AIS: An Inconvenient Rally Cry to the Troops

Last night I attended a “special event” at the local Red River Theatres, a rather nice independent movie theater in Concord NH. The event was their premiere showing of “An Inconvenient Sequel – Truth to Power”. It was made special with a reception and introduction before the showing and an introduction featuring letters from our congressional delegation (all democrats, all women, we were reminded), and followed by a panel discussion of people from organizations working to end our dependence on fossil fuel.

It’s a smallish theater, but I was impressed that it was sold out.

I was expecting that it would be an updated AIT (An Inconvenient Truth), with updated science, and updated predictions, but targeting the year 2100 so they couldn’t fail in the predictor’s life time. The opening of the film included spots of Gore’s claims being dismissed by news media, candidate Trump, Senator Inhofe and others. (It was a surprisingly good summary!) Then there were a number of scenes attributed to climate change (melting ice in Greenland, flooding in Miami, brief shots of storm floods around the world), essentially nothing had hard enough data to critique effectively, but were meant to show that his critics aren’t paying attention to things Gore sees, and shame on them.

The film began to narrow its focus to a “touchy-feelly” “rally-the-troups” film with shots from his first training session and a reference to the iconic Apollo Big Blue Marble photo, which he hung in his West Wing office. He got interested an updated photo, and when he found there were none with that resolution from beyond geosynchronous orbit, he pushed the development of the DSCOVR Deep Space Climate Observatory satellite. Politics forced it into storage after he entered the presidential race. (DSCOVR was designed to orbit at Earth’s L-1 Lagrange point which is about a million miles sunward from Earth. One of its important tasks is to provide us with a little warning of incoming geomagnetic storms.) The film doesn’t have the word “Lagrange” in the script, a clue this is not a science-heavy film.

A visit to his childhood home, still in the family, brought reminiscences about hope in the early part of his presidential campaign, then the shift to his concession speech when the US Supreme Court awarded the election to George Bush showed the matching disappointment. He then noted that people working to stop climate change also experience shifts between hope and despair. He brings in renewable energy (always wind and solar), showing the early, exponential adoption rate and then the NY Attorney General as he begins his investigation into the well funded denial organizations and vested interests like Exxon Mobil were trying to cripple mankind’s ability to respond to this existential threat. There is not one word about power grid stability or the outcome of the investigation. Nor anything about problems with renewables, other that a snippet from Donald Trump ranting about the short lifetimes of PV panels.

He does admit that fuel use has done much to improve human existence and life spans, but quickly visits China and then India where he meets with officials there and tries to get them to commit to renewables. The Indian minister say coal plants are still cheaper and points to the west’s 150 years of development and high incomes enabling that transition there. He also notes that the west hasn’t come through with support and even adds impediments.

Then shots of record heat in India with melting asphalt streets and people losing their sandals as they try to cross. Mass graves being dug in Pakistan in anticipation of heat deaths if the coming summer has a repeat of the previous summer’s heat wave. Diseases spreading from the tropics north to us, and especially Zika.

Increased heat energy in CO2 (!) is going into the oceans and making storms stronger. After saying one of the big criticisms of AIT was the animation of sea level flooding Manhattan, that happened just a year later when superstorm Sandy came through. [N.B. In AIT it’s clear that he is referring to sea level rise due melting at Greenland and Antarctica. There is no mention of storm surge in AIT!] Then on to Super Typhoon Haiyan and it’s impact on the Philippines. [From the NASA page: A storm surge of anywhere from 3 to 5 meters (10-17 feet) hit the island of Leyte and its coastal capital of Tacloban; much of the local elevation is about 10 feet above sea level.]

Gore’s Climate Reality Project held what was meant to be a 24 hour pre-Paris broadcast, and the movie showed some of the backstage responses to the terrorist attack nearby, ending with Gore’s announcement that the program was being suspended.

The Paris COP did go on, of course, and after showing some of the arriving delegations and a brief review of the few successes and little progress from the earlier COPs, Gore comments there was “… no way in to really take hold of the process and say ‘Okay, let me help you here’.” Quite a bit of this segment shows Gore trying to get SolarCity to release some of their patents to give India some of the western support they are looking for. Apparently backroom politics these days are conducted by cell phones across multiple continents. Also Gore was trying to find lower cost credit for building wind farms than the 13% they had pay at the time. At the end of the segment, Secretary of State John Kerry, President Obama, President Hollande, and others helped create the largest loan ever to help India shift to renewable energy and stop their increasing CO2 output. Ultimately India supported the Agreement and everyone went home happy.

Then an interlude showing the launch, finally, of DSCOVR on 2015 Feb 11 and a thanks to President Obama for allocating the money for the launch and operation.

And finally – Donald Trump wins the election. “With all these new threats, there has never been a more important time to speak truth to power.” Gore had hoped to end the movie on a triumphal note but the election and then Trump pulling the US out of the Paris Agreement forced him into step back to regather his forces and continue the fight a while longer.

DSCOVR’s view of the Americas on 2017 Aug 3. I’m a bit surprised, and Al Gore probably is too, that these views don’t show up more often around the WWW.

Both Inconvenient Truth movies have a lawyer’s bias, a one sided approach with a goal of making people see the proponent’s way instead of the scientists’ “question everything” approach to learning the truth about how our universe works. I’ve noted a couple things above, feel free to fact check things I’ve missed or find samples of the “worst ever” that have “it was worse back in …”. Take some time to come up with a good comment that adds to the story.

Of course, while I think Trump would be more natural in a clown suit, bringing down the climate accord buys us more time to track the ever-so-slow climate change processes. Ultimately I expect we’ll find that CO2 is overrated as a greenhouse gas, there is a lot of good empirical data that says that now. If we’re really lucky, science agencies will realize that “natural variability” is an awful term that should never be uttered, at least not until we figure out the components that make up natural variability – and measure them. That’s a large area that needs more study and agencies ought to be able to find ways to get Congress to fund that.

Finally, clearly, I don’t recommend the movie. I do, however, recommend the Red River Theatres if you’re in the state or even just passing through. (The State of NH is good at getting people passing through to leave some of their hard-earned cash behind, I’m glad to help out!) The theater folks had to work hard to get Paramount to give them AIS for the premiere showings, and it would be nice if they can impress Paramount. Of course, there is a lot of Al Gore to sit through. And let’s face it, some of those matinees may be private showings.

Advertisements

136 thoughts on “AIS: An Inconvenient Rally Cry to the Troops

  1. I saw the first movie and indeed it was very inconvenient. Time I will never get back. I will do my best to make sure I don’t repeat the mistake. My thanks to you for saving me the trouble with your nice summary. You’re gentle treatment of the subject speaks of integrity and a generous disposition.

  2. How does CO2 increase heat energy and then after it has accomplished this feat put it into the oceans? People keep saying this happens, so there has to be a mechanism, but they never talk about that. Does energy no longer need to be conserved? It would help this claim a whole lot if it didn’t.

    • The short answer is that’s not how CO2 or other greenhouse gasses work. The slightly longer version notes that Gore did not do well in science classes. I’ll leave a good answer to others.

      A complete answer would note that the global ACE (Accumulated Cyclone Energy) has fallen a lot in the last few decades and that storms hitting low lying cities never, ever have easy recoveries.

    • Clean water allows light from the sun (shortwave energy) to enter. Consider the depth where one can still see colors — pretty fishes and so on. When the sky is clear over water, energy goes in and accumulates. Thick clouds prevent this.
      Can CO2, by itself, warm water? Not any any significant way. There are no known mechanisms.

      • There are a couple of hypotheses:

        1) warming at the surface reduces the temperature gradient, producing less convective overturning, leading to reduced release of heat from the ocean depths

        2) wind driven mixing convects the heat absorbed at the surface down

        Nobody can actually claim to know for certain. It’s just a bunch of hand waving, and grasping for something semi-plausible that will support the case for AGW.

        I do not think either of the above is very credible, as the absorption all takes place in such a thin layer (order of micrometers) and most immediately disperses with evaporation. The thought that, that heat somehow causes a buildup 2000 meters down stretches credulity well beyond the breaking point for me. Ocean temperatures are almost surely driven overwhelmingly by penetrating shortwave radiation that has essentially nothing to do with CO2.

      • Bart, any warmer temperatures at the surface should eventually warm the ocean on the whole. Think of an aquarium heater placed at the top of an aquarium. (eventually it warms the whole tank) i think that’s what the derivative plot of carbon growth is telling us. As the ocean warms given a surface temp above equilibrium state, we’re getting the outgassing. This actually spells trouble with a capital T for agw theory. Surface temps could actually cool all the while that the ocean continues to warm. This sort of thing will kill agw politically. So, i don’t think it’s in warmist’s best interest to buy into this deep ocean warming thing. (au contrare)…

      • Seriously Bart, GROW UP. Any freshman in an engineering course would get smacked upside the head for such nonsense.

        Just because you can’t understand how something works on a sub-microscopic level doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. To compare, we don’t have a good grasp on the mechanism of ice freezing. The most basic physical reaction we know of, and we keep finding more transition states in how it happens, and we know what we have is incomplete.

      • afonzarelli @ August 5, 2017 at 2:03 pm

        “Bart, any warmer temperatures at the surface should eventually warm the ocean on the whole.”

        You must specify a mechanism. Heat transport is either conductive, convective, or radiative. Conduction is very slow and weak compared to the other two, and its steady state impact drops off rapidly with depth.

        Convection cannot carry heated waters down if the heat is almost immediately evaporated away before it can sink. And, it has to be wind driven convection. Warming of waters inhibits thermohaline circulation, it does not enhance it.

        Remember, we are specifically talking about heat from incident IR radiation. IR radiation cannot penetrate water far at all. We’re talking micrometers.

        benofhouston @ August 5, 2017 at 2:53 pm

        Seriously, Ben, make a point. Am I to believe in anything for which I do not have an explanation? Is that science, in your view?

        Please explain to us all how IR radiation can heat the oceans at depth. Preferably, something that doesn’t involve magic.

      • Thanks for getting back to me, Bart… i see you’re spending time over at dr roy’s. i finally gave up on his software (and that dingbat appell). But still go over there and read from time to time…

        The thinking is that there is a top to bottom temperature gradient and if you raise the top then the whole gradient must follow until a new equilibrium state is reached. This is evidenced by the relationship of carbon growth to temperature. Cold waters come up from the depths, mix with a warmer surface and then go back down again (all the warmer). It appears, to me, that the THC is a big deal in this, as that appears to be where the majority of co2 outgassing comes from. AND easterly walker cell circulation at the equator DOES increase with temperature. At any rate, warm waters in the western pacific do sink, thus creating THC circulation. In general, vertical mixing also plays a role. Dr Roy actually uses the term “air conditioner” to describe the heat sinking of the oceans. This gets interrupted by an el nino and, thus, we get warmer temperatures. El Ninos do not represent a release of heat from the oceans, i think, because that would be (as mike jonas has pointed out) a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. El Nino warmth simply represents the failure of the ocean to act in its heat sinking capacity. And lastly, your third mechanism “conduction”, sure it is slow, but it does happen. If SSTs are maintained at a higher temp, there will continue to be ocean warming as a new temperature gradient is established. This is evident by the increased heat content down to 2000 meters as compared to the relatively stable heat content down to 700 meters. (top not warming so much as bottom continues to warm) Regardless of the mechanism for surface warming, or rather surface temps maintained at a warmer temp, we should expect to see continued warming of the ocean on the whole. i’m going to leave a link from dr roy that touches on this in another comment right below. This blog is beginning to be a pain with disappearing comments as well. (sometimes they show up later, sometimes they don’t) At any rate, it’s always nice to see you around and always great to exchange ideas with you — i hope my comment isn’t too late and you get back to read it…

      • http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/01/what-causes-el-nino-warmth/

        Bart, i’ve got yet another comment hung up in moderation, i hope it actually shows up. (this blog is getting pretty bad in that regard; spending more time at curry’s) This link does a good job at explaining the heat sinking capacity of the ocean. Dr Roy even refers to non nino conditions as an air conditioner. During el nino the air conditioner breaks down and thus we have warmth. Nice to see ya. i hope you make it back to read this (as well as my wayward comment)…

      • Fonzie –

        I’m not sure we are on the same page. I am specifically arguing that it is a wild stretch of the imagination to posit that back-radiation from atmospheric CO2 in the IR can be heating the ocean substantially to depths of as much as 2000m.

        The oceans, to depths that we can measure, have heated, but it is not substantially from CO2 back-radiation. It is either A) accumulation of elevated shortwave radiation over the time interval of interest, B) redistribution of ocean heat due to natural dynamics induced by tidal forcing, or C) a combination of both.

        “The thinking is that there is a top to bottom temperature gradient and if you raise the top then the whole gradient must follow until a new equilibrium state is reached.”

        The gradient isn’t uniform and gradual, and the specific heat of water is about 4000X that of air. The impact of a temperature change at the top, in and of itself, diminishes rapidly with depth. You have to convect that heat downward to get any substantial heating below.

        IR radiation can only affect the very skin of the surface, as it is quickly absorbed. Shortwave radiation penetrates as far as 200m, with increasing attenuation with depth. Here is a sketch of light transmission to depth with wavelength. Keep in mind that the wavelengths of the CO2 back-radiation are in the range of about 13 to 17 microns, which is located far to the right of this graph, where the transmission is utterly negligible.

        Much of that heating at the skin produces evaporation, so imagine, if you will, the proportion of IR induced heat remaining after evaporation that can be convected down from that skin layer versus the 200m or so of shortwave heated waters. Shortwave heating is clearly dominant by a wide margin. Even a tiny deviation in shortwave input easily overwhelms the IR impact.

        “This is evidenced by the relationship of carbon growth to temperature.”

        It is not the air driving the temperature of the ocean – that is the flea on the elephant’s back. It is the oceans driving the temperature of the air. The oceans heat overwhelmingly due to shortwave radiation, and they redistribute their heat due to tidal forcing. And, many would immediately say, to winds, but sorting out the order of cause and effect with the winds is not straightforward.

        “At any rate, warm waters in the western pacific do sink, thus creating THC circulation.”

        The Thermohaline circulation is established by colder and more salty water (thermo = having to do with temperature, and haline = saltiness) sinking in cold climes near the poles, producing a flow that rises again near the tropics. When ocean temperatures rise, the flow is constricted. It’s not a case of more CO2 coming up, but of less going down, which produces the same practical result of CO2 accumulating at the surface.

      • Fonzie – I also have something hung up in moderation. The key points are:

        1) ocean temps very insensitive to temperature of air
        2) main ocean heating mechanism is penetration of shortwave, longwave stopped at the skin

        Our observations of ocean heating almost surely result from A) accumulation of elevated shortwave solar input over past 30 years and/or B) redistribution of heat in the oceans via winds and tides.

        Mod – can you see if you can retrieve our missing posts? Thx.

      • There is a simple fact about ocean temperatures. The deeper you go, the colder it gets, until you reach max density at a bit above zero C. Hot water, and heat, stay on top.

        Now there are two bits of finesse on this. Ocean bottom heating from geologic sources can make a plume of warm water, rising and moving that heat upward. Surface winds can push the top bit around and change the thermocline depth in a given spot by a little bit. Neither of these change the fact that what is called “The Deep Ocean” (which is most of it) is just a tad above the freezing point and highly stable in temperature.

        All the noise and fury, talk and speculation studiously ignores that. The bulk of the ocean, “the deep ocean” NEVER changes temperature. (If it did, it either becomes ice, floats, and is no longer deep ocean, or it warms, becomes less dense, rises, and is no longer deep ocean….)

        So really, any talk of “Ocean Warming” needs to address what surface depth it is going on about. Micrometers? Centimeters? A few meters? Or down to the therocline? (100s of meters or less). Then it needs to be clear that those layers mix and move, while the deep ocean cold is formed at the poles. Polar descending cold water makes the deep ocean. At the tropical band, solar energy (light) warms the very top of the deep ocean (thermocline is deeper due to more light intensity) and that bit of ocean leaves the deep ocean to become upper ocean waters ; which begin a long slow return to the arctic freezing point.

        So all your “ocean heating” only warms the flow to the polar freezer where that heat is dumped to space as new deep ocean near zero C water is formed.

        The bulk of the ocean is NEVER warmed. At most, heat flow in the surface layer to the heat dumping poles might be increased, but that heat leaves those waters as they cool to near zero (and the thermocline depth rises to the surface).

        Internalize that river to the poles over icy deep, or be forever wrong about “ocean heating”.

      • Bart, i think we are on the same page, it’s just that my articulation skills are not that great. Dr Spencer’s el nino post is a good reference and i thought i might start there. Under normal conditions, the atmosphere is cooled by conductive heat transfer. Once that happens, vertical mixing moves the heat into the depths. During an el nino, the vertical mixing ceases and the process gets interrupted. Thus the ocean “A.C.” fails in it’s heat sinking capacity and we get surface warmth. If CO2 is causing any warming of the surface or atmosphere above the surface, then the ocean will indeed be sinking that heat. Thus the oceans can readily be warmed by CO2 as described by Dr Spencer in his el nino post. Now the kicker, i think, is this: the further we get above the equilibrium state temperature, the faster the ocean warms/ atmosphere cools. Your analogy is spot on, the ocean being the “elephant”. The waters that come up to mix with the surface are always essentially the same temp because the ocean is so large. So as the surface warms, the ocean mixing from those consistently cooler waters keeps the surface from run away warming. This is evidenced by the carbon growth data. (CO2 is outgassing faster than “evah” because the oceans are warming faster than ever)…

      • Bart, another comment is on the way… (i even cut it short so that maybe it would make it, but to no avail)

      • Bart, this is not the comment that i’m currently hoping will show up. i just thought i’d take a moment here to tell you where i’m going with this deep ocean warming. If the ocean eats up agw that reduces ecs. (the modulating function of the ocean could mean that ecs is very close to zero)…

      • This also is not the comment that i’m waiting for… i thought i might reproduce a comment of mine from a couple posts back that touches on the possibility of a low climate sensitivity base on the last glacial to interglacial transition. The blocked parenthesis were reproduced by wim rost in his terse reply:

        (the reproduced comment should follow this one, knock on wood)…

      • afonzarelli August 4, 2017 @5:22pm

        AND YET, we keep hearing from the agw crowd that ECS is 3C because that’s what the paleo data tells us. And, pray tell, HOW is the paleo data telling us this? If anything, one would think, the paleo data is telling us that CO2’s role is very small. [Think of all the massive earth changes that we see from glacial to interglacial. Changes in orbital shifting, albedo, water vapor (which dwarfs that of trace CO2) to name a few. And the resultant change in global temperature from all of these major earth changes is only 4-5C.] How is it that tiny CO2 plays anything but a minor role in what we see in the glacial cycle?

      • Wim Rost August 5, 2017 @2:34pm

        Afonzarelli: [ … ]

        WR: Great observation. Blames all IPCC forecasts.

    • The solubility of CO2 is inversely proportionate to temperature. Extra “heat energy” would reduce the solubility of CO2. The whole concept of CO2 putting “heat energy” into the oceans is unscientific and nonsensical.

      • Phil, this is a well known calculation. Look up Henry’s law. The constants are on the web. It’s a HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL EQUATION!

        The change of solubility is temperature-dependent, yes, but this far away from the boiling point of water, the change per degree temperature is small. The far more important change is the concentration of CO2 in the air, as that’s a linear relationship. The result is still 90-95% of the amount not correcting Henr’ys constant for temperature.

        Don’t try and be all high and mighty while you reveal that you are not able to do basic chemistry.

      • Re: benofhouston

        Troll alert! His comment reminds me of sites on the web that string together words in meaningless phrases as click-bait.

      • Sorry Phil, I got a little heated there and didn’t realize what you actually said. I read it quickly, thought you were talking about CO2 not dissolving into the oceans, and saw red. Thus the rant on Henry’s law, which governs the solubility of gases in liquids.
        https://chemengineering.wikispaces.com/Henry%27s+law

        I didn’t realize how ridiculous your initial post actually was. Are you actually saying that things don’t warm up when additional energy is present? Due to a completely unrelated physical phenomenon? Seriously? I just don’t know. Are you still in High School? Younger? Because that’s the only way your initial comment made sense.

        The world isn’t governed by a kooky and arbitrary set of laws. Each of them makes sense internally and externally, and a lot of them work independently. Before you say something deducted from fundamental physics, think about whether your orneriest farmer of a grandpa would agree or argue. If it’s the latter, you are probably fundamentally misapplying laws somewhere. It happens to all of us when we are young. Common sense is generally right.

      • “Common sense is generally right.”

        Oh (chuckle), no, no, no. If common sense were generally right, the scientific revolution would never have occurred. We would have been living in a sciento-technological age eons ago. We wouldn’t need universities, as any palooka off the street would be as qualified to pronounce judgment as any scientist with years of study and training.

        The scientific revolution came about specifically because “common sense” is so pervasively unreliable. Science is hard because it so often goes against the grain of our intuition. To make headway, we have to subordinate our impulses to rigorous fact checking and replication of results.

        Phil – indeed, if added CO2 were putting heat energy into the oceans, it would set up a positive feedback loop, wherein heat increased, increasing CO2, increasing heat, ad infinitum. And if, as in fact it is, the rate of change of CO2 were proportional to temperature, it would be a positive feedback loop which could not be stabilized, and we would have reached a saturation point long, long ago.

    • Doonman, How does a greenhouse work? (note: completely different mechanism, same effect) The short answer is that it prevents the heat that enters from leaving. The longer answer is that it absorbs radiant energy that comes off the Earth, reducing the amount that escapes into space. The Earth increases slightly in temperature as a response, which causes it to emit more blackbody radiation. This cycle reached equilibrium, with the same total amount of energy going into space and a little more accumulated on the planet.

      The magnitude of the effect is quite debatable, but the basic mechanism is not. Seriously, y’all. Anyone arguing on first law thermodynamics at this point is willfully ignorant.

      And Robert, you can trap heat by slowing down its movement. It’s called insulation. There’s a reason heat was thought to be a particle for so long. The equations are the same as gas movement.

      • Seems to me there’s an issue maybe you could sort for me.

        The energy coming in is reduced in frequency to be released as more IR than what arrived. This is absorbed then released by CO2 and a minor amount of that is back radiation.

        there is another energy loss in the CO2 transactions.

        Am I on track so far?

        OK, the AGW idea is the back radiation then further warms the Earth – the problem is, the back radiation energy is not only NOT equal to the energy emitted from the planet, the planet has already gotten rid of the IR that is being back radiated.

        All the explanations I see seem to be saying incoming IR heats to ‘X’ temps, ‘Y’ IR is emitted and ‘Y’ back radiation then raises the Earth temp to X+Y.

        Am I seeing things correctly?

      • Mark, That’s fairly accurate until you get to the algebra, when you start overthinking it.

        Let’s take a really really simple model. No dynamics, two stages.
        The energy from sun to Earth is E1.
        Earth starts at T1.
        Blackbody radiation (EB) that occurs is proportional to T^4, so
        EB1 ~ T1^4 (I don’t have Greek letters in this forum, and constants aren’t important here, so sue me)
        Your temperature will balance out to make the system go towards EB1=E1.

        Now, we add the back-radiation from CO2, EC, This is blackbody energy that doesn’t leave due to CO2 absorption and goes back to the surface. Exactly how doesn’t matter. It’s energy and I’m an engineer, so I don’t sweat the details.
        Due to balancing, this means E1 = EB2 – EC. The energy coming into the Earth
        This means our new T2 ~ (E1 + EC) ^ (1/4)

        Reality gets ludicrously complicated due to multiple temperatures, dynamics (you will never actually get to equilibrium), convection, and all that jazz. However, while these complicate the answer, the fundamental relationship will still exist.

        Short answer. The heating occurs from the absorption of gas in the atmosphere coming back to Earth. This is the issue with the missing Hot Spot that pops up from time to time. It’s absence can’t be explained away because that isn’t a removable side-effect, but the actual mechanism of warming.

  3. No interest here in seeing Gore’s alarmist sequel, but some of you may not know this:

    Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” can’t be shown in UK schools unless the little tykes are advised that it is a propaganda film that contains at least nine unsupportable alarmist claims – sea level rise being one.
    “Al Gore’s environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth contains nine key scientific errors, a High Court judge ruled yesterday.

    The judge declined to ban the Academy Award-winning film from British schools, but ruled that it can only be shown with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3310137/Al-Gores-nine-Inconvenient-Untruths.html

  4. I can not stand to listening to this man whine. I have not seen either of his agit-prop productions having ignored all his public pronouncements since the invocation of a “lawk bahx” (lock-box) was proffered to fix Social Security.

      • I don’t think he’s a fanatic so much as an opportunist and a cynic. The payoff for alarmism has been very good for him, and he believes in the noble cause of eliminating fossil fuel use through any means available.

  5. I worry about Trump’s mercurial nature and Tillerson’s pro-AGW influence over him.

    • Daughter Ivanka Trump is in the warmist camp, I worried more about her influence. Tillerson, past head of Exxon-Mobil, may have a more nuanced stand than than the media can comprehend or report upon.

      I like mercury’s nature. :-) No, let’s not go off on that tangent today!

      • “Daughter Ivanka Trump is in the warmist camp,”

        I hate to nitpik you here, but there is no evidence of Ivanka being in the warmist camp. She nor Jared have ever made a public statement about their position on the subject. All we have are a couple of journalists making these unsubstantiated claims.

        As in Climate science, so in politics, skeptics should insist on evidence. Speculation or outright lies by journalists is not evidence in either case.

  6. I never saw Gore’s first flick. It was clearly propaganda; the very title begged the question right on the marquee: An Inconvenient TRUTH. Obviously, it was going to be a bunch of lies.

  7. Recognized by all as a propaganda film and nothing more. They’re giving free admission tickets to the faithful. No one is clamoring to see pro or anti global warming flicks.

    • Inconvenient Sequel earned about half the money that Incoveninet Truth earned on its opening weekend. This is a sign that climate hysteria has been significantly reduced over the past decade.

      We’re all ten years older and ten years wiser.

      Fool me once, Al. Shame on you… Fool me twice,…

      • Or the majority of the world believes it is real, and doesn’t need to see a movie to remind themselves of that.

      • Yeah, chris, just like back in the day when the majority of the world believed that the earth is flat…

  8. … not until we figure out the components that make up natural variability – and measure them.

    You can get the Nobel Prize if you can do that and convince enough people that you’re right.

  9. I will believe all the fear-mongering when the left starts living their lives as if they believe it. Gore’s mcmansion, frequent airplane trips, multiple autos…riiiiight.

    • Ah, so if you go the doctor who happens to be fat, and he tells you you should lose some weight, you are not going to listen to him. Got it.

      • Good to hear Chris admit the fear-mongering left is not living their lives like even they REALLY believe Gore’s crap

  10. visits China and then India where he meets with officials there and tries to get them to commit to renewables. The Indian minister say coal plants are still cheaper and points to the west’s 150 years of development and high incomes enabling that transition there. He also notes that the west hasn’t come through with support and even adds impediments.

    Here’s the latest:

    India diverts Rs 56,700 crore from the fight against climate change to Goods and Service Tax regime [About $10 Billion GWPF est. May be $14 billion.]

    Unused money in the National Clean Energy and Environment Fund has been diverted to compensate states for loss of tax revenue.

    By Kumar Sambhav Shrivastava, Scroll. In (India), July 24, 2017 [H/t GWPF]

    https://scroll.in/article/844528/india-diverts-rs-56700-crore-from-the-fight-against-climate-change-to-goods-and-service-tax-regime

    “’Basically, the fund is now dead wood,’ a senior finance ministry official said.”

    Coal to stay king in India as power mainstay, says Niti report

    Coal would remain at the centre stage in India with its share in energy mix not declining below 46% in 2047, claimed a report titled ‘Energising India’, jointly prepared by the NITI Aayog and the Institute of Energy Economics, Japan.

    By Staff Writers, Financial Express, Dew Delhi, July 26, 2017

    http://www.financialexpress.com/economy/coal-to-stay-king-in-india-as-power-mainstay-says-niti-report/779568/

  11. “Of course, while I think Trump would be more natural in a clown suit,” yep be a good little boy and make sure everyone “knows” your really just another elitist pin head more concerned about virtue signaling than anything else … in 6 months Trump the “clown” has done more to counter the warmist nonsense than 1,000 BS articles like this …

      • Well, Rick Werme, I do not find New Hampshire as a white spot on this maps. Trump could have called any country in the USA a drugstore. In all major drug species, the USA as a whole can be found on one of the top five places. It was time that someone, unlike Obama’s fabric softener, took up this issue and addressed it. The US is explicitly the drug sump in the world.

        http://recoverybrands.com/drugs-in-america-vs-europe/

        And I’m sure Trump did not want to offend you personally. He only said the painful truth.

      • A clown suit, Ric? Not appropriate: The guy’s not funny, not at all. He’s Putin’s patsy, and that’s no joke.

        I used to think conservatives were more sensible than liberals in most respects — since Trump, many have revealed themselves to be just as ideologically idiotic as the “libtards” they love to hate. (Ideologically idiotic, as in ‘He’s my Pussygrabber, right or wrong!’)

        So, how did environmentalism — which fits so naturally into the National Socialist/Malthusian worldview — ever get foisted onto the Left? The welfare of humanity clearly depends on cheap energy. Is it because the folks who are paid to keep us divided view liberals, the more “educated” demographic, as more vulnerable to being blinded by science?

      • “A clown suit, Ric? Not appropriate: The guy’s not funny, not at all. He’s Putin’s patsy, and that’s no joke.”

        Ridiculous, richie.

        You make some good points in your post, richie, like “The welfare of humanity clearly depends on cheap energy”, but then you say something silly like the quote at the top of this post.

        You seem to have the proper take on the energy situation but are ideologically blind on the political front. Or perhaps you just put way too much faith in what the MSM says about Trump.

        Anyway, it’s laughable to think Trump is a patsy for Putin.

      • “Anyway, it’s laughable to think Trump is a patsy for Putin.:

        Hey TA, thanks for providing such a detailed explanation of whyb Trump is not a patsy for Putin.

      • “Hey TA, thanks for providing such a detailed explanation of why Trump is not a patsy for Putin.”

        Just like with human-caused climate change, chris, it’s not up to me to provide evidence that CO2 is not affecting the atmosphere in any appreciable way, rather, it is up to CAGW advocates to prove CAGW is affecting the atmospher, and it’s not up to me to prove Trump’s innocence, it is up to his accusers to prove Trump is guilty. You have things turned around just backwards.

        Got any evidence that Trump is Putin’s patsy, chris?

    • Kaiser Derden, thanks for your comment, it is better than the one I was formulating. Appreciate you speaking truth to the left.

    • And enough of the nonsense that the supreme court awarded the election to bush as well. Bush had already been certified the winner in florida even as the state bended over backwards for gore. The supreme court merely reaffirmed florida law that stated that the gore team had simply run out of time. (it was the gore team’s own legal strategy that did themselves in)…

      • (just to preempt here, the other ruling by the supreme court struck down the post certification recount. But, it was a 7 to 2 ruling which carried half of the liberal wing of the court. As well, the florida supreme court chief justice had written a scathing decent to the post cetification recount — that one way or another, the recount wouldn’t cut muster. So puh-lease, enough of the left wing talking points. Gore lost, fair and square)…

    • That´s true. Trump is only more natural in a clown suit in the sight of the mainstream press of the great towns on both coastlines. But otherwise, in the Midwest and South, were the people are, who must do the hard work for the East and West coasts parasites, they applaud him loudly.

      • The coasts (and Hilary) certainly got their comeuppance with the election results. I grew up in the midwest, a long time ago, so I wasn’t surprised that voters there went for Trump. Unfortunately, the coasts don’t seem to be interested in learning why, they just seem to want to cry on each others shoulders. The folks in the midwest will also discover we are in a global economy and that the glory days when we could sponge off cheap resources from the rest of the world are not coming back. There are a lot of things that need to be cleaned up, but Detroit being able to build cars that rusted apart five years and 83,000 miles later are, thankfully, not one of them! (That was about how long our cars lasted in northeast Ohio winters.)

        Also unfortunately, Trump hasn’t learned yet what it takes to be president. I had hoped he’d figure it out by now, he’s no dummy. The Sacramucci appointment never should have happened.

        Oh dear, I just had a terrible thought – I had hoped people would give up ranting about Trump’s election months ago. It looks now as though we’ll be talking about it for as long as we’re talking about Gore’s election. Augh!

    • Ric, I won’t try to convince you to love Trump, but just think about the conversations we would be having now if Hillary Clinton had been elected. I’ll take Trump anytime. It’s a no-brainer.

      • Yeah, the choices weren’t very good. I voted for Gary Johnson, who would have brought his own set of interesting conversations. I expect he would have gotten us out of Paris too.

  12. I just suffered an interview with him on our government green tv station , he claimed among other things that Co2 had raised the acidity of the oceans by 30% in the last 30 years so science and truth are casualties wherever he goes .

    • Again that cobalt! It’s not Co2 (two atoms of cobalt), but CO2 (1 atom of carbon, 2 of oxygen).

      • And of course, it’s not C02 (zero instead of letter oh) either. (Might as well get both of those errors out of the way today!) :-)

        Thank you for your decades of astronomical contributions.

      • I’m confused: JM’s post correctly used a capital “oh=O” in CO2, your pedantic post incorrectly stated a “zero=0” was used (C02).

        Watching trolls troll is frequently (well, always) either painful or hilarious.

      • Well, Ric, that sounds like pedantic overdrive.

        But thank you for correcting something that had not occurred.

  13. “If we’re really lucky, science agencies will realize that “natural variability” is an awful term that should never be uttered, at least not until we figure out the components that make up natural variability – and measure them.”

    That statement doesn’t make much sense to me. We know there is variability in the climate. It is either due to natural causes or to man-made causes, such as GHG emissions. The mystery to be solved is how much variability is due to each. We may not know all the components that make up natural variability, but we do know from history and science that it exists. To pretend that it doesn’t would be a big mistake. For one thing, if science agencies are not allowed to mention the term “natural variability,” then climate change becomes the default reason for all climate variability, which is what Al Gore and his friends already want you to think.

    Since natural variability has a much longer track record than man-made climate change, it would make more sense to say, “Man-made climate change” is an awful term that should never be uttered, at least not until we figure out the components that make it up – and measure them.

    However, we should never tell science agencies what they can and cannot utter. That would be like telling Galileo never to mention the movement of the planets around the sun until he could measure the movements precisely. That could not be done as long as it was assumed that the orbits were circular instead of elliptical. So let’s not put up roadblocks to scientific discovery.

    • The main purveyors of “natural variability” seem to be people certain that CO2 is the main culprit and handwave away the difference between CO2 levels and temperature anomalies by referring to something we are not worthy to understand, and have no need to.

      I, for one, would like to know if solar output has a significant influence. Leif makes a good case for “No!” but others have intriguing information about changes in extreme UV and processes that get that energy down to the Earth. Changes in cosmic ray flux, due both to the sun’s magnetic field and violent activity from our stellar neighbors is interesting. Aerosols can be both manmade and natural, we have a horrible understanding of them, so they get used as good source of error bars to keep trends within projections.

      CO2 got the initial attention because people couldn’t think of what other processes could be involved. Now that we have identified some possibilities, I think we need to study them and look for things we’ve missed.

      Letting people hide behind “natural variability” is letting people keep their roadblocks to scientific discovery.

      • I agree that we need to study other processes besides CO2. But don’t all the other processes fall under “natural variability”? The influence of the Sun, our orbit around the Sun, and other possible processes don’t fall under the category of man made, do they? Yes, there are some who blame natural variability for the “pause” or recent lack of warming that contradicts the models. But you could just as easily blame natural variability for the warming we had in the first place. It goes both ways. We won’t know what the truth is until we can understand all the main natural processes. We’re still a long way from that.

        But if you want to study and measure something, hiding it and not allowing it to be mentioned is not the way to go about it. That would be like saying, “don’t mention dark energy, black holes, or quarks until we understand them and can measure everything about them.” Such censorship of terms would discourage research on those subjects, not promote it. We need to encourage more research on natural variability, not forbid the very mention of it. Now, if you meant that science agencies should stop pretending they understand “natural variability” when they don’t and stop using it as an excuse for the recent lack of warming, I would agree with you on that.

    • “That statement doesn’t make much sense to me. We know there is variability in the climate. It is either due to natural causes or to man-made causes, such as GHG emissions. The mystery to be solved is how much variability is due to each. We may not know all the components that make up natural variability, but we do know from history and science that it exists. To pretend that it doesn’t would be a big mistake.”

      Good comments, Louis.

      To pretend that natural variability doesn’t exist would be denying reality.

      As you say, we don’t know what is natural variability and what is human-caused, but one thing we do know is it was 100 percent natural variability before humans came on the scene, so saying people should ignore natural variability is ridiculous.

      We started out with 100 percent natural variablity as the cause of our weather. Humans have now introduced CO2 into the atmosphere, which may, or may not, cause an increase in atmospheric temperatures. If it doesn’t, then the weather we see now is all natural variability.

      We should start from the assumption that our weather is all natural until it is proven otherwise. It’s no hotter now that it was at other times in our past, and there has been more CO2 in the atmosphere in the past than there is now, so why shouldn’t we assume that all we see is from natural causes? Where is any evidence for anything else?

  14. Ric Werme neglected to blast Al Gore for believing in a 100-year static energy technology and the need to build them windmils and install them solar panels, possibly the dumbest methods of lowering carbon emissions. Al Gore worries about a future that won’t ever exist. Economics say so, if nothing else.
    Of ourse, AL has accumulated $300 million selling his fantasy future to a boneheaded generation who think they are the second coming

      • You mean you can’t rise to the level needed to grasp the actual meaning of what I said. Sad.

      • Thats ok, Chris. Fortunately we all pretty much understand your lack of humor & irony (as well as scientific arguments), but please rave on.

    • That`s the wet dream oft the left. But this dream they have had also before the last Election and they were brought to reality the following day. Much of what has been and will be written about Trump in CNN, New York Times, and Washington Post springs from this damp dream. But when even people like Ric Werme can not resist this brainwashing …….

      • “But when even people like Ric Werme can not resist this brainwashing”

        Brainwashing is a powerful thing. As we see.

        Humans want to conform to the group thinking because it is a survival mechansim from back in tribal days. If you have good, clear-thinking leaders for the group, then conforming to their directions keeps you safe and enhances your life. If you have delusional leaders, then their misdirections will be the ruination of the group.

        Sometimes members of the group have a hard time discerning whether their leaders have the proper view of reality or a delusional view of reality, and don’t really find out the truth until disaster strikes.

        And when the principal organ for transmitting information in a society is controlled by one political totalitarian ideology, then the group is in big trouble. That’s where we are now.

    • We’re all Bozos on this bus. So Trump is simply head clown. What’s really funny is that those who throw this term around don’t realize what bozos they really are.

      • Wow! What a crafty set of ad hominems – a twofer…and that’s ignoring your throwing around “bozo” in your first sentence.

        This may even be a self-inflicted three-fer.

    • Oh, so you saw the movie? I figured it wasn’t worth my time to look into the exploding glacier, and the Tuscon “rain bomb” looked like the best video I’ve seen of a downburst. Can you imagine trying to land an airliner in winds like that? The tail wind on the far side of the storm would kill your lift. And then everyone in the airplane. And did.

      Hmm, that’s likely a time lapse of the event, followed by a slow motion replay, but still faster than real time.

      The first event here from Australia is very clear:

      • Rain bomb? How positively pedestrian. Rain Hiroshima bombs are much more impactful and symbolic. Exploding glaciers? How about Hiroshima exploding glaciers. Now your glacier is exploding…

        ha ha ha ha ha

      • I’ve noticed lately that The Storm Channel has begun to call the rains in the US Southwest and West “Monsoon Rains”.
        If weather events aren’t following the caGW/Climate Change meme, give them a name or hyped description that makes them sound like they are.

    • Al Gore is hardly a lunatic. He is merely an actor, playing in endless infomercials about AGW. This role, in turn provided him with a lifestyle of luxury and celebrity and countless millions he would otherwise have never made. Meeting VIPs, head of states and religions. Without his AGW role playing, he would have faded into obscurity long time ago, just as almost all of the former US VPs before him have…Al is not about to quit riding this gravy train…

  15. If you happen to see Al Gore standing on a fence post you can be pretty sure he didn’t get there by himself and dead certain the post is going to break because of all the bs he’s filled with. Al’s a propagandist and a politician. This film debut is nothing more than a trial balloon for a run at 2020. And although Red River theatres may be very lovely, I’ll not be patronizing them.

  16. “the US Supreme Court awarded the election”
    No.
    The US Supreme Court stopped Gore’s attempt to steal the election, because Gore’s challenges had no basis in law or fact. Florida followed its election rules and determined the outcome based on the rules that it had set prior to the election. Gore wanted to change the rules through judicial fiat in ways that would have benefitted him, most egregiously by holding recounts only in areas that would benefit him and by fighting the inclusion of ballots that harm. Gore’s attempt at overturning the outcome was based in dishonesty. The US Supreme Court ruled on the law which had been applied fairly, not the election.

    • Oh that’s right, it required a petition to the court to get them to review that mess of an election in Florida. I remember my eyes rolling when Gore went to the court instead of conceding the election when it was clear to me the only (but impractical and unconstitutional) to determine the electorate’s wishes was to hold a new national election. And that wasn’t part of the petition, of course.

      • Post-election reviews by the press (not exactly Bush fans) cited lots of uncertainty, but most said Bush would have probably narrowly won Gore’s requested (or a state-wide) recount.

        Maybe if Democrats had invoked “Russia” instead of “FL hanging chads”…woudda, coudda, shudda…

  17. The sequel lacks “hard science” because:

    Gore did hard science so badly the first time.

    Climate “scientists” have given up on the scientific method, since it doesn’t fit their model output.

    Warmunists are not interested in how things actually are, only how they want them to be.

    Also, Al Gore didn’t make $200 million from hard science.

  18. “With all these new threats, there has never been a more important time to speak truth to power.”

    Gore has correctly realised he isn’t in power. He’s also free to speak whatever he wants. Had he also listened, he’d perhaps be less alarmed.

    • “Speaking truth to power” is only important to Democrats when they are not in power. Just like not conceding an election “undermines our democracy” until it is a Democrat, like Gore or Clinton, who is contesting the election.

      “Trump becomes the first major party nominee in American history to suggest that he will not concede despite losing the vote… That is dangerous,” Obama continued, “Because when you try to sow the seeds of doubt in people’s minds about the legitimacy of our elections, that undermines our democracy. — Pres. Obama, Oct 20, 2016

      Democrats have done nothing but “sow the seeds of doubt” about the legitimacy of our elections ever since Trump won. It is painfully obvious that the above statement by Obama was only intended to apply to Republicans. Democrats are exempted. They have always promoted double standards, and they are proud of it.

  19. Ric, “while I think Trump would be more natural in a clown suit

    What’s Trump actually done that’s clownish?

  20. Ric, “the glory days when we could sponge off cheap resources from the rest of the world are not coming back.

    The US never sponged off cheap foreign resources. From about 1950 through about 1970 (when Europe and Japan finally recovered from WWII), the entire global economy ran on US consumer imports. If anything, the rest of the world sponged off the US economy.

    cars that rusted apart five years and 83,000 miles later are, thankfully, not one of them! (That was about how long our cars lasted in northeast Ohio winters.)

    Cars were made of steel throughout, then. Winter roads were de-iced with salt. Chloride, water, and oxygen together are very corrosive. The fact that cars made of steel lasted 83,000 miles (about 8 winters) under such corrosive conditions marks an achievement, not a criticism.

    • Pat, cars were made of uncoated steel, on the inside. They were designed to rot in an acceptable time. Ford pushed the envelope with their ‘1 year rusty Fords’. That cost them a lot.

      It was Toyota entering the market and providing undercoating that forced the north American producers to change. Volvo of course had been doing right by their customers but they were insignificant competition. The market share lost to better materials was something the big three earned.

  21. The “truth to power” subtitle is pretentious and false. If anything, it is propaganda from power, what with the gagillionaire fortune Algore is amassing and his RICO partners trying to imprison climate dissenters. The whole enterprise represented by Algore is a Big Lie from the same people and worldview that killed, or enabled the killing of, or whitewashed the killing of, a hundred millions of humans in the last century–people like John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Algore, and other pink diaper babies. They are the modern slavers, seeking to shackle us to their slave ships and suffer belowdecks while they party on with the fruit of our labor and that of the next three generations. We must not stand for this; we must meet these slavers with resolve and a determination to fight to the death for our freedom, if necessary.

  22. “Then shots of record heat in India with melting asphalt streets and people losing their sandals as they try to cross.”

    That happen in Arizona in the summertime. Guess Gore has not actually been observing much of anything.

  23. Gore never fails to mention fish swimming in the streets of Miami as one of his proofs that CAGW is real.

    It’s such an outright lie (the tides cause the high water), it’s amazing Gore and other alarmists keep getting away with connecting it to sea level rise and CAGW.

    I listened to Gore’s CNN townhall and it was just one distortion like this after another.

    • For him I think this is real proof. What I don’t understand is the backstory. How did a Miami street come to be built in a location subject to high tide flooding? Somewhere there’s a Public Works Department official breathing a huge sigh of relief every time Al brings this up.

      • As a FL resident, I’ve read a number of comments about the Miami king floods.

        Caveat emptor: one of the stories had the road being built by developers in the early twentieth century. There simply wasn’t enough money to raise the road-bed between point A and point B, so the road was designed knowing it would infrequently flood. That was acceptable at that time & in those economic circumstances.

        1920 Miami population: 25,000
        1930 Miami population: 110,000

        2015 Miami population: 440,000 (Miami-Dade County: 2.7M)

  24. This “Trump in a clown suit” line ruined an otherwise fairly decent article. Actually, I’m guessing it was fairly decent. I quit reading after the clown suit line.

    This clown dumped the Paris Accord. That was something I fear no other Republican would’ve had the courage or insight to do.

  25. “The film began to narrow its focus to a “touchy-feelly” “rally-the-troups” film with shots from his first training session and a reference to the iconic Apollo Big Blue Marble photo…”

    If it is the original photo of Earth with Africa in centre, then it was originally taken in black and white, no colour. Coulour added later. So colour photos are fake of Earth from Apollo during that mission.

  26. Exploiting vulnerable children to make yourself a “Carbon Billionaire”? Inconvenient, getting exposed as the lying, virtue signaling, “green” hypocrite you really are? Priceless…

Comments are closed.