I predicted this in the essay Oh yeah, I forgot. This is on.
Yesterday I got this fantabulous self congratulatory email from Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project:
Note the link to the recording in green at the bottom. That is something Charles the Moderator pointed out to me a couple of days ago, right after his live broadcast ended. I’ve been watching it since. Unfortunately for Gore, a giant chasm has opened between his claims and reality.
Gore, like last year, claimed really impressive numbers. Last year, we pointed out on WUWT that Gore’s number were likely inflated with bots:
…independent analysis of the data suggests that some electronic virtual viewers were involved, concluding from a mathematical analysis of the numbers that “At least 85% of total views were bots cycling every 10 seconds.”.
We’ve no reason to suspect any different this year, especially when his star is fading on the Internet and in the news. Here is how Gore is trending on Google related to his keywords:
Source, Google Trends: http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Climate%20reality%20project%2C%20Al%20Gore%2C%20Climate%20Change%2C%20Cost%20of%20Carbon%2C%20Global%20Warming&cmpt=q
It seems he didn’t even make a blip in news stories interest. Maybe he should try twerking onstage:
Maybe, just maybe, we’ll see Gore try to get an endorsement for his cause out of Miley. Can’t wait.
For the real viewers of Al’s CRP, it seems that many views were transient, i.e. people just getting a quick look, but not bothering to stick around to take in the whole show, or even a portion of it. It seemed then, that many of the “views” were simple people engaging in “short attention span theater”.
This year seems no different. Compare the huge number of views and impressions Gore claims for his 2013 Carbonhatingpalooza with the number of views he’s getting on YouTube for his Climate Reality Project recordings. Here are the numbers from his “Climate Reality” channel on YouTube:
Ouch. The New Nostradamus of the North also notices the numbers.
His headliner video, “The Cost of Carbon” compares favorably to the number of views (6773)I got for my talk on climate in July, posted on August 15th, and I don’t have his million$ to promote it, just word of mouth: (click for the video)
It seems that Gore isn’t getting traction anymore, he’s getting the cold shoulder from news media and engaged viewers.
Maybe it’s a case of the Gore effect?
Al Gore came forth before the nations declaring himself to be a messenger of light;
of a giant infrared light on, in the atmosphere, 24/7/365.25.
A giant infrared light: he came with a message: the light is the proof of your sins!
Pay me money, says Mr Gore, for your sins. The light is evidence of your evil.
But now we have all checked.
And the light you claimed you were a messenger of
isn’t there.
It’s not there for any set of instruments known to mankind;
not to the infrared astronomy groups of the world eagerly looking for sign of your Backerdistical glowing burner on, in the sky.
Not the infrared sensor field, which looked in vain for fourteen years, for the
magic light
you try to tell the real science and real scientists of the world is there,
too bright to not be afraid of,
too dim to even move an infrared sensor specifically designed to detect it.
N.O.A.A. themselves checked your story for fourteen years.
There was a magical light connected to CO2. As CO2 rose, so also would the magic light.
They checked your and their own story.
Guess what Mr. Gore.
Where you and the deceivers of all mankind claim there is more and more light,
N.O.A.A. discovered there was only darkness. For where you said there was more
there was less. That is, as in “less light, more darkness.”
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2011JCLI4210.1?journalCode=clim
Unto all of you who believed in the deceivers who claimed they were messengers to you about a great light:
they were
and are
all lying.
( Peter Miller… ‘²’ )
Don’t tell him (et al) that they have been ‘square’d. lol.
Their ‘reality’ has its ‘root’s in today’s evil that you see and produces 0 good.
What lying souls they are.
‘Crypt’ic enough for al (et al) to understand?
Maybe all of that only means that Al Gore and masters should square root the egos and leave mankind alone.
( Monitoring Al? Got that good advice ol’ Al baby? Doubt it. )
Al’s theology, which creates the pagan climate religion called CAGW (aka CACC), is based on three kinds of lies: each, every and damned always.
John
“I don’t have his million$ to promote it, just word of mouth: ”
and TRUTH.
Gore’s popularity with the ‘simple’ folk must be waning. As one of the Conservation Council of WA’s (Neville Numbat) ‘friends’, I received a Facebook invite to their event. Despite almost 5000 friends, only 9 saw fit to ‘like’ the few photos taken. Their Fb page says nothing else about it, which is most unusual. Just a few images: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152001843429595&set=at.10150658848374595.446855.546019594.100000323898370&type=1&theater
Their next campaign is something to do with banning plastic or … simple is right.
Of course, I didn’t go, despite the comedy it would have offered, I had to clip my toe-nails instead, as I don’t wear socks to fold.
The gore effect is a chill. So metaphorically it could be. But it seems closer to the ACA Website effect.
Lew Skannen said @ur momisugly October 26, 2013 at 3:59 pm
Sorry to have to contradict you old bean, but you are wrong. None of us have access to TRUTH, though we may peer at such through a glass darkly. What Anthony appears to possess in great measure is integrity:
My previous comment is still in moderation over an hour after I made it. I must have said something bad I guess, though I can’t imagine what was bad about my comment. Divided by a common language…
Regardless of your view on whether human activity is contributing to climate change, I hope we can agree that the flaring of waste natural gas from North Dakota oil and gas fields is a terrible waste that should be quickly addressed. See nyt article at. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/business/energy-environment/oil-companies-are-sued-over-natural-gas-flaring-in-north-dakota.html?_r=0 see photo USA at night at https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=669252339766791&set=a.363261490365879.89584.299041440121218&type=1&relevant_count=1
The Pompous Git says:
October 27, 2013 at 1:40 am
Sorry to have to contradict you old bean, but you are wrong. None of us have access to TRUTH, though we may peer at such through a glass darkly
__________________________
I couldn’t disagree more. The glue of tyranny is the idea that the truth of a circumstance is malleable.
Alan Robertson:
In response to The Pompous Git having said the obvious reality
at October 27, 2013 at 7:22 am you say
Really?
Whose “truth” would that be? The victor’s? The loser’s? Yours? Or …?
Richard
Your post contained our host’s name in unaltered form. Such posts are always held for inspection because they might be an attempt to contact him directly. Use something like “Ant–ny”.
richardscourtney says:
October 27, 2013 at 7:33 am
Alan Robertson:
In response to The Pompous Git having said the obvious reality
None of us have access to TRUTH, though we may peer at such through a glass darkly
at October 27, 2013 at 7:22 am you say
I couldn’t disagree more. The glue of tyranny is the idea that the truth of a circumstance is malleable.
Really?
Whose “truth” would that be? The victor’s? The loser’s? Yours? Or …?
Richard
_________________________
The reports of a circumstance are not to be regarded as the truth of the circumstance.
“What is Truth?” Is it felt in the glands?
Is it bracketed by error bands?
Do you make a decision
“It is thus, with precision!”
And then walk off and go wash your hands?
I suspect that we’re saying two things:
There’s a truth that good evidence brings
“Did he say these words? Yes.”
It is more than a guess
But in science, a different truth rings.
“What’s this measurement here?” “‘Bout an inch.”
But it’s greater or less by a pinch
‘Till you get quantum-scaled
Then precision’s derailed
And you can’t be exact. That’s a cinch.
In the climate arena we try
To get “truth” from the sea, land and sky
But to our great frustration
We have approximation
Of too few points: Partial-truth lie.
Then we feed too few points to a model
Which we run again, tinker and coddle
Clouds and sea waterboarded
‘Till it’s all quite distorted
If that’s “truth,” someone’s hitting the bottle!
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
Alan Robertson:
It is good to have reached agreement of all parties.
The Pompous Git had said the obvious reality
Following discussion, at October 27, 2013 at 8:30 am, you have now said
Yes, and sometimes a circumstance is reported by our own eyes and ears.
Richard
Richard,
My response to you did not alter my original statement in any way. We proceed with either knowledge, or belief (and doubt.) The Git (bless ‘im) was alluding to a philosophical stance which proclaims a lack of human ability to understand the reality of a circumstance, through our varied perceptions. I disagree with that philosophy. Truth of a circumstance is like a stone wall… anyone believing that the truth of the wall is illusory can prove their “truth” by walking through that wall.
The world gives us many examples of those who would substitute belief, or doubt, for knowledge. Stalin famously airbrushed old photos to delete the visages of those he had murdered. His new “truth” did not alter the reality of the original circumstance. One can occasionally witness this or that public figure alluding to the illusion of truth- in such instance, beware. That individual has picked up the glove of Lenin and Goebbels and Caesar.
Keith DeHavelle says:
October 27, 2013 at 9:50 am
“…”
_______________
Well done.
rogerknights said @ur momisugly October 27, 2013 at 7:47 am
Aah! The penny drops. How obtuse of me. Yet another terminological inexactitude is called for.
Alan Robertson said @ur momisugly October 27, 2013 at 9:56 am
I reiterate what I posted on another thread:
Alan Robertson:
I am copying all your post at October 27, 2013 at 9:56 am because I think it important so I don’t want people to have trouble finding it.
Yes, and Keith DeHavelle provides an excellent introduction to the large subject of “what is truth?” with his poem at October 27, 2013 at 9:50 am.
Truth is that which IS and it exists independently of any understanding and/or perception of what it is.
We seek truth but can never know if we find it.
Knowledge is what our best understandings and evidence indicate to be truth. Science is a method which attempts to find the knowledge which is the closest available approximation to objective truth.
Belief (or faith) is what our understandings of our experiences indicate. Religion is a set of methods which attempt to provide the closest available approximation to subjective truth.
But we can never know if our knowledge and our faith are ‘truth’. They are tools which we use in our search for truth.
Falsehoods are statements which divert from truth. Not all falsehoods are lies. Some falsehoods are misunderstandings or errors of those who provide them.
Lies are deliberate statements which purport to provide knowledge or faith but – in reality – are attempts to divert people away from truth. Evil people lie and they do it in attempt to acquire power, influence, riches or some other personal desire.
The problem is that when we observe a falsehood then we cannot always tell if it is a lie. And, as you say, there are people throughout history who have made use of that to promote lies. Therefore, as The Pompous Git had reminded us, we need to be constantly aware that
Richard
The Pompous Git says:
October 27, 2013 at 10:14 am
“…grope for truth even though it be beyond our reach…”
__________________________
We’ve wandered into a mind field.
Alan Robertson said @ur momisugly October 27, 2013 at 10:27 am
Ain’t that the truth? :-)))))
Beware perception; it’s imperfect:
http://www.123opticalillusions.com/pages/albert-einstein-marilyn-monroe.php
– – – – – – – –
The Pompous Git & Alan Robertson,
Yeah, but some of the mines when stepped on, result not in chemical explosions but in comical explosions of laughter.
For an example of the latter kind of mine, consider seriously claiming the knowledge that humanity cannot by its nature know the truth. It begs the eternal question of the truth of the claim. What premise allows that paradoxical claim?
A very funny one.
John
The Pompous Git:
Thankyou very much indeed for your post at October 27, 2013 at 11:17 am which says
That is a superb demonstration – better than a thousand words – of what I meant when I wrote of
saying
Now, is there any truth in the assertions of Mr Gore?
Or is Mr Gore promoting falsehoods?
If he is promoting falsehoods then is he a liar or does he see ‘Marilyn’ when everybody else sees ‘Albert’?
Richard
John Whitman said @ur momisugly October 27, 2013 at 11:57 am
Since you seem far more certain of what “truth” is, perhaps you could enlighten us with the one true and correct theory of truth. Is it the Correspondence theory, Coherence theory, Constructivist theory, Consensus theory, Pragmatic theory, a Deflationary theory, Performative theory, Redundancy theory, or one of the many Pluralist theories of truth? Philosophers who debate such matters seem rather divided on the issue and remain so after hundreds of years.