Guardian: Al Gore says "business leaders see the writing on every wall they look at"

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/399/1051399/guardian-tech-guru-away
Where we want to go
The Guardian has an oft-stated mission to “become the world’s leading liberal voice”. Owned by the Scott Trust, what drives the Guardian is not so much profits – although it has to make money – than the journalistic values of its founder and long-time editor, CP Scott.
So why the illiberal attitude and bias on the Environmental section of their site? Someone explain to me what is liberal about catastrophic global warming, not investigating politicians like Gore, and exploiting the Holocaust to insult people who don’t agree with you?

Tom’s Axiom:
Gore is to science as Nadoff is to investing.
Billboard???

“Well, the Nobel seems to have lost some prestige in the last decade…”
Arafat won in ’94. Paul Krugman won last year. That tells us all we need to know about the Nobel Prize. The Nobel and $3 will get you a bottle of water.

So snipping what if the ice melts? How does that hurt “business”?
Warmer means longer growing seasons, more rain, more bio-productivity, more wealth creation, reduced energy costs, more profit, more comfort, increased quality of life, less starvation, more abundance, more happiness, less fear, more confidence in the future.
The Cult of Doom has picked the wrong disaster, because global warming is not a disaster; it is a boon to Mankind and Life in general.
We’re supposed to be taxed to the max and huddle in the cold and dark out of fear it might get warmer? That’s complete nonsense.
For all of you who feel like it’s just too warm where you live, please move north. Canada welcomes you. Land in Siberia is cheap. You can feed the polar bears, shovel snow, and heat your hovels with the wind.

When the AGW scientists make announcements that things are worse than they previously predicted aren’t they really saying that they have tweaked their models and now they are predicting a more dire outcome, usually many years in the future? Couldn’t they at least hint at what parameters have been changed or added, etc. and why? I think they look foolish when they predict increased warming in the teeth of a cooling trend.
This may be a naive question but at the North Pole in the summer, although the sun shines 24 hours a day sometimes, isn’t it very low on the horizon?

Had a look at the “Catlin arctic survey” site. They’ve done 30 km in two weeks and has more than 900 km to go. At that rate they will reach the pole in July 2010, and will thus have opportunity to study the ice thickness over an entire annual cycle…..
Methinkanother epic fiasco is in the making because some idiots think the arctic isn’t arctic any more.

Gore is telling the truth when he says:
“They’re seeing the writing on every wall they look at. They’re seeing the complete disappearance of the polar ice caps right before their eyes in just a few years,”
‘Polar Ice Caps’ is code, just replace it with ‘Prosperous Industry and Commerce’.

Looks like big Al is advertising for a 5 dollar foot long sub sandwich!

Claude Harvey (10:30:17) :
Does anyone but me remember Y2K hysteria? It provides a road map for the trajectory of AGW:
1) A theoretical construct of doom was presented.
2) First-class technical minds explored the possibilities and, either consciously or unconsciously, found continuing personal reward in findings affirming the construct.
3) Once a “critical mass” of belief in the construct was achieved in the public domain, the construct became a “self-fulfilling prophesy”; something that “everyone knew was true”.
*****************
Great Y2K analogy. I was VP of Engineering at a Telecom equipment manufacturing company. The IT dept had the CEO, a PhD, convinced we were in deep doo do with our product line and that our in house PCs and systems would black hole themselves. Our budgets were constrained to fund a massive IT program. It was in the self interest of IT to propagate this hysteria and they could cite external industry “Experts” to contradict my skeptical opinion. I refused the budget allocation for Engineering and got all our products certified for this BS by having guys make some smart experiments with our products. Lots of certification paperwork to fill out though, which I did personally so my people could do real work. I also set all our Windows PCs in Eng to various times and dates just before New Years and observed what happened. Yes, nothing. For once Microsoft was OK. Yah, we did not have any old COBOL systems with 2 digit dates, a fact easy to ascertain.
Experts hyping disaster got our management’s panties all atwist despite hard data from some of us contradicting the disaster. The analogy is instructive.

1) I believe the climate does change.
2) Climate change is a continuous process, it never stops changing.
3) Man does have an impact on the climate, just as any living creature on earth does. Man is part of nature.
4) During the last 14,000 years the climate has been warmer than present many times. Man thrived.
5) During the last 14,000 years the climate has been cooler than present many times. Man struggled to survive.
6) In the last 500,000 years the climate has spent some time much, much, warmer than present. Man thrived.
7) In the last 500,000 years over 400,000 of them were times of glaciation and man struggled.
8) During the last glacial period the human population fell to about 10,000 people.
9) During the next glacial period man will fare better then he did in the last, but, world population will drop by 50% or more.
10) During the next glacial period our sea ports will become inland locations and the ports / beaches will be out at the edge of the continental shelf.
Man should focus his time, research, funding, and policies on adapting to climate change (in either direction) rather than on attempting to control climate change.
The warming out of the Little Ice Age was a good thing. It allowed modern man to thrive, to exist, to develop. The last 100 – 150 years is also but a blink of the eye in geologic time. It is NOT a true long term trend. If anything, it has been a brief reprieve from the true long term trend (over 7,000 years) of cooling.
Nature has given us a gift of time, a short reprieve. We should use it wisely rather than for immoral purposes of political gain. It will be many thousands of years before our coasts are at the edge of the continental shelf. Most likely it will be a few thousand before the next Glacial Period….. but, perhaps not.
We know too little about the history of the Arctic sea ice to base any long term conclusions on it. Lets say that Gore was right and that within five years all of the Arctic sea ice was gone in the summers. What does it mean?
It does not mean that sea levels will be rising. It does mean an increase in evaporation, hence, global precipitation. I wonder how that plays into his ‘drought’ speech?
Some of the increased precipitation should find its way to the interior of Greenland and Antarctica. An increase in net global ice volume and a decrease in sea levels. As the Arctic once again enters a winter freeze the increased precipitation (as snow) would add to Arctic ice volume and eventually would most likely win out. Arctic ice volume once again increasing.
In the interim, Gore is correct. Some business leaders are looking at the picture he paints. An open Arctic sea in the summer. Many in the shipping industry hope Gore is right, they eagerly await the opportunity to use the Arctic sea as a route of transit.

I scimmed thru the comments and didn’t see one that underscores what is really happening with Vicky Pope’s (UK met office) and others seemingly very reasonable admonition that warmers should temper their remarks. This is new from the committed warmers but we will be seeing a lot more of this reasonableness as warmers face ever more blasts of cold weather and stubborn ice sheets.