c/co) equation can only be determined experimentally also when ln (c/co) goes to 1 the y axis will be a. It will depend on experimental conditions
as you are correctly pointing out, using an equation using concentrations can have an infinite number of “a” and thus and infinite number of results when plotting ln (c/co)
The most important thing of all is common sense ,it is impossible to predict the future or to control it ,as someone mentioned in another post you need a quantified equasion in order to do so like all science ,and you would also be needing to be abletopredict every day in weather in order to be able to predict in 100 yrs that is why its impossible ,all graphs show that when c02 is high the trees grow at a 75%faster growth in fact all plants do ,you shouldnt mess with nature especially when you dont know what your doing ,you should all be up on fraud charges for this scam ,it is a discrace to real science.
Robinson (09:14:07) : I guess the sceptics need a charismatic and articulate poster-boy of their own to go onto these shows. It’s a real shame there doesn’t seem to be anyone waiting in the wings.
I wonder if Joanne Nova author of The Skeptics’ Handbook might be one such individual.
However, this is not about _B_I_G_ individuals but about doing what’s needed to get the derailed science restored, then back to our drawing-boards / labs / etc.
To the AGW proponents who have posted here, complaining about this site cherry picking data to counter Al Gore, I have a challenge.
Do a little research on your own. Google is your friend. Find a graph that shows CO2 levels versus global temperature over the past 500 million years or so. Do you see a correlation? I don’t. Temperature goes up, temperature goes down. CO2 goes up, CO2 goes down. They do not follow each other.
Then find a graph comparing global temperature versus CO2 levels over the past 400,000 years or so. In this time frame, we see temperatures rising and falling, and CO2 levels rising and falling somewhat similarly, EXCEPT that CO2 does not cause temperature to go up and down. CO2 goes up AFTER temperature goes up. CO2 declines AFTER temperature declines. It is a logical axiom that effect does not precede cause. This is something the befuddled Gore did not make clear in his Inconvenient Truth movie.
Finally, find a graph comparing temperature and CO2 over the last thousand years or so. Temperature rises and falls, but CO2 is reasonably constant. Temperature rises in the early part of the century, and CO2 starts to rise. The CO2 increase keeps rising, but about 1940 global temperatures start declining. CO2 continues to increase, but temperatures do not begin climbing again until the late 1970s or so. The correlation is rather tenuous.
You can find this data yourself. You need not rely on the “cherry picked” data here. You can pick your own data. The question is, will you believe the data, or the chattering class giving you their interpretation, even though it contradicts the lack of correlation that you can see with your own eyes?
I may not have a Nobel Prize, but I know that when global warming alarmists tell me global warming is accellerating, and the satellite data show cooling, I’d better stick to the data. Alarmists speak with forked tongue, and you can prove it yourself. That’s all we ask. Do your own research. Don’t believe us. But don’t believe them, either, until you can see the scientific evidence with your own eyes.
Catherine,
You are hard to keep up with. You attack an opinion on climate, and when someone responds, you switch the attack to politics.
Where did you learn this behavior?…and in what way do you believe it contributes to a good debate?
JimB
Here is a better link to Al Gore’s talk on the TED web site.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/speakers/al_gore.html
Starting at 8 minutes and 20 seconds from the beginning of the presentation, he displays two charts which need to be more closely examined. The “Change in Nightime Low Temperatures” chart and the “Change in Stratospheric Temperatures” are the two charts in question.
Hey Christian, I wonder if that “Scientest” you’re talking about is related to Al Gore?. They both seem as dumb as each other don’t they?.
MarcH (11:02:14) : You can now download a FREE PDF copy of “We’re not scared anymore Mr Gore” from The Little Skeptic blog. Just follow the link on the following page:
Thats awesome! Love it.