![climate-reality-leadership-corps-190x240[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/climate-reality-leadership-corps-190x2401.jpg?quality=83)
A person who is actually a climate skeptic (and WUWT regular) applied for and was granted a training slot in Chicago this week. http://climaterealityproject.org/leadership-corps/ and has graduated as one of the 1500 people that attended the event.
For obvious reasons, I can’t reveal the person’s name, but I can reveal the communication I received last night.
The ‘mole’ writes:
I’m now a card-carrying, official Gore-bot.
(I took copious notes)
a) This was a super-liberal “kum-bay-ya” crowd as I predicted. I kept many of my opinions to myself. The event truly did have a “religious cult programming” feel to it, similar to an Amway meeting I attended years ago – carefully timed applause, audience call & response etc. Very bizarre.
b) Al Gore himself went through the entire slide show that we are supposed to use as his “Climate Leaders.” Quite honestly, there is nothing new here, EXCEPT that there is no trace of the “hockey stick” graph that was so central to “An Inconvenient Truth”!! Amazing, considering how central that was to their arguments!
c) Instead, Al lumps data together year-by-year or decade-by-decade to show an ever increasing rise in temps. He poo-pooed measurement inaccuracies, specifically mentioning UHI effects and saying that the scientists determined these were insignificant.
d) A couple graphs stood out – one showed the documented rise in temperature PRECEDES the rise in CO2 which he brushed aside as “typical variation.” The only hockey stick was one that projected atmospheric CO2 over time, jumping up drastically in coming years. I didn’t have time to write units down, but it was a big jump. It could be a realistic rise with China & India bringing new coal plants online, I’d have to check any citations.
e) Al’s presentation was heavy on his new concept of “dirty weather,” see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/24-hours-of-reality-dirty-weather_n_2130344.html
To summarize, I didn’t see anything new or ground-breaking in this mess. Most slides were BS, typical “this is due to climate, not weather” type stuff we kick around on WUWT all the time. Hurricane Sandy, torrential rains in Pakistan etc.
Personal observations:
a) We skeptics ain’t liked much with them folks. The “d” word (denier) was used liberally, and I queried several participants, some of who were very cool folks, about it. Al Gore and his speakers used “Denier,” “Denial Industry” and other terms I found objectionable. Lousy salesmen, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
b) Nothing new was presented, technically speaking. This thing was “An Inconvenient Truth” redux, with much of the controversial stuff (hockey stick & drowning polar bears) deleted. Al got our message, he doesn’t seem to want to engage folks like us.
c) Al gave some insights into his own choices for low-carbon technologies, with a focus upon photovoltaics & wind power. He doesn’t like BWR nukes and objects because of financial reasons, which I agree with (particularly post-Fukishima). He mentioned that Oak Ridge National Labs in TN is testing a variety of nuclear reactor designs which sound promising (thorium maybe?) but didn’t elaborate.
d) Stuff I’m interested in, like ocean acidification, were only briefly touched upon. Al didn’t discuss the diplomacy challenges of engaging China and India, although he did mention their growing carbon output.
Quick summary:
Al is a polished speaker, and looked trim & in shape. Very impressive command of his speaking material. Decent speakers lined up, including some sustainability folks from private industry. I’m told the health/climate breakout session was terrible & am glad I took a pass on it.
==============================================================
UPDATE: Since many of the Gore followers are arriving here, I welcome you to answer this question that nobody would ask Mr. Gore this week:
If the position and science is so strong, why did Mr. Gore have to fake the results of his experiment in the Climate 101 video (which you may have seen and is still on the climate reality web page).
You can see the experiment recreated here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/
For the few of you brave enough, thanks for taking the time to answer that question – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There are ocean scientists among the climate leaders that have created slides about the author’s focus topic on ocean acidification due the mass absorption of C02. Now that he/she is an insider, they have access to most of the 200 scientific academies of the world and all of their published and peer reviewed scientific journals from 170 countries. The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
http://www.ceres.org/ The Ceres Company Network presentation which the author attended includes more than 70 members from two-dozen industries; including technology, footwear and apparel, food and beverage, oil and gas, electric utilities and financial services. More than one-third of the companies Ceres works with are Fortune 500 firms.all the businesses that have signed onto combating this issue.
Insurance in Florida has skyrocketed and may become unobtainable.
At hearings before the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee on July 18, 2013, Mr. Frank Nutter, President of the ReInsurance Association of America repeated the longstanding concerns that the Insurance industry has about climate change.
The salient point is, that Insurance companies live and die by their ability to estimate risks. To that end, they hire the world’s smartest number crunchers to figure out how much exposure they have to things like extreme weather exacerbated by climate change.
http://climatecrocks.com/2013/07/24/insurance-industry-sees-risk-of-climate-fueled-extremes/
d) Stuff I’m interested in, like ocean acidification, were only briefly touched upon. Al didn’t discuss the diplomacy challenges of engaging China and India, although he did mention their growing carbon output.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ocean acidification is nothing worth anyone’s interest; it is a fabrication that is intended as another CO2 bogeyman but it is too absurd to frighten anyone. Don’t waste your time.
Anent this, at 7:34 AM on 2 August mpainter had commented:
This could well be a very good reason why the “mole” originating this post had been “interested in…ocean acidification.”
We all owe a debt of gratitude and much admiration for this brave person.
The mole is quite brave. The Goreon true believers will not be pleased.
Keep up the excellent work and tell us more.
Sincere thanks,
I object to the claim that nuclear financials are poor, Fukashima or no Fukashima. Also, the characterization of nuclear technology as “BWR” (boiling water reactor) is absurdly misleading.
Gen 3 BWR reactors are rated thousands of times safer from core meltdown than earlier generations (also BWR) and generally require no human intervention to prevent same. SMRs are safer still, although they do not achieve the economies of scale. Anyone who worries about current generation nuclear plant safety is wasting their time, and ours. The rest of the world is rushing to build hundreds and thousand of nuclear plants, even Arab countries bathed in solar sunshine. Only the most anal countries – ours and Germany, primarily, are so energy confused and rampant with false claims and bad data. I’ve heard nonsensical figures of “over $16 billion” to build a single GW nuclear plant, while South Carolina and Georgia are right now building, under fixed price contracts , Gen 3 nuclear plants that are costing less than $4 billion per GW.
He doesn’t like BWR nukes and objects because of financial reasons, which I agree with (particularly post-Fukishima).
Number of people killled or hurt (according to all press, mainstream or otherwise), or according to a panel of the worlds top nuclear medicine experts at the UN, even endangered by Fukishima, exactly zero. ZIP, ZILCH, ZERO, NADA.
Study of millions of people who work with radioactive meterials, and who recieve 10 times the radioactivity of the populace at large, showed, even over five decades, exactly ZERO health effects (including incidence of cancer, occording to a report released this Febuary by the UN showing zero evidence of any health effects of small amounts of radioactivity, such as at Fukishima). Repeat, , MILLIONS, OVER FIVE DECADES, ZERO EFFECT.
Now, do you wish to continue to believe in fairy tales and myths, or do you wish to believe the evidence?
Jeff Glassman
OH my gosh, I have to read up on Karl Popper now after you pointed out he was the start of empirical falsification over deductive logic. He was also the start of the Open Society and “intolerance should not be tolerated” and other Looney Toon ideas we have today.
Thanks
The idea that nuclear plants have a “financial problem” are pretty nonsensical. Nuclear energy
actually became cheaper than coal several years ago. Nuclear plants also pay fee to the govt fund that pays for taking care of nuclear wastes and decommissioning at the end of the plant’s life, which is typically over 60 years for Gen 3 designs. The fund is actually over endowed, and when fast reactors come on board, the cost of taking care of nuclear wastes will practically disappear, along with those wastes. As for build costs, you can laugh out loud at the bogus claims of the anti-nuke crowd – they will cite “over $15 billion” while two plants currently being built in Georgia and South Carolina are on fixed price contracts , at less than $4 billion per GW.
China has the capability of building Gen 3 plants for less than $3 billion per GW.
And referring to designs as “BWR” is rather monstrously misleading – current Gen 3 and Gen 3+ designs (many BWR) are thousands of times less likely to experience a major failure. They can protect themselves against core meltdowns without any need for human intervention, or even electricity or coolant pumps. It is extremely unlikely that any of the thousands of these plants that will be built will ever experience a major accident. As it is, over 60 years of operation of nuclear plants in the Western world has resulted in exactly two major accidents – Three Mile Island and Fukashima, neither of which resulted in the death or serious injury to a single person, at the time or in the future. If those plants had been Gen 3 designs, it would have been impossible for the accidents that occurred to have happened. Totally impossible.
Let’s see … if I wanted to educate the public of an impending disaster I would want to distribute the information far and wide. One might think Gore realizes his slides are nonsense and would be destroyed by skeptics in a heartbeat. What this tells us is Gore knows he is lying. It isn’t a case of trusting scientists, the man is deliberately passing misinformation to gullible recruits.
Rick K says:
August 2, 2013 at 4:58 am
“And that, my dear Watson, was how I solved the Case of the Missing Heat……… etc.”
Rick. You missed your calling. To me, that is a great piece of work. Thanks.
temp,
“or its just another way to cash in.”
Ding…Ding…Ding You win the prize.
“Actually, from what I’ve read, Al Gore tightly controls those slides, and will take legal action against any of the followers that release them into the public domain.”
Gorentology?
arthur4563 says:
August 2, 2013 at 7:57 am
Thanks for that.
It is unfortunate that politicians [even conservatives] refuse to accept this info.
Afraid of losing votes, if suggested, I suspect.
‘ Lousy salesmen, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.”
try dead squirrels if you are into fly catching
I’m amazed how this ‘mole’ heard the same words I heard, but came away with a totally different message/feeling. This was not a crowd of coerced people with carefully timed applause. We are not “Gore-bots.” We are sincere, passionate people who know we have to do something about climate change and fast. There are conservative-minded people who recognize the facts about climate change. The conference was free and attended by 1,400+ amazing individuals from all 50 states and 70+ countries, young and old, all walks of life from artists and ministers, teachers and mothers, and more.
@ur momisugly Sandra – how much did you get paid to post that?
Jeff Glassman says:
August 2, 2013 at 7:13 am
Re: Francis Bacon:
Induction, not deduction.
Steven Mosher says:
August 2, 2013 at 9:05 am
Rotting fruit or similar moist, fermenting material works for fruit flies.
funny that all of you [snip] sit here and validate the [snip] out of each other…frothy in your “see? we’re so much better than those people” while not at all realizing the irony of calling the “other side” a cult…nope, the [snip] wouldn’t see the irony there.
[Please read the Policy page. ~mod.]
I see the Gore faithful have arrived to defend the crusade.
Welcome, here is your first question. (Mary A. Colborn is nominated to answer).
If the position and science is so strong, why did Mr. Gore have to fake the results of his experiment in the Climate 101 video (which you may have seen and is still on the climate reality web page)
You can see the experiment recreated here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/
@ur momisugly(non)Science – you cannot deny what does not exist. Unfortunately for you, there are no deniers here. Just skeptics. But that does escape your religious fervor.
Interesting. Attempt to rebrand the attendees as cultists and you believe that you have effectively diminished their message. All the while extreme weather events happen around the world with increasing frequency. Temperatures reach into the high 90’s in Alaska in June. Fires devastate the state of Colorado, super storms flood Manhatten. You wonder who the real cultists are here. Climate leaders or you, who are paid so well by the fossil fuel industry.
It is likely that Gore’s free programs are funded by tax dollars – as was likely the means by which An Inconvenient came into being (grants).
Sandra,
Please give us some idea of what was conveyed in terms of important climate information. I’m sure there will be a lot of interest here in discussion of the latest updates from Mr. Gore and his colleagues.
Thank you for taking the time to attend the training. Unfortunately, most of the information you wrote about is a complete fabrication. I am no hippy, never was, I am a government official and I can tell you this was no kum bye ya gathering. People that went to this training were teachers, government officials, business leaders, parents , etc. We want to learn to present the information we already know about climate change. I want to make my community and my state a safer and greener place to live. If you choose to deny science (I have an environmental science background and its simple chemistry to understand what is happening to the atmosphere from all the carbon we are pumping into the air), then that’s ok. But just know that our society is heading towards more sustainable development and you either get with it, or move out of the way.
Fun thing to consider about AGW’ers crashing any skeptic presentations such as those put on by the Heartland Institute: there would be too great a risk that the Gore followers would absorb all that plausible skeptic material and turn into skeptics themselves, asking tough questions about why Gore’s narratives don’t line up right.
[My emphasis]
And exactly how do you know you have to do “something about climate change” (by which I assume you mean ”global warming” caused by people burning fossil fuels and generating CO2).
Are you aware that there is no evidence that anthropogenic CO2 has any measurable effect on global temperature? Are you aware that predictions of warming are based entirely on computer models that simply replicate the assumptions programmed into them? Are you aware that even if we could make the Earth a little warmer, that would be a good thing, extending the range of arable land for crops and temperate places for people to live? Are you aware that CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere (with human contributions a small portion of it) that is essential for all life on Earth?
If you are not aware of these facts, and many others (e.g. that geo-historically, temperature rise precedes CO2 rise, or that atmospheric CO2 has been much higher even in glacial periods), then if you are not ‘coerced’ you are certainly misled by pseudo-scientific ideology. And unquestioning acceptance of such ideology is the prime indicator of cult thinking. You don’t have to be coerced to be members of a cult.
/Mr Lynn
The fact that they use “denier” tells you that you are dealing with a fundamentalist religion. The only reality they are promoting is an alternate reality that has no basis on the objective and physical world.
Anthony,
I need a patch. Change the word Leadership on big Als above with Readership, and put WUWT at the bottom.