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.
eric
thank you.
the problem is most AGW’er really do not understand numbers. not a single person I have ever talked to in real life even understands that Hansens global warming graphs used by the “teachers” , that show “big” changes from 1990 on are not graphs of temperature. They do not know they are graphs of one temperature subtracted from another one and do not know that all this talk is about less than half a degree and that change mostly not in the USA
they think its a graph of temperature and do not even read the scale or the heading.
but they do know that Palin probably doesnt “beleive” in AGW they hate palin so therefore they hate anyone who tells them what they are looking at.
Eric Anderson,
Excellent advice! The resources are there for those willing spend the time to find and analysis the data. Also, keeping an open mind is an important part of the discovery process. Unfortunately the true believers will not take the time to look for the data, or open their minds to the facts. Just believing is much easier and safer.
Catherine, the sophisticated alarmists now have excuses for why the globe is cooling right now. The unsophisticated ones still seem to believe it is warming. I find you in the latter class. Your first job is to observe the thermometers and discover which way the temperature is going. Then, if you are a scientist, you will start to wonder why it is going down. If you are not a scientist, you will simply adopt the tale of the pseudoscientists who excuse the downward trend as a brief, temporary aberration. If you truly wonder, you will adopt the mental habits, that is skepticism, of those of us who honestly don’t know why it is going down, but would like to know. In the meantime, in our ignorance, one thing we can be pretty sure about is that whatever warming effect CO2 has, it has been exaggerated by the alarmists. For sure, temperatures in the Misters Hansen and Gore’s world were not supposed to go down.
Now, recognize your cognitive dissonance about climate and your beliefs. Stop making ad hominous political arguments, and join the community of the curious.
======================================
[snip] sorry, way off topic – moderator
[snip] sorry, way off topic.
Hi Catherine – maybe you would care to quote an actual Palin statement? Since no one else will defend her I figure, why not me? The only reference I read that was first person said that she realizes that yes we have experienced warming, and believes that natural cycles are the predominant factor. An eminently reasonable assumption IMO. If you care to ascribe cartoonish shorthand to that, it is your problem, not hers. And Fred – I can’t believe that I get two opportunities in the last few weeks to remind someone that November is not “winter” in either hemisphere.
[snip] filthy words not allowed here, first warning. – Moderator
If you actually watch the movie, or read the book, you will see what your missing out on, so for all you guys that keep running your mouth just shut it.
Or are you running your mouths because your afraid this is happending, and dont want to belive it? other then that, that’s all i got to say, but for those you don’t belive in Global Warming, better should
Catherine:
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.
Let’s back the reality truck up, shall we?
You originally said:
So by all means, let’s continue to pollute away since this blogger has now debunked Al Gore and the leading scientists of the world. Do I see a sign for the Sarah Palin fan club? Oh yes, there it is.
Your highly educated opinion, then, is that C02 is “pollution”, because “leading scientists of the world”
supposedly say so? Followed by your ad hominem comment about all of us here being a Sarah Palin fan club?
Did you get through school by plagiarizing and cheating, or did you have to do some actual work on your own?
I didn’t think so. You might try using some of your investigative and intellectual skills in this field as well.
Just a thought.
Try not being such a troll, too. Thanks.
Michael Ronayne (15:02:56) :
perhaps we should do a reverse Hansen and arrange to have the air conditioning broken in the cooling mode? >;-)
KIm and the rest of you,
Thanks for the sexist remarks, diatribes and smug statements. I suppose you and the others here believe that you are the only ones who have the right to make any statement of personal belief or even observation about comments made here. Please do keep up the good work. Based on what I see here, anyone with the slightest intellectual curiosity, sense of humor and who is politically moderate would run like the wind from this crowd! Yikes!
I suppose a doctorate and other degrees with honors isn’t enough for all you “high brows.” Please. If you have such groundbreaking stuff to tell the world, go on Oprah all of you and announce to the world how smart you are and how wrong all the other scietists are and us well-educated plebes! Go ahead! I dare you!
Feel free to tear oters down because they don’t follow your personal opinions like sheep. Now that is discourse.
Thanks guys, it was real.
Bruce Cobb, I’ll do my absloute best not to be a troll, but you might want to take your own advice.
Nice crowd here.
This show was a repeat from 2006.
I always wonder how people can use claims about what leading scientists believe. Usually being known as a leading scientist means you have been active and done great work in the field for a long time. How many were even in this field 20 or 30 years ago?
Also as near as I can tell the ones who are or were leaders in this field, like Al Gore’s inspirational professor, generally fall into the skeptic camp. Pick a field… Physics: Freeman Dyson, Meteorology: Richard Lindzen, Environmental Science: Reid Bryson. I could list dozens in place of any of these. The idea that the best or vast majority agree on some gloom and doom disaster about to happen from CO2 appears to be Rubbish.
Because the TV says so does not make it so, the question is do the data and the theory (which is supposed to explain and predict) match? By the way am I wrong in my idea that many of the posters here have degrees and graduate degrees in related fields.
Sorry about off-topic earlier.
Anyway, Catherine, you’ve thrown every card except race, and not one of them’s stuck and you’ve made some wild assertions and refused to back it up with anything other than ‘I’m highly educated, and you guys are [insert smear of your choice]’.
Your grandstanding has shown me that none of the people here have the guts to get on oprah and assert that they’re smarter than all scientists or well educated people. Yeah, give’em hell!
You’ve done it. Mission accomplished. I’m convinced.
Leaving so soon, Catherine? You won’t be missed, but you will have missed your chance to educate yourself about something of which you are obviously woefully ignorant. Intellectual curiosity is, in fact a hallmark of we skeptics, or climate realists.
Any intellectual curiosity you ever had seems to have been “educated” right out of you. What a shame.
Oh, and by the way (not that you care), politically, we skeptics pretty much run the gamut. Sorry to have to burst your bubble on that.
Catherine (09:43:42)
Oh, c’mon, that was unconvincing. Does your advanced degree allow you to observe a thermometer? C’mon, is the globe cooling or warming like you’ve stated? I’m trying to be elementary here, but you are not even responding at that level.
=======================================
Robberto Carlos (07:14:23) :
If your proof of global warming is Al Gores books and film, you are in serious intellectual trouble. The facts do not support Al’s claims. If you are not open minded enough to explore the facts on the Internet, then you need to look else where for some support for your feelings. This blog is about exploration, analysis and discussion of issues. Please add to the discussion with some facts to support your claim that Al Gore’s claims are valid.
Catherine,
Actually, I emailed the Oprah show regarding the rebroadcast of the Gore episode. I explained that I had the utmost respect for Oprah, and that in the interest of fairness, she would be doing her viewers a great service by having someone else on her show that could talk to some of the problems with the AGW theory, such as Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre.
I hope they entertain the suggestion.
Why do you refuse to engage in a debate about any one point that you bring up?
This is not debate, Catherine, and I’m certain that you know this.
Being an intellectual, I’m certain that if you review Al’s movie, you’ll find many inconsistancies that simply cannot be backed up by reality.
The snows of Kilimanjaro aren’t melting due to global warming, they’re melting due to macroecological changes at the base of the mountain, such as deforestation.
I’m also certain that if you do such a review, you’ll be furious with yourself and Al for having been duped so easily by him.
Hey…don’t feel bad. He got Oprah too…and she’s pretty smart.
JimB
Special Climate Watch On the Inauguration:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/extremes/2001/inaug/inaug.html
* Average Noon Temperature when a Republican President is sworn in is 40.4 F.
* Average Noon Temperature when a Democratic President is sworn in is 33.0 F.
* Average high temperature is 41-45 F.
* Average low temperature is 24-28 F.
* Average noon time conditions are about 37 F with partly cloudy skies and a wind speed near 10 MPH.
* There is about a 1 in 6 chance of precipitation during the inaugural event.
* There is only about a 1 in 20 chance of snow during the inaugural ceremony.
* There is about a 3 out of 10 chance that there will be snow already on the ground from a previous snowfall.
Kinda fun to read.
We’ll have something to compare on determining if the Gore effect is at work or not.
Freezing Fin seems to suggest that Al was president. Must just be a typo or I didn’t get the subject.
02:18:00. She said:
Now this “man of peace” is using his authority for lobbying for NATO and trying to get Finland to join this “organization of peace” – and in which he failed while still being the president.
I was just being cheeky.
I guess it’s the name “Martti Ahtisaari” that possibly confused you, Pam – barely anyone knows him – not everyone even understands it’s someone’s name as it must look almost as weird to a non-Finnish speaking as, let’s say, the name “Saakashvili” – which of course isn’t Finnish, but which again sounds like yet another English name for “p**ker”… now, I’m not sure, if the word can be used here – and if not, what I really mean there is “WOODpecker” then – don’t mind the *’s…;)
Oh well, we’re so off topic here already, that it doesn’t really matter, does it… 😉
Ps. what makes you think I’m a woman?
For Kim
Kim an oft-repeated meme of yours is ‘the globe is cooling’. Now, without an associated timescale the phrase is ambiguous, so I have been trying to ascertain your meaning, in this thread you posted …some cooling just starting very lately.
So perhaps your timeframe is the last six or maybe twelve months?
Apparently not. Maybe you are more a decadal type person, maybe your point is that the globe has been cooling for 9 or 10 years?
No again, and of course we all know that warming on longer timescales is unequivocal:-
So a data-based interpretation would seem to be ‘the globe shows a cooling trend as long as you choose a time frame greater than 1 but less than 9 years.’ There are precendents for this in recent times, still temperatures are somehow half a degree warmer on average now than then. Taking the longer, shall we say climatic, viewpoint the 10, 20 and 30 year trends in all four of the major global mean temperature analyses are all positive.
The globe is warming, albeit not monotonically. How long this will continue, not even JP knows.
😉
Smokey, Thanks for the “clicky”s, I try to find some humor in things that really p**s me off, by making theraputic art. Catherine, I know my statement seems ad hominum, and perhaps it is, but… Being at retired engineer, and following climate reconstruction for the past 45 years, all that Al Gore presents is ment to enhance his wallet and has nothing to do with science. Some of us have spend years looking at the data and it does not add up to AGW. Yes, the climate warms and it cools, we do not need magical beans (CO2) to explain the changes. Notice that the people on this blog do not engage in arguments about the validity of some specialists’ opinion, rather they espouse their own opinion from looking at the data. I have found perhaps 98% of those who believe in AGW from GHGs don’t have their own opinions, they regurgitate the same flatulance that Gore et al tout. Sometimes if the messenger won’t shut up, he needs his head taken off. (just so I am not misconstrued, that is a metaphore for an ad hominum attack)
“Why is it wrong to be concerned with the environment?”
There is nothing wrong with being concerned about the environment. What IS wrong is if the concern becomes so irrational that one resorts to exaggerations, and fabrication of information as a means of dealing with the concern.
Lying to people will only discredit science in the long run .. and THAT will be very bad for the environment.
John Philip (06:37:36) :
John Phillip,
I’m more of a “let’s look at all the temperature readings we have” sort of guy.
Why not go all the way back to 1850 and see what we can see?
Are there any conclusions we can draw about the trends we have from the beginning of recorded, meteorological history?
Take a look at the wonderful development of this topic at
http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateReflections.htm
From this I’ve concluded:
We came out of the Little Ice sometime around the turn of the century and the trend since then has been warming, as one would expect. The author selected 1908 as an arbitrary end point for the Little Ice Age and beginning of the Modern Warming Period. During this Modern Warming Period, we have enjoyed a warming trend of about 0.75 degrees Celsius per century.
During the Modern Warming Period we’ve had two major warming episodes and two cooling periods. The first warming period peaked in the early 40’s and the second, smaller warming period peaked in the late 90’s. The first of these warming periods, as measured in terms of deviation from the long term trend of 0.75 degrees C. per century (look at the chart) was the larger of the two. The second, the one the IPCC claims is evidence of a rapidly accelerating warming due to CO2, much smaller.
From the early 40’s to the late 70’s, we see the first of the cooling periods. This was the time when many were predicting a new ice age. We are in the second cooling period during the Modern Warming Period. How long this will continue is anyone’s guess.
The main point:
Warming and cooling is very poorly correlated with CO2, as can be seen from the charts at climate4you.
We are continuing a big experiment regarding the connection between CO2 and global climate change. No matter what we do in the West, the Chinese and Indians will pump CO2 at high industrial rates. We might see a slowing down of this with a slowing economy, but not because of regulation.
Will the disconnect between CO2 levels and world temperatures continue?
Stay tuned.