From Al Gore’s Journal:
Denialists in Denial April 27, 2010 : 4:52 PM
Last week The Wall Street Journal published a ridiculous op-ed titled “Climate Science in Denial” claiming that “global warming alarmists have been discredited, but you wouldn’t know it from the rhetoric this Earth Day.”
Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic does an exceptional job dismantling this ridiculous claim:
“Actually, the subhead should be revised: “Global warming denialists have been re-discredited, but you wouldn’t know it from the rhetoric in today’s Wall Street Journal.” Far be it from me, a non-scientist, to dispute the scientific expertise of an MIT professor of meteorology, Richard Lindzen, but then again, Lindzen’s selective recitation of the litany of arguments against global warming practically begs a rebuttal.”
“First, he mentions “Climate Gate” — those e-mails from the Climate Research Unit from the University of East Anglia. He suggests that the e-mails show “unambiguous evidence of the unethical suppression of information and opposing viewpoints, and even data manipulation.””
“The e-mails were actually quite ambiguous and contained evidence of churlishness and defensiveness from scientists whose data had long been under attack from climate denialists.”
Much of the media has done a particularly bad job covering the climate crisis. Instead of informing the public about the facts, they have treated the issue as if the same political divisions they exuberantly cover also exist in the scientific community. They don’t.
===========================
Hmmm, well Al Baby, here’s something to deny:
Do you think many people are reading your message on algore.com?
UPDATE: Willis Eschenbach writes in comments:
Well, I took Anthony’s Alexa Rating graph forwards, viz:
WUWT is the top of the heap, twice as good as the one in second place. (Sc) means a sceptical site, (Mid) is middle of the road, and (AGW) is AGW supporters. And Al? Well, at least he beat Tamino …
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Al Gore has been discredited.
The statement that Gore makes concerning the lack of politics in the climate change community is blatantly false and misleading. It is quite the opposite — and anyone that has set foot in a college town or campus could tell you.
“Much of the media has done a particularly bad job covering the climate crisis. Instead of informing the public about the facts, they have treated the issue as if the same political divisions they exuberantly cover also exist in the scientific community. They don’t.”
It is quite comical for Democrats to criticize the media — who have been in their pocket for generations.
That Step change at the middle of November ’09 is worthy of Bob Tisdale…..
It’s a little known fact that Al not only invented the internet, but he also invented the door knocker. Thus he was legimately awarded his “no bell” prize.
Face it. He’s no ding-a-ling. There’s money in them thar’ carbon credits if’n he can git cap and trade to fly.
@ImranCan
I think Anthony does this just to test our attention to detail. Under the graph, faded to almost an unreadable extent, you’ll see this, “click for live stats – note: this is RANK not traffic volume”…………. It catches many of us.
Will Lindzen respond? I truly hope so. I really enjoy how this could play out……but, but, I thought we were suppose to blindly believe “scientists”!!!!! Now what? Does a MIT PhD top a Penn St.(did I get that right?) PhD? Where does a satellite temp tracker PhD fit? And does a resigned PhD across the pond count at all? What a quandary!!! Which scientist to blindly believe……oh I wish they’d come to a consensus!!! Way easier than thinking for myself.
Al Gore’s Weather (AGW): Ah like mah sauerkraut sour like Germans make it real sour.
Another AGW Fraud bites the dust; Germany chokes on Al’s AGW sauerkraut.
More, please; and, faster.
…-
“Copenhagen Fallout
[Germany] Merkel Abandons Aim of Binding Climate Agreement
Frustrated by the climate change conference in December, German Chancellor Angela Merkel is quietly moving away from her goal of a binding agreement on limiting climate change to 2 degrees Celsius. She has also sent out signals at the EU level that she no longer supports the idea of Europe going it alone.
“I have three children,” German Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen said during a speech in Berlin last week, as he ventured to explain why climate policy still remains important after December’s failed summit in Copenhagen. He said that a maximum rise in temperature of 2 degrees Celsius “is the highest amount that we can still tolerate, because beyond that life will no longer be possible as we know it.”
Currently the prospects are not so good that his children will enjoy a life that remains unchanged. True, starting this weekend, the German government will attempt to rekindle international efforts to save the Earth’s climate as it hosts a conference at the Petersberg Hotel near Bonn. But, at the same time, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has now decided to change the course of her climate policy.
As recently as last December she said: “If we don’t succeed in limiting global warming to 2 degrees, then the costs of the resulting damages will be many times higher than what we now, with a change in our lifestyle, can achieve.”
Now it’s a different story: Merkel will no longer endeavor to contractually implement the 2-degree target — in other words, to reach a legally binding agreement with specific reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. She doesn’t want to be snubbed again because she has realized that important countries won’t lend their support the next time around either. This was confirmed two weeks ago at the nuclear summit in Washington by Chinese President Hu Jintao and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
The Limits of Germany’s Influence
Germany now has to acknowledge the limits of its influence. The country’s climate policy was an attempt to play a leadership role on the grand stage. But the others didn’t follow suit. On paper they praise the objective, but they are not prepared to do more than make vague promises. The only way forward, it seems, is by taking side roads. But even there the Chinese and the Indians won’t simply trot along behind the Germans.
On the domestic front, this threatens to bring down the great symbol of Germany’s efforts to remodel society in line with a climate-friendly lifestyle and mode of production. If Merkel is no longer fighting on the international stage to achieve the 2-degree target, how does she intend to convince her fellow Germans that they have to change anything? A domestic temperature target would be absurd.”
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,691194,00.html
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/013874.html
Sigh! lalalalalalalla Sigh! lalalallalalallala Sigh!
That’s all I got by reading Gore’s website.
What is a “climate denier”? I don’t know of anyone who denies that there is a climate.
Idiot.
BTW, just slightly OT, SPPI has a review article on “Seven Theories of Climate Change” available
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/seven_theories.pdf
It’s a reasonably evenhanded cover of AGW and some of the alternatives to it that exist at the moment. It seems to be offered as more food for thought than advocacy for any of the alternatives.
It is very hot in algore’s world. What with his complete lack of knowledge of heat transfer (not to mention the boys at CRU) and the several millions of degrees in the interior of the earth.
Just wondered if anyone knows where Real Climate and Bishop Hill feature on the same scales?
And furthermore, I am not a denialist!
I am an Infidel!
I want to know why the graph doesn’t look like a hockey stick?
Hrm, an advocate that is profiting greatly from his own advocacy… speaking from experience here – if he was an oil company executive, environmentalists would dismiss his statements (at best) or publicly rake him over the coals (at worst). Quite the double-standard there, I think.
Progress is being made!
If you look at the link to the Atlantic Journal (which Al claims “does an exceptional job dismantling this ridiculous claim”) we find the following two quotes:
“One can agree that global warming advocates can be alarmist, that they can hype the negative effects of the less conservative models, and that they can often present their conclusions with more certainty than is warranted.”
And
“The science should not dictate policy. But it should be a foundation for policy. Whether that means “cap and trade” or “cap and dividend” or carbon taxes, or whether we should spin the roulette wheel and hope the temperature predictions get it wrong — *those are legitimate questions to debate*, and there are many potential answers.”
The irony for me is that there is no way those two quotes (especially the first) would have appeared in such an article without the sunshine of climategate…
jsc
There is a reason he only got Cs in business school. If it were not for Daddy Gore’s money from Armand Hammer, he would be licking flaps in a bucket shop boiler room operation trying to get clients.
Funny Gore blaming the media for the coverage, just because a tiny sliver of it is going against him at the moment.
Fact is,most of the mainstream media pay very little attention to skeptics except to paint the movement as tinfoil hat wearing Luddites obsessing over minutae in a few emails. Gore and his movement are treated like the Dalai Lama sent to lead us kicking and screaming to his “promised land” …” if only we’d act now!”
Sorry, Mr Non Scientist. I know you want to be the world’s Pied Piper while you make billions trading carbon credits on behalf of an unknowing public who treat you as a Messiah. But reality has a funny way of biting you in the butt sometimes.The science is far from settled, and I only hope enough holes can be punched in this balloon before any serious legislation gets passed.
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
From the man who is a COWARD to debate anybody.
Mendacity!
I can’t help but wonder if those blips in Gore’s ranking are related to posts on this site. Wouldn’t it be ironic if his rankings boosts all came from WATT’s readers?
For those wondering about the spikes that makes the Gore graph even register — I believe you can correlate them to mentions his site gets here at WUWT. Check back in a few days and you’ll probably find a spike from today’s post. About the only hits he gets are from business partners, immediate family members and WUWT readers moseying by for a good chuckle.
Keep it up the ‘tree’ AlGore. Does anyone actually take this guy seriously anymore?
“Far be it from me, a non-scientist,”
Yep, you’re right, it’s very far from you.
“The e-mails were actually quite ambiguous and contained evidence of churlishness and defensiveness from scientists whose data had long been under attack from climate denialists.”
Ya, putting segments of differing graphs together piecemeal into one graph and presenting that graph as if it came from one data set, ya, that’s ambiguous, ‘standard practice’, nothing to see there.
Can we stop legitimizing the guy by paying attention to him? Unless he does something of true significance, I’m personally uninterested in dedicating any blog space to him. And bashing him is so easy it isn’t even sporting. Of course, that’s just my two cents and this isn’t my blog.